Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2008

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 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive History 2008

Contents


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:Lavabo[edit]

This category was created by me in December 2005 at a time when I wasn't aware of the rule that category names should be set into plural. I suggest to move its contents to Category:Lavabos. --AFBorchert 09:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest Lavaboes [1] --rimshottalk 11:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a Spanish word, and I'd consider "Lavabos" correct. - Jmabel | talk 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Wiktionary entry for lavabo likewise suggests lavabos as plural. --AFBorchert 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the root in this case isn't Spanish, but Latin. Dictionary.com has lavaboes: [2], the American Heritage Dictionary has lavaboes: [3], Merriam-Webster has lavabos: [4], so I think it doesn't really matter which one we choose: both seem to be correct. --rimshottalk 12:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
According to Collins Dictionary of the English language, ISBN 3-12-517906-8, both variants are correct. This dictionary also states that the term originates from Latin and that it is associated with Psalm 26:6. --AFBorchert 14:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've requested the move to Lavabos, here, it will be done soon. --rimshottalk 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done, moved to Category:Lavabos --rimshottalk 08:54, 8 January 2008 (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:Low rise bikini[edit]

This appears to be either a normal page disguised as a category or a proper category that includes its members incorrectly. I'm not sure which it is, but either way it should be repaired. --Powers 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we make it a proper category by categorizing its images and then deleting the gallery. Categories are far more usable than gallery-pages. Jorva 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea if you think there's enough to make a sub-category. I would remove all those from Category:Bikini. I'm not sure if there's much a objective difference, though. Whatever you decide, I think they should be pluralized as they are categories (gallery names are usually singular). Rocket000 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the gallery already exists: Tanga. That might need to be renamed to Thong. Rocket000 11:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Gallery removed, all pictures categorized, Tanga moved to Thong ChristianBier 01:35, 12 January 2008 (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.

New York politicians[edit]

We have both Category:New York politicians and Category:Politicians of New York. Presumably they should be merged, but in which direction? Other similar categories are inconsistent. --Jmabel | talk 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. I'd lean towards using "Politicians of New York", as the "(Occupation) of (place)" form seems more commonly used. -- Infrogmation 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • merge per Infrogmation Evrik 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into "Politicians of New York". I'm all for consistency. howcheng {chat} 01:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like consensus to me, can someone follow up on this? - Jmabel | talk 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)2
Does anyone mind if I request the following moves:
Rename Category:New York politicians to Category:Politicians of New York (92 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Florida politicians to Category:Politicians of Florida (36 entries moved, 2 to go)
Rename Category:Maryland politicians to Category:Politicians of Maryland (50 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Politicians from Ohio to Category:Politicians of Ohio (37 entries moved, 0 to go)
That way, we'd have consistency within Category:Politicians of the United States by state. --rimshottalk 13:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. - Jmabel | talk 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Move requested, should be done soon. --rimshottalk 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, 4 categories moved. --rimshottalk 13:48, 30 January 2008 (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.

Arcosanti[edit]

I don't find any place to categorize this new category Category:Arcosanti. en:Arcosanti is an experimental town at Arizona. There are more pictures at Flickr to upload. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 22:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I added Category:Arizona. If you can determine what county it is in, please put it in that more specific category. There may be other relevent categories, but categorizing by geographic location is a start. -- Infrogmation

Done. --rimshottalk 13:37, 30 January 2008 (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:Military animals[edit]

Reasons for discussion request: I went and started this one, having completely failed to find the existing Category:War animals. But even now I've found it, I think Category:Military animals still needs to exist (see the content of this cat for an eg). So, I propose the following structure:

Alternatively, one not bother with Category:Animals in war and just place Category:Military animals under Category:War as well as Category:Military.

Btw, the structure of Category:Animals is problematic. It currently goes:

So if anyone has better ideas about how to arrange this so that one doesn't have to correctly guess "Animal husbandry" to arrive at "War animals"/"Animals in war", speak up! JackyR 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, maybe

Maybe[edit]

Two things an animal may be a war animal without being in a war setting, e.g.a cavalry mount on parade, so "war animals" is better than "animals in war" and there is nothing to stop a category to be a sub-category of one or more categories. KTo288 (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

I've moved the cats about and re-wrote the intro, "Military animals" is now the main cat for this topic and is a sub cat of "Working animals" and "military", and "Working animals" itself has been made a subcat of "Domesticated animals" . Both "War animals" and "cavalry" are now sub cats of "military animals" with instructions in the intro to place ridden animals in cavalry, and riderless animals in "war animals". Military mascots may need to be created later, and maybe "Military draft animals" for chariots and artillery draft horses etc.KTo288 (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Closed. No opposition in several months = the solution is accepted. --rimshottalk 11:30, 7 September 2008 (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:Landmarks in Seattle[edit]

Reasons for discussion request: After creating Category:Landmarks in Seattle and placing a lot of images and categories in it, I realized that I might not have made the best choice of category name. My intent was specifically the city's officially listed landmarks, per the Department of Neighborhoods, but in retrospect, the category name does not convey that clearly. For example, the U.S. has a concept of a National Historic Landmark, several of which are in Seattle; also, the term "landmark" can be used loosely and subjectively. Any suggestions for renaming this? -- Jmabel | talk 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it's been almost a year and no one has suggested a better name, I suggest closing this: apparently I chose as well as anyone here is likely to. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Closed, after a year without opposition. --rimshottalk 18:43, 10 January 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:Historical buildings in the United States[edit]

I can't work out what, if anything, would be the criteria for inclusion in this category. If it means something, there should be a clarifying note. There's not much in it; my suspicion is that that it should go away, and that anything here that is not already otherwise adequately categorized should go in Category:Buildings in the United States, or better yet a more geographically specific category. - Jmabel | talk 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The word "historical" carries the connotation of not being around anymore; otherwise, they'd just be "buildings" in the United States. Not all of the buildings in that category appear to fit that criterion, however. They may be "historic", which I would say probably does deserve a category, but I wouldn't call them all "historical". Powers 16:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, as far as I understand, the intent was probably "historic" rather than "historical", but even so: isn't that completely subjective? We have categories for well-defined things like Registered Historic Places. - Jmabel | talk 01:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I looked but couldn't find any such categories. I thought this was an attempt to rectify that, but I could be wrong. Could you point me to the registered historic places categories? Powers 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Building Cats with "historic" or "historical" are always problematic, because the criteria are blurry and people tend to throw everything in thats somehow old. For buildings that don't exist anymore we have Category:Former_buildings and similar, for buildings of historic value as mentioned cats like Category:National Register of Historic Places. This cat should IMHO be emptied and deleted asap. TomAlt (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Ill-defined; redundant as above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete in case I wasn't clear above. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Empty and delete category; per concensus --Foroa (talk) 23
18, 21 January 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:Unknown subject[edit]

Category:Unknown subject should be merged into Category:Unidentified subjects (or vice versa). They seem to fulfill the same purpose. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As Category:Unknown subject is linked from the community portal, I suggest merging from Category:Unidentified subject to Category:Unknown subject. --rimshottalk 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done: this issue is nearly fixed now ("unknown" > "unidentified") --:Bdk: 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Is there anything left to do? --rimshottalk 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are two entries – Category:Versioj de softvaroj and Category:Đại số 8 – in Category:Unidentified subjects I don't have an idea about :-/ Both don't really fit into the "Unidentified subject" meta/base category (only "unidentified foo" subcategories and perhaps some lone images should be in there, imo). I just moved them from the "unknown" category to get rid of the remaining entries there;-)
Hmm, and – at least in the long run – I think we should also rename most of the other "unknown" subcategories to "unidentified", as a lot of motifs are in fact well known (in the meaning of "yeah, I do know what it is, but I can't remember its precise name/location right now"), but are just not sufficiently identified. Anyway, renaming the dozens of subcategories is not prior-ranking (compared to some other tasks), btw. Help is always welcome, of course :-) --:Bdk: 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Merged
--Foroa (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2008 (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:Soup[edit]

There's no point in having Category:Soup and Category:Soups. I suggest merging to Category:Soups. --rimshottalk 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, have listed it at User:CommonsDelinker/commands. --GeorgHHtalk   07:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, category moved. --rimshottalk 11:11, 9 March 2008 (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:Cities and villages in Scotland[edit]

Cities and villages are two different things. Rename to Category:Settlements in Scotland, then we can make subcats for Cities, Towns and villages. --Jonathan Oldenbuck 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cities in the United Kingdom should be reorganized completely, not just for one country. Could you make a proposal, based on categories "Settlements in ..."? --rimshottalk 10:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Something tells me this is not all that active but ...:) I came to this via a roundabout route. The "practice" for England is (largely) "Towns & villages in xxx" which I have adopted/used etc. I have presumed (in English counties) that the cities would be on the top level county page I worked on that basis. Then I find Scotland (& I think Wales) are "organised" rather differently. It is an are that I am working on so feel free to nudge me (or post here).
Looking at Geography of Scotland and finding Bays of Scotland, Beaches of Scotland AND Coasts of Scotland (to say nothing of Firths of Scotland) suggests some work is needed. Personally I think a "Coast of Scotland" category is warranted as a top level cat (sub of Scotland) & I may work towards that. --Herby talk thyme 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any good definition of city? In Germany, a city a settlement that has city rights. If there's something like that in the UK, you'd have a good inclusion criterion for the cities in xxx categories. All other settlements could go into towns and villages in xxx categories. Both of these can then go into settlements in xxx categories. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to differentiate between towns and villages, as it will often be a matter of personal taste where to categorize a settlement. Naturally, every city and village will be in a category corresponding to its county. I can't make up my mind, however, whether it makes sense to refine the county categories into cities in .... and towns and villages in ..., or just to create settlements in xxx categories for all counties. I guess it depends on the number of settlements.
As for the bays, beaches and coasts: I've never really thought about that topic, but if you see a way to clean up the categories, go ahead and do it. --rimshottalk 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For the UK cities are mostly defined by having a cathedral though I think the government may have introduced a populist vote on one or two new ones.....
However - I think maybe I'll start at Category:United Kingdom and see where I get to before I retire :)
I do agree with the "All other settlements could go into towns and villages in xxx categories" bit. That seems to be fairly common with UK ones and if there are too many (there are in some places) then "villages in xxx" becomes a sub of "towns & villages in xxx".
From a uk counties perspective there is always the city that is the home of the county authority, & to me, that belongs in the high level cat for now.
I appreciate the comments - I'll go and play :) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
About this specific one - I'll probably create a "Villages in Scotland" sub category. Not perfect but ok for now? --Herby talk thyme 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Are there no towns in Scotland? ;) --rimshottalk 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ooops - fair enough - consider that a "Towns in Scotland" & a "Villages in Scotland" to go - been one of those days. I'll get to in in the next few days I hope. I'm just realising how complex trying to organise cats are :) --Herby talk thyme 16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying, I thought that no-one was interested and didn't see the discussion. Cities are well defined in the UK (see w:City status in the United Kingdom), there are six in Scotland. I agree that reorganisation has to be UK-wide, and I see there is already Category:Cities in the United Kingdom, so I will set up Category:Cities in Scotland as part of that. I think both Category:Towns in Scotland and Category:Villages in Scotland should be used - the distinction is a little blurry but usually clear enough, and this structure is used on the English Wikipedia. A similar structure can apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, all under Category:Geography of the United Kingdom. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Just as well I watchlisted this :) I've been trying to sort out some UK higher level cats for a while. I've had some other issues to deal with but would hope to get back to this work as soon as I can. Let me know if I can help. If/wehn you/we do sort it I suggests a "soft redirect" (Template:Category redirect) of this one for a while rather than deletion FWIW. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It will become a disambiguation rather than a redirect as its splitting into three - I put redirects on only to have them removed, see [5]! But yes, I have made a start on Scotland, if I get through that then I may look at England/Wales/NI as well. I'd appreciate another worker - let me know what you can look at. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been looked at overloaded high level UK cats where there is certainly some duplicate categorisation (people by occupation is a nightmare :)). However I am also trying to work my way "up" from England county level trying to standardise cats and again trying to reduce over populated cats. For example some has done a great job with Derbyshire but every tiny village is in the higher level cat. I've also been working on "Geography of " at England, Wales & county levels when I get a chance. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been open for over a year and untouched for nine months so I'm simply closing it. It looks like the issue has been addressed to people's satisfaction. Wknight94 talk 02:18, 15 May 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.

Cocks and roosters[edit]

We have a Category:Cocks and a Category:Roosters. I don't think there is any distinction. We should merge one way or the other (and apply the union of the supercategories and subcategories). --Jmabel | talk 05:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same. According to [6] and [7], cock may refer to the male of any bird, while rooster is reserved for the male of domestic fowl and a few game birds. As the category is obviously meant to refer to the male of the domestic chicken, I think Rooster should be the category that's kept. Note that there is Category:Male birds already. --rimshottalk 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Cocks with Roosters. Cocks is a generic term with several meanings, and rooster is specific to male domestic fowl. VanTucky 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Merged to Roosters --rimshottalk 16:00, 3 April 2008 (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:Holocaust[edit]

Superfluous to Category:The Holocaust. Plus, this category is empty. --Reuvenk 09:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A {{category redirect}} to Category:The Holocaust should be fine. --rimshottalk 09:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:The Holocaust. --GeorgHHtalk   08:06, 1 March 2008 (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:Fireboats[edit]

Should be merged with Category:Firefighting boats. English Wikipedia article is en:Fireboat but to my mind „Category:Firefighting boats“ is the better name here. --GeorgHHtalk   07:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Nearly everywere fireboat (or fire boat) is used, so the better name for this category is clearly fireboats
-- 85.177.191.192 07:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Fireboats, that name seems better. --rimshottalk 10:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Merged and redirected to Category:Fireboats. --GeorgHHtalk   22:57, 6 April 2008 (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:Texas Football[edit]

This category should be renamed to Category:Texas Longhorns football for consistency with other schools. Similarly, Category:Texas Basketball should be renamed to Category:Texas Longhorns men's basketball. Thank you. --UserB 02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC) --UserB 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see why not, and right now, it's confusing since "Texas football" could refer to the Longhorns or American football in Texas in general. --Ytoyoda 04:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to the following moves?
Rename Category:Texas Football to Category:Texas Longhorns football (55 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Texas Basketball to Category:Texas Longhorns men's basketball (9 entries moved, 0 to go)

--rimshottalk 11:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moves requested. --rimshottalk 12:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to the respective targets, source categories and gallery pages that redirected to them deleted. --rimshottalk 13:18, 7 April 2008 (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:Art galleries[edit]

Duplicate category. Merge to Category:Art museums, which is much better used. Also merge:

and rename:

--Jonathan Oldenbuck 10:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

At least in American usage, an "art gallery" is not a museum (although there are museums that have the word "gallery" in their name, and occasionally vice versa). An "art museum" is normally an institution with a permanent space that exhibits, but does not sell, art. An "art gallery" is a space, permanent or otherwise, that sells art (and may occasionally also have some art on display that is not for sale). In Seattle, where I live, there are (depending on how you count) roughly 5-12 art museums. There are hundreds of art galleries. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept separately
an art gallery and an art museum are two completely different things in most countries. --Foroa (talk) 17:33, 7 April 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:Aircraft of the Royal Flying Corp[edit]

Needs to be renamed to Aircraft of the Royal Flying Corps (note the "s") --Greenshed 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


(Speedily) Done, no discussion needed. --rimshottalk 11:57, 11 March 2008 (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:Registered Historic Places in Florida[edit]

Registered Historic Places in Florida --Ebyabe 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Believe the subcategories should match Wikipedia. Currently they all start with National Register of Historic Places in, and on Wikipedia they start with Registered Historic Places in. I have to admit I created the subcategories initially that way, but now realize the error of my ways. I hope this is the correct forum to propose this. Thanks for considering this. -Ebyabe 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support the proposed name is more to the point. --rimshottalk 12:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do you feel like putting together a batch of {{move cat}}'s? Just put them below this discussion. --rimshottalk 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please! I'll work on it over the next day or two. Thanks! :) --Ebyabe 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Or tonight:

Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alachua County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Alachua County, Florida (0 entries moved, 16 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Baker County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Baker County, Florida (0 entries moved, 5 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Bradford County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Bradford County, Florida (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Brevard County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Brevard County, Florida (0 entries moved, 28 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Broward County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Broward County, Florida (0 entries moved, 41 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Charlotte County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Charlotte County, Florida (0 entries moved, 18 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Citrus County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Citrus County, Florida (0 entries moved, 8 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Clay County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Clay County, Florida (0 entries moved, 18 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Columbia County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Columbia County, Florida (0 entries moved, 5 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Escambia County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Escambia County, Florida (0 entries moved, 4 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Flagler County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Flagler County, Florida (0 entries moved, 17 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Franklin County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Franklin County, Florida (0 entries moved, 7 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Gadsden County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Gadsden County, Florida (0 entries moved, 7 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Gulf County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Gulf County, Florida (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Hamilton County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Hamilton County, Florida (0 entries moved, 5 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Hendry County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Hendry County, Florida (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Hernando County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Hernando County, Florida (0 entries moved, 5 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Highlands County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Highlands County, Florida (0 entries moved, 5 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Hillsborough County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Hillsborough County, Florida (0 entries moved, 20 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Indian River County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Indian River County, Florida (0 entries moved, 49 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Jackson County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Jackson County, Florida (0 entries moved, 4 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Jefferson County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Jefferson County, Florida (0 entries moved, 24 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Lake County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Lake County, Florida (0 entries moved, 8 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Lee County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Lee County, Florida (0 entries moved, 26 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Leon County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Leon County, Florida (0 entries moved, 16 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Levy County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Levy County, Florida (0 entries moved, 10 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Liberty County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Liberty County, Florida (0 entries moved, 1 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Madison County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Madison County, Florida (0 entries moved, 10 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Marion County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Marion County, Florida (0 entries moved, 10 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Miami-Dade County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Miami-Dade County, Florida (0 entries moved, 57 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Monroe County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Monroe County, Florida (0 entries moved, 24 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Nassau County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Nassau County, Florida (0 entries moved, 9 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Orange County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Orange County, Florida (0 entries moved, 36 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Osceola County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Osceola County, Florida (0 entries moved, 7 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Palm Beach County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Palm Beach County, Florida (0 entries moved, 25 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Pasco County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Pasco County, Florida (0 entries moved, 8 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Pinellas County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Pinellas County, Florida (0 entries moved, 33 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Polk County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Polk County, Florida (0 entries moved, 15 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Putnam County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Putnam County, Florida (0 entries moved, 15 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Sarasota County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Sarasota County, Florida (0 entries moved, 65 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Seminole County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Seminole County, Florida (0 entries moved, 8 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in St. Johns County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in St. Johns County, Florida (1 entries moved, 13 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Suwannee County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Suwannee County, Florida (0 entries moved, 8 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Union County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Union County, Florida (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Wakulla County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Wakulla County, Florida (0 entries moved, 6 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington County, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Washington County, Florida (0 entries moved, 4 to go)


Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Apopka, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Apopka, Florida (0 entries moved, 17 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Belleview, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Belleview, Florida (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Cedar Key, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Cedar Key, Florida (0 entries moved, 1 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Eustis, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Eustis, Florida (0 entries moved, 20 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Evinston, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Evinston, Florida (0 entries moved, 27 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Gainesville, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Gainesville, Florida (0 entries moved, 35 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Glen St. Mary, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Glen St. Mary, Florida (0 entries moved, 1 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Lake City, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Lake City, Florida (0 entries moved, 47 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Leesburg, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Leesburg, Florida (0 entries moved, 2 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Maitland, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Maitland, Florida (0 entries moved, 7 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Melrose, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Melrose, Florida (0 entries moved, 23 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Micanopy, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Micanopy, Florida (0 entries moved, 40 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Mount Dora, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Mount Dora, Florida (0 entries moved, 8 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Ocala, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Ocala, Florida (0 entries moved, 20 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Orange Springs, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Orange Springs, Florida (0 entries moved, 1 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Orlando, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Orlando, Florida (0 entries moved, 26 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Palatka, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Palatka, Florida (0 entries moved, 12 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Punta Gorda, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Punta Gorda, Florida (0 entries moved, 19 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in St. Augustine, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in St. Augustine, Florida (0 entries moved, 19 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Tampa, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Tampa, Florida (0 entries moved, 38 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Tavares, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Tavares, Florida (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Windermere, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Windermere, Florida (0 entries moved, 20 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Winter Garden, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Winter Garden, Florida (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Winter Park, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Winter Park, Florida (0 entries moved, 24 to go)

Cheers! --Ebyabe 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll add them to User:CommonsDelinker/commands, but it will take a while for them to be processed, as the bot is currently having problems. --rimshottalk 09:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done, hope I didn't forget any. --rimshottalk 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yay!!! If any were forgotten, it'd prolly be my fault. Thanks incredibly muchly! :) --Ebyabe 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, crikeys:

Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Daytona Beach, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Daytona Beach, Florida (0 entries moved, 26 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in DeLand, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in DeLand, Florida (0 entries moved, 33 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in DeLeon Springs, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in DeLeon Springs, Florida (0 entries moved, 9 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in New Smyrna Beach, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in New Smyrna Beach, Florida (0 entries moved, 16 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Orange City, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Orange City, Florida (0 entries moved, 19 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Ormond Beach, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Ormond Beach, Florida (0 entries moved, 35 to go)
Rename Category:National Register of Historic Places in Port Orange, Florida to Category:Registered Historic Places in Port Orange, Florida (0 entries moved, 9 to go)

See what I mean? :) --Ebyabe 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've requested those moves as well. --rimshottalk 09:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories moved, if there are any left, you can request the move here, and refer to this discussion. --rimshottalk 12:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Overruled by Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02/Registered Historic Places categories --Foroa (talk) 11:12, 29 April 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:John Bosco[edit]

Reasons for discussion request --AlbeiroR24 09:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Following the discussion in the Village pump. The name "Don Bosco" is more international and it is also hold as the English name.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. --AlbeiroR24 09:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you look at bs:Ivan Bosco, bg:Боско, Иоанн, ca:Sant Joan Bosco, cs:Jan Bosco, da:Giovanni Bosco, de:Johannes Bosco, en:John Bosco, es:Juan Bosco, fr:Jean Bosco, ko:요한 보스코, hr:Sveti Ivan Bosco, id:Yohannes Bosco, it:San Giovanni Bosco, la:Iohannes Bosco, lt:Šv. Jonas Boskas, hu:Bosco Szent János, nl:Giovanni Bosco, ja:ヨハネ・ボスコ, no:Johannes Bosco, pam:Giovanni Melchiorre Bosco, pms:Giovanni Bosco, pl:Jan Bosko, pt:João Bosco (santo), ro:Ioan Bosco, ru:Боско, Иоанн, sq:Giovanni Melchior Bosco, sk:Giovanni Melchior Bosco, sl:Sveti Janez Bosco, fi:Giovanni Bosco, sv:Giovanni Bosco, th:นักบุญยอห์น บอสโก, uk:Боско, Иоанн, vi:Gioan Bosco, zh:若望•鮑思高 - no one uses Don Bosco but they all use variants of Giovanni, or John. Evrik 14:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In fact, there are more support than opposition and more reasons to move than those (two) who said that the move goes against the policies. However, the reason to move support the policy. "Don Bosco" is not only the English recognized name (easy to prove), but also the international one. 202.47.103.62

Summary[edit]

As there has been some discussion at the Village Pump, I will try to summarize the arguments. Keep in mind that this is not a vote, and that the merit not the number of arguments counts. I will not make comments as to the merits of the arguments, in this listing. These aren't my arguments, but taken from the discussion. I will give my own opinion afterwards.

  • Moving to Don Bosco
  • Don Bosco is more international than John Bosco, making it easier for international users to find.
  • Don Bosco, despite different national names, is also known in many countries by "Don Bosco" or variants thereof. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
  • Don Bosco is used by the Salesians of Don Bosco. [8]
  • There is a consensus for changing to Don Bosco, or at least an overwhelming majority. [9]
  • Keeping John Bosco
  • Few national wikis use the name Don Bosco, they use the corresponding national variant for their article title.
  • The policy says "use the English name", and John Bosco is the English name.
  • Moving to Giovanni Bosco
  • Giovanni Bosco is the native name.
  • Neutral
  • All variants are (more or less) commonly used in English, and category names are in English. Therefore, it does not really matter which one is chosen.

Now that the neutral part is over, let me state my own opinion: the arguments for using Don Bosco are based on convenience for international users, consensus and commonsense. I think those are pretty strong arguments. The arguments against using Don Bosco are based on interpreting policy and article names that were presumably based on national policies. IMHO, these are rather weak arguments. The policy argument is made even weaker by the fact that "Don Bosco" is seen, by a majority of voters, as an English name. So, if no new and compelling arguments come forth, I will move the category to Don Bosco and create a category redirect from John Bosco to Don Bosco. --rimshottalk 09:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment no pages use Don as part of the article name. they all use a variant of John. So I really don't see how the use of Don is more convenient for international users. There is no majorty vote here. there is also no consensus for a move. Evrik 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
For the consensus: look here. For the use: google search might reveal de best known name:
  • Google "John Bosco" wikipedia: 9230 hits
  • Google "Don Bosco" wikipedia: 44000 hits
  • Search on English Wikipedia: "John Bosco": 190 hits, "Don Bosco" 390 hits --Foroa 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That was a vote. The policy is what it is. It's supposed to be neutral. This is a bad example to try and get an exception to the rule. Evrik 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for the good summary. I think that we, in general, should be cautious with a blind "English" rule and try to move to compromises with a better multi-language and multi-cultural dimension. Don Bosco is a nice example, but there are others too. For example, we could use for the many images, articles and categories containing saint a more universal abbreviation such as st (E.g. St-Martin). As far as I know, is St-Martin acceptable in many European languages and acceptable as unisex symbol (for male and female saints). --Foroa 10:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the English rule as you call it is to make the commons a place where all people can work together. There is no reason to change the name of the category. Evrik
I already took into account your arguments, as you can see in the listing. There is no need to repeat them. If you want to change my opinion, please provide new and compelling arguments. I may not have been clear enough, so I will, again, state what weakens the main arguments for "John Bosco":
  • Article names: what these tell us is that Don Bosco is called by variants of John in many countries, nothing more. If you read the articles, you will find statements saying that Don Bosco is also used. I don't speak many languages, but in those I do speak, you find the following:
  • German: Meist wird er nur „Don Bosco“ genannt., which means Usually, he is just called Don Bosco
  • English: ...known in English as Don Bosco
  • French: Jean Bosco ou Don Bosco ..., which means Jean Bosco or John Bosco...
  • Others are already found in the original discussion.
Also, some languages use variants of Don, so that argument is really incredibly weak.
  • Policy: the policy says that the English name should be used. It should be clear even to you, however, that Don Bosco is just as English a name as John Bosco is.
  • No consensus: there will never be a full consensus for any variant. An overwhelming majority supports Don Bosco, however.
Finally, Category:John Bosco will stay as a category redirect so all those intent on using that name to find images will be able to do so. --rimshottalk 11:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at the comments at the top of the page, there is no consensus to move the category. There is no consensus to make an exception to the language policy. Opinion is split. The category should stay as it is. Evrik 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you look at the original discussion? Did you even try to imagine that it might be possible that Don Bosco is compatible with the language policy, not an exception? --rimshottalk 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Don is a titles and not a name. Again, as of the last time I looked ... none of the articles were titled Don Bosco. Evrik 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I see your position as the only position. There are very strong evidences to support the move. Your only objection has been answer many times. I think there is not enough opposition and technically I think there is already a consensus and good reasons for the move. AlbeiroR24
  • You can spin your argument all you want. The results are in fact, rather muddled. There is No consensus to make the move. That is fairly clear. Evrik 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"There is No consensus to make the move": Conclusion belonging only to User:Evrik. Consensus only before his position, little support to his point of view during discussion. Unknowing other positions. That is not fairly clear. Studying other procedures to continue discussion under the support of the records of this discussion. AlbeiroR24
  • 'Don is a title and not a name. This is an exception to the naming policies. There is not enough support here to warrant that move. Evrik 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to let you down Evrik, but it is pretty clear that "Don Bosco" is also an accepted English name. Even though the language policy says to use the English name in categories, please don't take it so literally that the category must be named in the way only [near-]native English speakers would understand the name. In addition, if I could be so literal myself, the language policy is actually pretty loose on which English name to use in categories. The aforementioned discussions and this one lean toward favouring an internationally recognised English name. Therefore, the contents of Category:John Bosco will be moved to Category:Don Bosco, with the former category remaining a redirect. Any additional questions may be asked on my talk page. 哦,是吗?(висчвын) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (GMT)

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.

Fictional Flags[edit]

Bad capitalization, I propose the following renames:

Rename Category:Canada related Fictional Flags to Category:Variations on flags of Canada (31 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:European Union related Fictional Flags to Category:Variations on flags of the European Union (91 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:United Kingdom related Fictional Flags to Category:Variations on flags of the United Kingdom (105 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:United States related Fictional Flags to Category:Variations on flags of the United States (167 entries moved, 0 to go)

The names are still not great, so if someone has a better proposal, go ahead. --rimshottalk 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all of the flags in these categories are "fictional" in the sense of being derived from works of fiction, but I can't think of better phrasing right now... AnonMoos 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What happens we someone says a certain flag is "fictional" and someone else says it's not? Usually, it's over slight color variations. Maybe a more neutral name like "flag variations". - Rocket000 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Something like Variations on flags of the European Union? --rimshottalk 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, or "Modified flags of..." but I like "variations" the best. - Rocket000 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Changed the proposal accordingly. --rimshottalk 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I want to note that the reason the flags are called "Fictional" is because they are not real in the sense of "real world", and not because of the way they were drawn, but because of the theme that stands behind the drawing and the idea it conveys. --Oren neu dag 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, that's why I'm still not quite happy with the solution. How about "Flags derived from flags of ...."? --rimshottalk 11:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually thought about that one too. What about just "Derivatives of flags of ..."? Leaving out the "flag" part makes sense if you consider things like Image:AmericaGermany.PNG, and Image:Flag Israel template.gif which really aren't suppose to be "flags". The only problem is technically every flag we have is a derivative unless it's not based on any other flag (i.e. we don't have any originals). I'm sure people will understand what we mean, but still I wish I could think of a better name. - Rocket000 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question In that case, what about "Flag Derivatives of ..."? which leaves out any other derivative which isn't in a form of a flag (e.g. not in the common form of a flag - rectangle, triangle and etc) --Oren neu dag 14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flag Israel template.gif would not be included in an "Israel related Fictional Flags" category (if there were such a category), so if it would be included in your corresponding renamed category, then that might be seen as a problem... AnonMoos 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it's not a flag of Israel either. I'm not sure where things like that or what Rimshot point out should go. Personally, I think they should just stay in the main categories. I would say that anything that's not a flag derivative should stay in the main flag cat. - Rocket000 05:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that should be accounted for by the formulation "Flags derived from flags of ....". But should something like this be allowed? It's not a fictional flag, so I guess no. --rimshottalk 16:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, on second thought, that's a little clearer. Just "derivatives" can mean so many things that I don't think we're looking to include. - Rocket000 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I Support Rimshot's proposal. --Oren neu dag 10:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In other words (to clarify my past remark), all four of these categories were intended to be subcategories of Category:Special or fictional flags, so whatever they are renamed to should also be a valid subcategory of Category:Special or fictional flags -- AnonMoos 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the "Flags of Romania" category has as subcategories "Photographs of flags of Romania" and "Paintings of flags of Romania"... AnonMoos 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Moved accordingly. The former cats have been left as redirects. --O (висчвын) 03:48, 10 July 2008 (GMT)


By the way, since this proposal was first made, the following additional categories have been created:

Category:Latin American related Fictional Flags
Category:Malaysia related Fictional Flags
Category:Outer Space related Fictional Flags

-- AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (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:Silhouettes of aircrafts[edit]

Included are:

All of these need moving to drop the "s". Basically there is no such word as "aircrafts". The plural of aircraft is aircraft. --CambridgeBayWeather 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, could you put together a batch of {{move cat}}'s? Just write them down here. --rimshottalk 07:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the discussion isn't necessary. Many Commons users (including myself) are'nt native English speakers and their knowlidge of English is low. Thank You for every correction. --ŠJů 12:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you mean like this,
Rename Category:Silhouettes of aircrafts to Category:Aircraft silhouettes (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Aircrafts with 12 engines to Category:Aircraft with 12 engines (1 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Aircrafts with 8 engines to Category:Aircraft with 8 engines (4 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Aircrafts with 6 engines to Category:Aircraft with 6 engines (9 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Aircrafts with 4 engines to Category:Aircraft with 4 engines (68 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Aircrafts with 3 engines to Category:Aircraft with 3 engines (40 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Aircrafts with 2 engines to Category:Aircraft with 2 engines (161 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Aircrafts with 5 engines to Category:Aircraft with 5 engines (2 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Tatra aircrafts to Category:Tatra aircraft (3 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Multi-engine aircrafts to Category:Multi-engine aircraft (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Aft-engined aircrafts to Category:Aft-engined aircraft (53 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Single-engine aircrafts to Category:Single-engine aircraft (7 entries moved, 0 to go)


Rename Category:Road signs of aircrafts to Category:Road signs of aircraft (0 entries moved, 0 to go)


I'm not sure about the road signs of aircraft though. Should it be aircraft road signs? CambridgeBayWeather 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Road signs with aircraft or Aircraft on road signs? --rimshottalk 07:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be "aircraft road signs" as that makes me think of road signs for aircraft. I would stick with Category:Road sings of aircraft. However, I think it should match Category:Silhouettes of aircrafts/Category:Aircraft silhouettes too. Rocket000 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just found Category:Aircraft in graphics.. maybe it should be "Aircraft in road signs"? I'm going to move Category:Silhouettes of aircrafts to Category:Aircraft silhouettes (over redirect) to match Category:Aircraft icons, Category:Aircraft profiles, and Category:Aircraft line drawings among others. Rocket000 22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And now I merged Category:Aircraft in graphics and Category:Aircraft in art. Rocket000 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated all but Road signs of aircrafts for being moved. --rimshottalk 12:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm went with Category:Road signs of aircraft for now. Even though the majority are "____ road signs", "Aircraft road signs" just doesn't sound right given that it's a object of transportation itself. "Aircraft on road signs" is probably the best name, but this way it matches things like Category:Road signs of children and Category:Road signs of pedestrians. Rocket000 17:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbol move vote.svg Categories renamed. Rocket000 18:20, 1 May 2008 (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:Gallerys[edit]

Wrong English, the plural should be "Category:Galleries". This also applies to the subcategories. --AndreasPraefcke 12:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly move this, this shouldn't even require discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Bayo. Reason: Empty category. Rocket000 18:22, 1 May 2008 (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:Cymrism[edit]

Empty category about a subject that doesn't even get mentioned in any article on en:, let alone have its own article. 71.224.237.245 04:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, as empty. As it stands now, it's an article stub and Commons doesn't contain articles. --rimshottalk 08:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. as empty category. Rocket000 18:23, 1 May 2008 (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:Dead people[edit]

A more polite and more official term would be Category:Deceased people or something similar. This just seems a bit gruff and impolite to me. --Patstuart (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Dead is the technical, neutral term to decribe the state of having died. Also, it is one of the first words that English-learners learn, so that it makes the category as usable for non-native speakers as possible.
Something different, though: I think that no category or page about a person should be a direct child of Category:Dead people. Being in the corresponding deaths by year-category should be enough. That should clean up the category quite a bit. --rimshottalk 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Dead is simply correct; agree completely with Rimshot. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done 哦,是吗?(висчвын) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (GMT)

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:Inscripted stones[edit]

I don't think "inscripted" is correct English. Should be "inscribed", no? --Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, inscribed is correct, there's no such word as inscript. --rimshottalk 08:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

✓ Moved; former category deleted. 哦,是吗?(висчвын) 21:04, 18 May 2008 (GMT)

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:Prime ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

This category should be moved to Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom as in Britain, the title of Prime Minister is always spelled with a capital 'P' and 'M'. --Philip Stevens 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Any objections? --rimshottalk 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't care, really, where we put this, but I believe the title is not always capitalized, it depends on context. It is capitalized more often than most job titles, but see, for example this passage from Encyclopedia Britannica. - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved; former category left a redirect. --O (висчвын) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

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:Male politicians[edit]

While I am senstive to the fact that we have a female politicians category, it is more remarkable in the world to have a female politician. This category is simply too all-encompassing - 80% of the people who would be in this category (which is unmaintainable, as can be seen in that no one has filled it in 4 months) can simply be found under Category:Politicians. In short, this category does nothing to help with navigation. --Patstuart (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the natural complement for "female" politicians, and between the two there is 100% coverage and 0% ambiguity, whereas deleting it would require other information to be obtained to determine the gender. However, if the commons project members think that the male version is overcategorization, so be it. -- Avi 08:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it, and it seems to be a good subcategory for Category:Men by occupation. I wouldn't say there is no ambiguity though; what about transgender politicians?
On the other hand, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an analogous category, and wouldn't most pictures be enough in themselves to determine the gender? Richard001 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Nothing done --O (висчвын) 18:11, 27 July 2008 (GMT)


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:Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve[edit]

It was reported at the help desk that this category and Category:Wrangell-St. Elias National Park seem to be about the same subject. I agree with Ibn Battuta that they probably should be merged into one category, but I'm not sure what the best title for the category would be. --Gestumblindi 00:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the name of the category should be identical to the official name of the NPS. 84.110.205.201 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged to Category:Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, kept the other one as a redirect. --rimshottalk 11:44, 30 December 2008 (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:Nautical Signal Flags[edit]

and

Category:Nautical flags[edit]

Shouldn't this be Category:Nautical signal flags? The extra capital letters seem superfluous. --Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost did this change, but what about calling it International maritime signal flags? There's also the gallery of the same name to consider, along with Maritime Weather Warning Flags and Category:International Code of Signals. "Signal" may be appropriately capitalized, in some situations. See en:International Code of Signals. Rocket000 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I was working on the category:Ship parts and extended the category:Nautical equipment. Tried to group all this equipment and found a page and two groups with these flags:

I tried to make a logical structure by making series of International Code of Signals by type of file. International code by International code and the rest in Nautical Sgnal Flags. In that case we get:

  • Nautical flags
    • Martime ensigns
      • Naval ensigns
      • Civil and merchant ensigns
    • Nautical Signal Flags
      • Diver flag
      • International Code of Signals
        • Series 1
        • Series 2
        • Series 3
        • Series 4
    • Ship dressing
    • Yacht club flags

What about? --Stunteltje (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The following is moved from the December 2008 page.

one page and two categories for the same flags. There are:

Suggestion: all grouped in new category with the various versions of the series in Category:Nautical signal flags with remarks about the standardisation in the Category:International Code of Signals. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)]] ===

Nautical Signal Flags --Stunteltje (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

End moved from December 2008.


Closing stale discussion from 2008. Please open a new thread if needed.

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 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive May 2008



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:Trillium vasey[edit]

The correct category name should be Category:Trillium vaseyi, per the PLANTS database. --Choess 22:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Le renommage de la catégorie ne me pose aucun problème. J'ai créé beaucoup de catégorie sans connaitre parfaitement les dénominations internationales. Cordialement --P@d@w@ne 13:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Renamed, per database and w:Trillium vaseyi. --rimshottalk 15:00, 29 June 2008 (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:Dog Health[edit]

Replaced with Category:Dog health --Elf 05:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • i have no problem with you replacing the category with the other. --Ltshears 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Doesn't seem controversial to me - it's just a renaming because of inappropriate use of capitals. Richard001 06:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone. O (висчвын) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

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:Books by century made[edit]

For consistency with the English Wikipedia I think we should rename this category Category:Books by year ([10]), and its descendant categories Category:Xth century books, as opposed to Category:Books made in the Xth century. Given that Category:Books by year already exists, I think they should be merged. They are both basically categories for books sorted by the time they were published. Perhaps the Wikipedia name 'year' is too specific too; Category:Books by date of publication or something like that may be better. I'll have to bring this up at en.wiki too. Richard001 11:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with eliminating the very awkward "Books made ..." titles. There are other problems that should be cleaned up. The existing Category:Incunabula should be merged with Category:XVth century books as they are identical. (My assumption is that "books" here includes only printed books, not manuscripts, which should be separately treated.) There's also Postincunabula which covers books printed from 1501-1520 (in theory). Then there's the Category:Early printed books, which could cover books through the 17th century and possibly 18th century. These need some coordination. Ecphora (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the problem with 'early printed books' for me is that it's one of those categories that has no Wikipedia analogue and no description, so what an 'early book' is seems totally subjective. If Wikipedia (despite its generally larger number of book categories than us) doesn't have such a category, which it doesn't, then I don't see why we need one, and would support a deletion nomination for it. Richard001 (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. If there are categories for books by century, then there's no need for early printed books category. Ecphora (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that a classification by century is much more useful than a classification by years. What en.wp is doing is irrelevant to what we do here. Yann (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia does is entirely relevant to what we do here. Unless there is a specific reason why the situation is different, we should both be doing the same thing. Richard001 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oblivious to this discussion, I've been rolling out more general parent categories for text (i.e. books, journals, newspapers, etc) using Category:Texts by century, Category:19th century texts, etcetera. I favour the books-by-century category conforming with that, although I'm not much fussed. Hesperian 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


I am doing the original moves to remove the awkward "made" wording (from Category:Books by century made and its subcats). For the rest, another COM:CFD can be opened or a request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Wknight94 talk 10:40, 15 May 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:Wrexham AFC[edit]

Delete and move contents to Category:Wrexham F.C., the name currently used by the club. --Small-town hero 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Sounds good to me. Richard001 09:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kept as a redirect, just in case. --rimshottalk 14:52, 29 June 2008 (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.

Churches in the United Kingdom[edit]

Change "of" to "in" per parent category and all other subcats. The Sheffield category contains an image of a mosque which should be categorized elsewhere. --Small-town hero 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Moved and redirected as above. Non-admin closure. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2008 (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:Wainwright[edit]

This category appears to be a random collection of people and other items that have "Wainwright" in their names. Delete. - EurekaLott 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I can't see how that could be helpful. lol Rocket000 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
On en.wikipedia the page Wainwright is a disambiguation page. Perhaps this should be turned into one too? Richard001 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:13, 15 May 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:Tropical Depression One-E (2008)[edit]

It should be renamed to Category:Tropical Storm Alma (2008), since the depression strengthened enough to earn a name. --Hurricanehink 22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The category now redirects to Category:2008 Pacific hurricane season. Does that make any sense, or should it be changed to point to Category:Tropical Storm Alma (2008)? --rimshottalk 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Now redirected to Category:Tropical Storm Alma (2008). --rimshottalk 15:26, 14 December 2008 (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:Mountains of Yukon[edit]

Category was improperly named. I have created Category:Mountains of the Yukon and moved all pages and subcats to it. RedWolf 17:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Deleted. Rocket000 06:43, 3 June 2008 (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:Italy - France, 17 Jun 2008[edit]

Rename to "France - Italy, 17 Jun 2008" - France was named as the official "home" team for this match and so should be named first in the category's title. - PeeJay (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Does any fucker actually read this thing? Can we move the category now? PeeJay (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ahonc (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (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:Thamshavnsbanen[edit]

Proposing moving to Category:Thamshavnbanen. Current naming is a spelling mistake, per en:Thamshavnbanen and this publication [11]; the second 's' (acting as a genitive) is not part of the name, but this may be a common spelling mistake. --Arsenikk (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, there is IMO no need for a formal discussion about this — just move it and tag it for speedy deletion. --Kjetil_r 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks for the advice :) Arsenikk (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Rocket000 (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Varaždin castle[edit]

Replaced with Category:Old Town, Varaždin --Suradnik13 07:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Deleted as empty. Rocket000(talk) 18:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Eating animals[edit]

It is somewhat ambiguous whether 'animals' are the subject or object (they are the subject). Category:Animals eating would be less ambiguous and sounds more natural. This also applies to the subcategories category:eating cats, category:eating dogs, category:eating animals in art. When one sees a name like 'eating cats' it isn't clear that the category isn't actually of people eating cats. Richard001 09:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this too and agree it would be better changed. --MichaelMaggs 10:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I made a comment on the talk page about a year ago now that I look at the date. Is there a bot to help with the recategorizing? I don't really feel like doing this myself... Richard001 10:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree, but as I was in the middle of preparing the move commands for SieBot, I discovered Category:Cat behavior. I think a lot more need to be renamed. We have lots of "<verb> <animal>" that are ambiguous and usually worded the other way, like Category:Hunting cats. [[Category:Eating cats]] sounded kinda, um, interesting before seeing what it actually was. :) Rocket000 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a naming convention on this sort of thing, but can we just move the 'eating Xs' to 'Xs eating' for now? Richard001 (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm doing the eating ones. Rocket000 (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Renamed. (Should have close this awhile ago.) Rocket000(talk) 18:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ruins in Ancient Orient[edit]

Ungrammatical name. --Sumerophile 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's empty, too. Has it been moved somewhere else? If so, where? --rimshottalk 14:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Rocket000(talk) 18:01, 6 September 2008 (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:Russia - Greece, 14 Jun 2008[edit]

Greece was named as the official home team for this fixture, and so should be named first in the category's title. — PeeJay (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, see UEFA official tournament schedule. /Ainali (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ahonc (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mayors from New Orleans[edit]

I wish to state my objection to today's move of "Category:Mayors of New Orleans" and its contents to "Category:Mayors from New Orleans". The new name IMO sounds absurd (what does it refer to-- perhaps a mayor of some city in another state who was born in New Orleans?) and some of the parent categories now seem non-existant. There was no discussion about renaming this category on the talk page nor immediate parent categories before the move. I request a reversal of this move. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for a DRCFD. It's being changed back. Simple mistake. Rocket000 (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Leave this open a bit in case there's any similar ones. It will give us a place to discuss the "from/of" issue in general. Rocket000 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look through the related categories. I agree all or most "politicians by place" categories should use "of" and not "from". It makes more sense and avoids confusion about whether they are (for example) the a cities' mayor or simply some mayor that happens to live(d) in that city. We have things like Category:Senators of the United States from New York which show how it can be both. Rocket000 (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I think "(Office) of (Place)" rather than "from" is probably better for most elective offices (eg, "Governors of Missouri" rather than "Governors from Missouri". "People from (place)" may be a good overall convention, but exceptions should be alllowed when other wording makes more sense. IMO conventions are good guidelines, but shouldn't be pushed to absolute uniformity if it comes at the expense of clear language and logical description. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing for the archive. Rocket000(talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (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:Kharkiv[edit]

There is rename war going on between Russian-speaking and Ukrainian-speaking users abdout naming this category in English (transliteration from Russian or Ukrainian). Lengthy discussion on Russian could be found on Category talk:Kharkov.

Last rename was made by User:Ahonc who represent Ukranian speaking group. I think this is not appropriate and decision should be made by neutral side.

Unfortunately we still doesn't have technical ability to keep both sides happy (category names translation).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. But there is another border laying, not exact in language difference but in political vector only. Kharkov and it`s area is the city of overwhelming majority of Russian-speaking people at least in several centuries - both Ukrainians and Russians. So if you want to satisfy that city inhabitants, you should rename the Category:Kharkiv to its normal name 'Kharkov'. But if you want to spread momentary external hypernationalist`s vector then stay. I think it is shameful for Wikipedia to glide away according to just another Great Party directives. Rename Category:Kharkiv please. (sorry my poor English) Nickpo (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    But Ukraine has only one official language — Ukrainian. And Ukrainian language has its romanization system; according this system the word Харків romanizes as Kharkiv but not Kharkov. And also the article in English Wikipedia has the name Kharkiv. (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose).--Ahonc (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    Kharkov City has two official languages — Ukrainian and Russian. --80.249.229.48 15:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    Please give source.--Ahonc (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    S'il vous plaît Lenta.ru Сдобников А. (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    What's ironic is that they use "Kharkiv" in the link. ;-) --Akhristov (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    "06.03.2006. According to the official website of the city council, the Kharkov City Council has adopted on Monday, March 6, a decision to assign to Russian the status of a regional language. 53 City Council members voted for, with 3 voting against the decision. From now on, all paper work in the territory of Kharkov will be conducted in two languages: Russian and Ukrainian. As the regional language, Russian can be used in preschool and school training and in higher education. Names of streets will be repeated in Russian too.

Vladimir Shumilkin, Mayor of Kharkov has stressed that the decision to assign the official status to Russian was made taking into account the current Ukrainian legislation.

According to the information of the Central Administrative Board of Statistics in the Kharkov area, over 65 percent of Kharkov population consider Russian to be their native language, while 91,5 percent are fluent in it."

Сдобников А. (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • O_O. Shumilkin? Mayor of Kharkiv is Mikhail Dobkin.Ahonc (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Since 2006. And follow this:
"6 марта 2006 года горсовет Харькова, первым из местных советов юго-восточных регионов Украины, принял решение признать русский язык региональным [12] Позже горсовет отклонил протест прокурора [13], а 6 февраля 2007 областной Апелляционный суд отказал в жалобе прокурору, оставив решение городского совета в силе. [14] 4 июля 2007 сессия Харьковского горсовета в уставе города закрепила положение, что русский язык на территории города Харькова является региональным.Харьковский горсовет признал русский региональным языком"

So since July, 4th, 2007 Kharkov is officially a bilingual region according to the City Charter. Russian is the regional language and Ukrainian is the state language. Any more questions? Just ask. Nickpo (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Be careful: not official. It correct name is state language. And it isn`t strong directive for Wikipedia: we aren`t state. Nickpo (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    Due to Wikipedia articles Ukrainian is official language.--Ahonc (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wiki-articles are not legal source for coming to a decision. Look at origin sources: term state language is there. Nickpo (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    And what difference for this discussion? (Что это меняет?)--Ahonc (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not state and we should see majority of origin sources. Correct name: Kharkov. Nickpo (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a state, but Ukraine is a state and it has one state language: Ukrainian, and Kharkiv is not a state (not yet?), it is part of Ukraine, that's why it use the state language Ukrainian.--Ahonc (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Kharkov incidentally is part of East-European (Russian) plain too. Why shouldn't we to use this logique to rename? :o) The same thing. Nickpo (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Tell me why Commons must not use Romanization system which uses en.wikipedia?--Ahonc (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    Cause Commons is not en.wiki - it unites all wikies including uk.wiki, ru.wiki and so on. Nickpo (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    If it is so, why do we not call categories with local names: Київ, Москва etc?--Ahonc (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Cause there are source consensus with naming of Moscow. It's easy to understand, isn't it. Nickpo (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There was a long discussion on the English Wikipedia's Talk:Kharkiv where it was decided that Kharkov should be renamed to Kharkiv with evidence that it is more established in most major English language publications a couple of years ago (i.e. Brittanica, among others. F—dima/s-ko/ 18:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Харків відтепер та назавжди тільке українське місто. Хай москалі переіменують не Харків а свою Москву. --Dooo (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't use offensive slurs. --Kuban kazak (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. There is only loose consensus on en.wiki to keep at Kharkiv and not Kharkov, moreover a simple google test of Kharkiv vs Kharkov will show the latter's dominance. Internet domains are .kharkov.ua The fact that the whole city speaks Russian is another weight that cannot be ignored. Personally Kharkov should be treated as an established English name as is the case with places like Kiev and Odessa, or indeed Warsaw, Munich and Moscow. --Kuban kazak (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • English name is Moskow (engl.), not Moskva (russ.) In Russia state official language Russian - support to Moskva?. --80.249.229.48 16:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • English name is Moscow not Moskow, and exactly Commons does not have Category:Moskva but Category:Moscow. Here Kharkov is the English name, Kharkiv is the Ukrainian name.--Kuban kazak (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Why do you decide that Kharkov is English name? For example, Britannica uses name Kharkiv.--Ahonc (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Britannica uses Kharkiv (engl.), also Kharkov (engl.), also Charkov (engl.). See also Websters, Muller Dictionary (2007) - Kharkov. --80.249.229.48 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
            • But article name there is Kharkiv.--Ahonc (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Write to Britannica and rename it please. It's wrong, look at majority sources. Nickpo (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Why? I like this name and you dislike it. That's why you need write to Britannica :) --Ahonc (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • I like correct names so I don't like any sources which walks away from common sense area due to politics. Nickpo (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On Сommons we commonly use English for the system of categorization. The English Wikipedia category calls w:Category:Kharkiv, respectively, and we should call it so on Commons. Similarly, since in the English Wikipedia currently category is called w:Category:Kiev, respectively, and here it should be called Category:Kiev, not Category:Kyiv. --Yakudza (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kharkiv is more established in English language! Mariah-Yulia (talk)
    • Kharkov is much more esablished in English (6 370 000 for Kharkov in google) then Kharkiv (1 940 000 for Kharkiv). --Russianname (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • That is because before Ukrainian independence that name was used more. Now when I look at a map made in W-Europe the city is always called Kharkiv. I wonder why you now better then my what is established in the English language while my neighboring country is England... I know W-Europe better then you mate... I live there... Mariah-Yulia (talk)
        • Sure: "before Ukrainian independence that name [Kharkov] was used more" and it is now much more widely used (google was invented after Ukrainian independence and 6 370 000 pages with name "Kharkov" were written after 1991 too). The name "Kharkov" was and is more established in English. --Russianname (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. All arguments were presented previously. The new administrator (formerly desysoped in Ukrainian wikipedia) begins his administrative carrier here with neglect towards the opinion of other users who supported the category name "Kharkov" (view Category_talk:Kharkov). --Russianname (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above arguments. Kharkov is much more frequently used and is much more known world over. The English Wikipedia category should be changed to Kharkov as well, it is strange that it has been changed into Kharkiv at some point. Leonid Dzhepko --Л.П. Джепко (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Kharkov is historical name of the old town (more then 300 years it is only Kharkov). And what about kossak Kharko? :-)
But Google give: 6 370 000 Kharkov vs. 1 940 000 Kharkiv
More, famous scientific searcher Google Scholar know: 67,500 for Kharkov - but Kharkiv 7,290.
It is real reputation of Kharkov .
Is it sufficient? Alexandrov (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Kharkov - this is historical name of the city, Kharkiv - only translation.I am from Kharkov. Most people spoke Russian. Канопус Киля (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Spoke? And now don't speak?--Ahonc (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    "According to the information of the Central Administrative Board of Statistics in the Kharkov area, over 65 percent of Kharkov population consider Russian to be their native language, while 91,5 percent are fluent in it." Nickpo (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Lived in Kharkov for 4 years - nobody named it "Kharkiv"--Hmel' (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support When I studied English, the city has always called on it as «Kharkov» --Butko (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: in English Wikipedia the city is called Kharkiv, and, as Commons is using English Wikipedia category system, it's logical to keep the name Kharkiv. Also, in Ukraine, the one and only official state language is Ukrainian, and in the official cartographic sources from Ukraine the city is called Kharkiv. That's enough. Роман Беккер (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Now in English Wikipedia the city is called Kharkiv/Kharkov; the article name was Kharkov and has been renamed back and forward three times. --Vizu (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Not in Kharkov area. Nickpo (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. All my arguments see this: Category_talk:Kharkov. In addition, the article name was Kharkov and has been renamed back and forward three times, and - what's interesting - in almost all Wikipedias, irrespective of language. In addition, English language rules cannot be determined with a politicized voting. In addition, many voting persons have never been to Kharkov, some of them have a vague idea at all where our city is located but do know how it should be named! --Vizu (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kharkiv is standard in the English language, it is feautured in major encyclopedias and maps. Moreover, there will be confusion between a category here and the city name elsewhere, where there is an established name Kharkiv. There is enough confusion as it is without adding this one, motivated not by common sense and prevailing English spelling usage but by Ukrainian politics. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    {{Userbox |id= [[Зображення:Fofudja01.jpg|45px|none|]] |id-c = #FF8000 |id-fc = |id-s = 14 |info = ''' <span style='color: gold'>Етат (І.З.І.Ж.Б.К.) пользаватєль - староннік </span> [[Фофуддя|<span style='color: gold'>Святой <sup><small>МП</small></sup> Фофудіі</span>]]''' |info-c = #FF0000 |info-fc = |info-s = 8 |border-c = red }}- your userbox is "Ukrainian politics"? Kharkiv is not standard in English, but "politic" standard in "Масква-МП-пользаватель" language. --80.249.229.48 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess we cannot count votes with nationalistic assaults, right? Or some users would like to say that ethnic slurs are OK in the discussion?--Russianname (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I concur, the above nationalistic assault of the anonimous user has no place in WP and should be disregarded. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Що, москальска фафудья не подобається? Скільки ж вас осирає Вкраїну. Як клопи. А Харків назавжди наш, та й назавжди Харків. --Dooo (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per all arguments above. Kharkov in English is prononced and wrote Kharkov, not Kharkiv. Serebr (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DDima and Hillock65. Kharkiv is a well-established name in the English language. --Akhristov (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Kharkiv is not a well-established name in the English. --80.249.229.48 12:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. If Kharkov should be renamed to Kharkiv, then, we have to rename Category:Cities and villages in Kiev Oblast, Category:Kiev, Category:Cities and villages in Odessa Oblast and all subcategories and pages that involve old English spellings Kiev and Odessa. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have a question. Why is it that whenever Wikipedia has votes like these, people from ruwiki start showing up and pushing for their POV? It's a Ukraine-related topic after all, not a Russia-related one. --Akhristov (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
As for me, I am a Ukrainian citizen. Should not I? Or cannot I? Why? --Michael Romanov (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Wiki is international, not national proect. But I'm from Ukraine too. And?
Why we do not transliterate Україна as Ukraijna but use traditional form Ukraine ?
People must recognize the all old (traditional) objects (Google Scholar know: 67,500 for Kharkov - but Kharkiv 7,290), and don't everyday rename traditional names for interests of some political activists. Alexandrov (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think that we must write Ukraijna? --Ahonc (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are plenty of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, including me. But there are also plenty of Russians (Kuban kazak as an example, he doesn't even live in Ukraine, yet he votes here). Sure, people need to recognize traditional names, but Wikipedia is the place for that. Commons should go by the article name that's used in enwiki, to avoid confusion. As for "Ukraine", it is a name, not a traditional form, and is recognized as such internationally, which is why there's no renaming controversy about it. Also, Google tests can only do so much. What are the odds of most of those sites being English translations of Russian pages on Russian servers? Google only shows 100 pages of results, the search tests are worthless. --Akhristov (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
We doesn't live in Kharkov. Traditional names - Kharko City. --80.249.229.48 12:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Got any credible sources that Kharkov is the correct international name instead of Kharkiv? --Akhristov (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
You is the Kharkov citizen? No. Traditional names - Kharko(v). --80.249.229.48 12:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? --Akhristov (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's Kharkiv on en.wp, it should be Kharkiv on Commons. Samulili (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is funny that most of the people claiming that Kharkiv is not a standard English name write with grammar and spelling mistakes. That shows that people are motivated by politics, not by their knowledge of the English language and names that are common there. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It is normal discission?? - [15], [16] --Vizu (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That sentence is absurd. The word Харьков formed from Харько + ов, and Харків from Харко + ів (Kharko + iv). All two words formed from Kharko. P.S. learn English and than discuss about English names.--Ahonc (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's WP:OR + WP:PA. Nickpo (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Where is original research? It is etymology of the words. And where is personnal attack? User doesn't know basic knowledge of English and tells us how this word spells in English.--Ahonc (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not on the contributor. And don't be so stubborn just see another etymology version above. Nickpo (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not original research, and there's no such thing as "another etymology version". People above are basically claiming that Ukrainian does things incorrectly, while, in fact, they have no idea what they're talking about. Let's keep things simple. Kharkov and Kharkiv are identical words in different languages, and there are certain rules in Ukrainian which caused the spelling variation. And Kharkiv is a Ukrainian city, no matter how many Russian-speaking people live there. Makes sense? --Akhristov (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, why the Ukrainion translation, which nobody use must be named of my city? 92.113.136.165 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed. Regardless of all above arguments, category names will be in English. Gallery names can be in the native language. You can create a soft redirect from categories local names to th English names. Siebrand 08:15, 1 July 2008 (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:1996 statues[edit]

Empty category. Adequately covered by Category:20th century statues. --InfantGorilla (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. --Ahonc (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Kiev[edit]

Kyiv is the state official name of the city. Kyiv is the srong name in the English language. Kyiv is the only Ukrainian capital. Kiev is the only Russian name, not English. --Golota (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. --Golota (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The city has conventional name in English. It's Kiev. I don't see reason for discussion.--Ahonc (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Kyiv has conventional name in English. Kyiv is the strong official name.--Golota (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Kyiv is native name, Kiev is conventional name. If city has conventional name we use it. If city doesn't have it, we use native name.--Ahonc (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I see old reason for this discussion. Kharkiv is only conventional name, Odesa is conventional name, Kiev is also conventional traditional name. --Spirit of Crow (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What does "support" mean here? No specific proposal has been made. I'd be inclined to Keep it at Kiev, far and away the most common name among English speakers. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep at Kiev. Commons policy. Samulili (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep at Kiev. The Ukrainian spelling isn't Kyiv but Київ (Kiyiv in English). In almost all languages (no only in Russian) is the last vocal transcribed as "e" ("ye", "je") or "yo" ("jo"). --ŠJů (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep at Kiev. --Vizu (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep at Kiev. If you try to find those names of Kiev/Kyiv by GOOGLE-search you will get the following: Kiev is around 75 millions results, Kyiv is around 8 millions. I guess it's an important reason don't make renaming. --Assedo (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as Kiev. It is conventional name.--Ahonc (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as Kiev, as least as long as we have a Category:Moscow (and not Moskva). Fransvannes (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Kept as Kiev Rocket000(talk) 18:41, 6 September 2008 (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:Negro[edit]

Term is archaic and is now often a mild pejorative. If the category is valid at all, it should be renamed to a less problematic term (e.g. People of Black African descent). --Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Demonizing words solves no problems. It just creates more. The word Negro cannot and is not considered offensive by anyone else than a few non-Negroes who try to act important by arbitrarily declaring a few words tabu. This should be explained, however, in a short text on the category's page. EmilEikS (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the English Wikipedia's article on the word, "it is often considered an ethnic slur although the term is considered archaic and is not common as a racist slur." It is certainly not a word in common present-day use to refer to the subject of the category. It seems to me that whether we consider it a slur or an archaism, it is not a good category name. As for "cannot and is not considered offensive", the Merriam Webster begs to differ. -- Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I really thought I heard the word used by at least one of the wonderful Negro participants during the recent inauguration ceremony in Washington. And didn't Aretha Franklin use it too in the Larry King interview a few days later? Who are we trying to "protect" with all this "sensitivity"? Are we really hip to the lip on this one? EmilEikS (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea where you are from, so I don't know your perspective on this. I'm a white, Jewish American with a pretty large number of black friends. As I said, in some contexts the word is merely archaic, but outside of conscious archaism it carries a weird set of connotations. It was once the preferred term for the racial/ethnic group in question, and carries a certain tinge of the pre-1965 era, which is to say before the key civil rights legislation in the U.S. It survives in the names of certain older organizations (United Negro Fund, for example), as does "colored people" in the name of the NAACP, and is certainly not a pejorative in those contexts. Outside of archaism and quasi-archaism, it carries a certain connotation of middle-class striverdom, and can be used as a put-down by one black person of another to suggest (depending on context) that the person referred to is a bit uptight and over-concerned with impressing the white folks. Conversely, I've also heard one black person address another who was behaving a bit outrageously with "Negro, pleeease!". I've never heard a white person say that, and suspect it would be taken as one hell of a pejorative if one did. And, Emil, if you referred to "wonderful Negro participants" while talking in the presence of the people to whom you are referring, I'm pretty comfortable in saying you'd come off as stodgy at best, and more likely as condescending to a point bordering on the clueless. - Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have cross-posted to en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have cross-posted to en:Talk:Negro. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In American English, the word "Negro" has been out of use for roughly 40 years and, as Jmabel wrote, it's considered somewhat pejorative. "People of Black African descent" is currently in vogue on English Wikipedia for describing, well, people of Black African descent. It's a neutral, almost clinical, phrase. I would support renaming the category. — Malik Shabazz (talk contribs) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Jmabel seems to feel much more strongly about getting the word out of here than I feel about keeping it. Particularly, I don't want anyone to have any excuses ever again to call me "stodgy at best, and ... condescending to a point bordering on the clueless", which I found very offensive and totally unnecessary to resort to. Especially since the word was used during the inauguration like a normal term, like it was a few decades ago. So sad that almost every constructive discussion you try to have with Wikipedians ends up deteriorating rather quickly to territorial bravado and personal attacks! I detest divisiveness. Let's not compete about who is the most American or who has the highest amount of "black friends" please! Let's just get this controversial word out of here! How long must that take? How much discussion and how many quasi-insults bandied back and forth? Let's just get it done already! EmilEikS (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we have consensus to remove this category (even if the consensus is reluctant). EmilEikS, sorry if what I said came off as a personal attack. I have roughly no idea who you are, and no opinion of you as a person. I was commenting on how a word usage would come off, nothing more or less. - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, totaly wrong categorization sheme by a user who created some other useles categories. It is a common concern for a photo database to find different collored people, for this purpose we have Category:People with black skin. Delete this nonsense categorie. --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, the term is offensive and redundant. Fences and windows (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Category:People of Black African descent
--Foroa (talk) 18:18, 27 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:Former buildings[edit]

Should be renamed, maybe to Category:Repurposed buildings or some such. Although there is an explanation at the top of the category page, of course the name keeps drawing in content that belongs in Category:demolished buildings and draws in very little that belongs here. --Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the argument that "the name keeps drawing in content that..." - what do you base that on? I do not object to a rename as such, though. Ingolfson (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy with a "Buildings by former use" rename. Ingolfson (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with rename to Category:Repurposed buildings. I'm not a English speaker, but I take former buildings only as something, what isn't a building now – therefore demolished buildings. Former train station isn't a former building, if it isn't demolished. --ŠJů (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Support of Daniel's proposal (Bulding by former use). --ŠJů (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Buildings by former use", with same subcats and no images in top-level category. I used a similar name for a category I recently created on enwiki; I think that makes it clear that the building is extant and avoids confusing neologisms like "repurposed". That category could be used, however, for buildings used for one purpose originally (like a school) but now converted to another. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Good suggestion by Daniel. Support. Samulili (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • At the English Wikipedia, Category:Former buildings and structures is a parent category for buildings that no longer exist, no matter how they were destroyed. It includes buildings that were deliberately demolished, but can also include those that collapsed, burned, etc. I think we can keep this and set up a separate "Buildings by former use" set of categories. - EurekaLott (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I have no problem keeping Category:Former buildings with this different meaning, which is of course precisely what the current note on the cat page says not to put there! - Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Over a month later, the category still has a comment saying not to use it for exactly what we've agreed it would be appropriate for. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Buildings by former use; note removed. Content will need to be recategorised manually. --O (висчвын) 21:50, 14 September 2008 (GMT)

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:Trail Markers, Category:Trail blazes and Category:Hiking and footpath signs[edit]

These 3 categories have too similar determination. It should be resolved, whether all three have rest and what have be their relations. --ŠJů (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge Trail blazes and trail markers; they're the same, pretty much. But they're both distinct from "hiking and footpath signs" as they merely indicate the presence and direction of the trail, whereas signage gives the name of the trail, distances to key points, and other information. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    The hiking routes are signed only by painted signs (without the name and distances) in some areas, only by wooden or sheetmetal direction board in any others, and by both of them together in many areas – and by rod signs or by stone piles in mountains. Beside permanent „official“ signed routes are signs for single, temporary or ocassional use – in sand, by sticks dart etc. How have it be taken into account in the categorisation? --ŠJů (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Agree with Daniel: merge markers and blazes into one cat (keeping second word of cat name in lower case), leave Hiking and footpath signs distinct. I'm not super knowledgeable about how wiki categories in general are organized and conceived--they often strike me as redundant, chaotic, or not well considered. At first glance, I think it would be a good idea to define each category on the category's page. I can't imagine I'm the first one to come up with the idea--maybe there's something I've missed that already covers that? --Eric my en.wp talk page 16:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge I created Category:Trail Markers a while back, and I have no problem with it being merged with Category:Trail blazes. It makes perfect sense to me. I do believe that the Hiking and footpath signs should remain a separate category though. --Jomegat (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge --Ardo Beltz (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The redirected Category:Trail Markers have been moved now to Category:Trail markers (correct capitalisation). --Foroa (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Foroa. I almost did that before creating the redirect, but wasn't sure if I should bother. I have a much tougher time finding guidance here on the Commons than on en:wp. --Eric my en.wp talk page 19:42, 15 September 2008 (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:Hip hop emcees[edit]

Redundant to Category:Rappers where it should be moved. --Spellcast (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. The one person I categorized there - Gabriel Teodros - I wouldn't necessarily classify as a "rapper". He works in a hip-hop context, but his flow is not typical of rap. But I wouldn't necessarily mind a merge, as long as we keep a {{seecat}}. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean with his style of delivery. But rapping is simply defined as talking rhythmically over a beat, which is essentially what he does. Spellcast (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a terribly broad definition of rapping. By that standard, Lou Reed is a rapper. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If we tweak the definition to the "rhythmic spoken delivery of rhymes and wordplay", he would still fall under that category. Google "gabriel teodros rapper" and many reliable sources like music reviews and news articles refer to him as a rapper. Sure, he's more "soulful" than your average rapper, but he's still one nonetheless. Anyway, I agree a {{seecat}} would be a good option. Spellcast (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Been over a month; you and I seem to be the only ones weighing in and we have a consensus, I'll just go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Closed as a category redirect. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:24, 7 November 2008 (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:Economical diagrams[edit]

I believe it would be better English to change all the "Economical ..." and "Economics ..." subcategories to "Economic ..."

Since there are so many images to move, it would be nice if a bot could do it.

It should be "Economic diagrams"

It is correctly categorized under "Economics".

Also, the other subcategories should be:

  • Economic block diagrams
  • Economic bar charts
  • Economic graphs
  • Economic pie charts

There may be more subcategories at deeper levels that need to be changed. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this proposal. I think this needs some considerable consideration.
Now I doesn't matter so much how the categories are named as long as there is one standard.
I based my choice on the existing categories in Category:Diagrams, charts, graphs by theme
  • on categories ending with ...cal: like the category Mathematical diagrams, Medical diagrams and Technical diagrams.
But I admit there are other naming conventions here:
  • on categories ending with ...s: like , Physics diagrams, Sports diagrams
  • and categories without and ending, like: Astronomy diagrams, Biology diagrams, Chemistry diagrams.
So there are three kinds of naming conventions here. I wonder when to use which, or should we make one choice here.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I see from your user page that you are not a native speaker of English. The English language has many inconsistencies. My suggestions in this category-for-discussion page only have to do with correcting English usage, and not about your ideas for categorization. I like your ideas for subcategorization. See further discussion here: Category talk:Economics graphs. By the way that category should be named Category:Economic graphs and not Category:Economics graphs, in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I agree, and I will make the adjustments from the Category:Economical diagrams to the Category:Economic diagrams, -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Great! It looks like everything has been resolved without the need for bot help. Thanks for copying the previously-mentioned talk from Category talk:Economics graphs to Category talk:Diagrams.--Timeshifter (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreement reached: --Foroa (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2008 (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:Adult videos[edit]

Sure. Commons is not censored. But commons is also not a porn site. Why do we have a separate adult videos category? --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The title is certainly inappropriate. "Adult video" is an euphemism for "porn video". If they belong to Commons at all, these films should be at "category:sexology", "Category:Penis", or similar. Rama (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The title is somewhat ambiguous, which is not helped by the fact that no description has ever been provided. At WP w:adult video redirects to 'pornographic film'. It should be renamed 'pornographic videos' then, but that's not its scope except for one video: "Pornographic films are motion pictures with the purpose of promoting sexual arousal in the viewer, often featuring depictions of sexual activity.". The purpose here is entirely to be educational, although Blonde stag film.ogg can be called a pornographic film. Maybe dissolving the category entirely is the best idea, or giving it a more general name (we should keep in mind that it is a video category, so moving them to 'category:sexology' isn't that great. Maybe a video category with a broader scope, e.g. 'category:human sexuality videos' would be a better idea. Richard001 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds okay to me. Richard001 (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I suppose that this has gone on along enough — Deleted ---Gmaxwell (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2008 (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:Chartres Cathedral[edit]

This category has recently been renamed from Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres to Chartres Cathedral without any discussions and also apparently without seeking consensus. I open this discussion to avoid any future moves back and forth for this category. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to take a look at this discussion at the corresponding gallery page. I personally would appreciate the consideration of following points:
--AFBorchert (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
My priority is that people feel at home here and that they can at least have the galleries with a local name. I feel that the category name can be harmonised in the same sense as it is a proper name. But do not invert the rules or invent new ones in the sense of because now the category name is in English, the gallery name should be in English. You don't do that with the category:Cologne and Category:Cologne Cathedral along with their Köln and Kölner Dom neither (Cathedral should be without Capital C). --Foroa (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Today, SieBot was moving the categories Category:Chartres Cathedral, Category:Interior of Chartres Cathedral, Category:Exterior of Chartres Cathedral, and Category:Plans of Chartres Cathedral. The deeper subcategories of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres were, however, not yet moved. Examples are Category:Right bay of north porch of Chartres Cathedral, Category:Central bay of Royal portal of Chartres Cathedral or Category:Stained glass windows of Notre-Dame de Chartres. The latter category survived the last category move such that we have now three different stems for this cathedral in the associated category tree. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be more efficient to write these comments straight into {{source}} format in User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Foroa (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Siebrand asked me to add {{move}} templates to the not yet moved categories and I have just done this. Do I see this correctly that we have multiple bots who move categories around? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the correct formal procedure. Normally, if there are no complaints within two weeks, an administrator has to take the requests, transform them in commands for the delinker as documented above and when completed, remove the commands and remove the move request in the category and delete or redirect the original category. I suggested in fact a shortcut because there is already a basic agreement. The delinker executes its given commands one by one, each of them probably submitted to one or more threads. There are other bots active, but operated by their respective "owner" and not accessible for mortals like you and me. --Foroa (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional notes, Foroa. I've now filed the delinker commands as suggested. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you take out the moves again (why I suggested this shortcut). I have to go urgently. --Foroa (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your help, Foroa. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Closed according to general Cathedrals in France style
--Foroa (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2008 (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:The Pussycat Dolls[edit]

Should be moved to Category:Pussycat Dolls for consistency with Wikipedia. "The" isn't part of the official title. --Spellcast (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested the move. --rimshottalk 13:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved as per request. --rimshottalk 13:17, 28 December 2008 (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:Information graphics[edit]

Should be renamed back to Category:Infographics, because the term "Infographic" is much more beeing used internationally then the term "Information graphics", for example in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy etc. --Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Information graphics" is the full name and is self-explanatory. "Infographics" is not always understandable to some people. "Infographics" is not found in many dictionaries and spelling checkers. See the discussion page for en:Information graphics. Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote there: "Infographics is a relativelly new and unknown term." Google finds both "information graphics" and "infographics" in hundreds of thousands of English pages. We don't solely use the quantity of Google results to make these kinds of naming decisions anyway. See w:WP:NAME. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I will explain some more. The term "Infographics" is common good. According to Google-rates:
  • In English: Information graphics - 207.000. Infographics - 542.000
  • In Germany: Informationsgrafik - 7.170. Infografik - 673.000 (at www.google.de)
  • In Holland: Informatie grafiek - 42. Infographics - 38.100 (in texts in the Dutch language)
Etc... In Germany and Holland about 99% of the people use the term infographics. This strongly indicates the term "Infographic" is much more international. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
People come to the Commons from many languages. Some use variations of "infographics" and know what they are looking for, and some have little idea of what category they need. See the introduction to Category:Diagrams, and the discussions at Category talk:Diagrams to read of similar problems with definitions and where to find graphics. The more information we provide them, the easier it will be for them to find what they have in mind. I am a native speaker of English and infographics is not a word I am likely to use in conversation. "Graphics" may be the only word that many people will think of. It is a very common word. See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million pages.
We might help people more by putting both names in the category name: "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)". --Timeshifter (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not create a simple redirect? --Ma-Lik (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see it's already there. Where is the problem everyone sees the right name...--Ma-Lik (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This category started 2.5 years ago as "Category:Infographics", and the actual question here is if this should remain this way. A few days ago, just overnight, the category has been renamed "Category:Information graphics" by Timeshifter claiming "Infographics" is a bad name. But there is nothing bad about that name. I just think this category shouldn't have been renamed in the first place. But maybe there are other reasons to keep it like this. This is why I started this discussion in the first place. From a discussion on the German talk page, I already understood there are. But as German, I think, you could better explain yourselve. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think it's casual thing and if anybody searches for the Infographics, he will find the "right" category. It's the same thing with the plural, e.g. Category:House and Category:Houses, I think everybody types first House but the "right" category is houses.--Ma-Lik (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
MDD. I did not say infographics was a bad name when I added the redirect tag to Category:Infographics that pointed to Category:Information graphics. It looks like you misread the tag. People make many minor changes to category names on the commons. For spelling, clarity, grammar, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see now. You didn't give any reason at all. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It was discussed at Category talk:Diagrams#Explanatory diagrams, but for some reason you refused to discuss it there further. Then you started this discussion here. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, for several years now I am used to the situation on Wikipedia, that if you want to change a long existing category, you discuss this first. You don't say: "Hey, I have a new idea" at 00:30 at that one talkpage ... and then the next minute at 00.39 remove all content from the Category:Infographics, which has been created more then 2 years ago on 4 March 2006. There was definitely no discussion on Category talk:Diagrams#Explanatory diagrams about this. All you stated at 00.30 there where some fuzzy thoughts:
http://images.google.nl/images?q=information+graphics pulls up the same type of stuff as http://images.google.nl/images?q=explanatory+diagrams in my opinion. They are all graphics that share information beyond what a photo or unlabeled drawing can do.
I think the problem may be with the modern word "infographics". I think I am going to use the full phrase "information graphics" as the category name. Category:Information graphics instead of Category:Infographics. "Information graphics" sounds more serious than "infographics." The 2 words that make up the phrase have been around a long time and people know what both words mean. Plus "information graphics" seems to have been in use longer than "infographics".....
And whoops at 00.39 you blanked the Category:Infographics. One of the reasons, I make such a point of it is, that you still think this is completely normal. You stated that I am silly to even talk about it, because "it happens all the time". Nice going, corrupting the situation. Sorry I fear, that if I don't ring a bell, you keep the impression that you have a wildcard to change whatever you like. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is really not a big deal. It was a side discussion. It was a minor change. It was not controversial. It is easy to change back. Rather than discuss it further there where the discussion started you went to an administrator noticeboard, and then to here. We could have had the same discussion we had here without all that. Categories are frequently renamed for clarity, spelling, grammar, etc.. This happens all the time. You didn't ask permission to create the categories and galleries you have created. I currently have over 5000 edits on the Commons, and over 13,000 on English Wikipedia. I have created or renamed many categories. You also went to the German wikipedia page on information graphics, and they came to the same conclusion I did. See de:Diskussion:Informationsgrafik#"Informationsgrafik" and "Infografik". The discussion is in English. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If it no big deal to you, do you agree, that I refert the situation? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent what I say. Renaming categories is not usually such a big deal. I am not the only one to prefer the title of these articles and categories to be "Information graphics." I would be happy with "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)". --Timeshifter (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep dreaming. In a hunch you change the internationally frequently used name into an hardly used name in the Netherlands and Germany. And this is no big deal? You violated the normal Wikipedia procedure, and keep trying to sweep it under the pillow. And it is all no big deal? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
So far, no one seems to agree with you. I suggest you read w:WP:CIVIL. "Keep dreaming" can be considered rude in English, and not very civil. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the most current discussion, but seems quite current. Do I understand this correctly:
There was a category 'infographics' for ~2 years that has been renamed to 'information graphics' on the grounds that:
  1. 'information graphics' is more technical sounding than 'infographics' (particularly in German)
  2. People will be able to search for 'information graphics' more easily because they may use one of the two terms rather than the name 'infographics'
On the other hand:
  1. The category has been here for a while, and has been called infographics for that time
  2. 'infographics' is what the field is called, according to Google and according to the people who coined the term
My 2 cents is that this is best resolved by calling the category 'Infographics (information graphics)', as has been suggested because:
  1. People searching for Infographics know what they are looking for and know how to search for it - as they have done up until now
  2. People searching for 'information' or 'graphics' may have no interest in infographics, or they may become curious. Either way, how people search is independent of what infographics is
  3. Infographics is what the field of study is called by those who write about it. Not information graphics, nor graphinfo nor infographtion. We should not make up names for fields of study because the new name 'sounds more technical than the actual term' (even if I agree)
Dhatfield (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I can live with either "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)". It does not matter which to me. I would like to point out what the scholars in the field use though. Here are some Google Scholar results below.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22information+graphics%22 - 3840 results.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=infographics - 506 results.
Of course, most other people (myself included) end up using "infographics" because it is quicker and easier to type out.
As the German wikipedia talk page pointed out it is fairly common in Wikipedia to use full names for article titles. I also believe that many more people will search for "graphics" compared to those searching for "infographics." So users of Google may find the relevant Wikipedia articles and categories a little easier if "graphics" is spelled out separately in the title. So if we cannot use both names, then I believe we should use the full name, "Information graphics", for that reason. As I said before "graphics" is a very common word.
See: http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million results. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think both alternatives are unacceptable. But if you insist, please do proceed. I will request that new category to be deleted. Then we can continu this discussion over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should discuss it more here before creating a new category. Then there is no need for a deletion discussion in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Both "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)" are simply impossible to write down. I don't think the both of you have realized that this actualy is needed so once in a while. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
@Dhatfield. Your interpretation surprises me:
  • I stated: In Germany: Informationsgrafik - 7.170. Infografik - 673.000 (at www.google.de)
  • And you interpret: 'information graphics' is more technical sounding than 'infographics' (particularly in German)
The situation in Germany is simply that only 1% of the people use the word 'information graphics' and 99% 'infographics'. One of the two term is hardly beeing used. That is the whole point here. The title here should be te most accaptable most used term. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Most people don't know either term. The word infographics is not in my 1986 print version of the Webster's dictionary. It is also not in other authoritative dictionaries online. See:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infographics - no results.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infographics - no results. This site uses several dictionaries that put out print editions too.
Also, the word "infographics" is not used in many other languages. There are variations in spelling, or a word is used that doesn't look anything like the spelling of infographics. People coming to the commons from many nations will search using English. "Graphics" is more likely to be the word used by many non-native speakers of English during searches.
In English here are some Google results in descending order:
http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million.
http://www.google.com/search?q=infographics - 670,000.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22information+graphics%22 - 415,000.
Infographics is becoming more popular, but it is still not a commonly used word by many people. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
We have been over those numbers a few times now, just as we have talked about the meaning of the term, which is vaque, and we also agreed that little people know the word. What keeps me worried is the way it has effected the construction of the Category:Infographics:
  • First, the category was upgraded to a main category in the field of visualization
  • Second, the category was renamed to Category:Information graphics
  • Third, there is a proposal to rename it to "Category:Information graphics (infographics)" or "Category:Infographics (information graphics)"
Now we agreed these terms are relatively new, unknown, and not permanent defined. Personly I can get over the second move and accept the current name, if for example the first step is turned back. Is this an acceptable compromise? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't studied the definition of "visualization" much. Here is a start:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visualization
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/visualization
The 2008 Merriam Webster online dictionary definition number 2 seems to be relevant: "2  : the act or process of interpreting in visual terms or of putting into visible form".
That sounds like it could cover illustrations and visual media of any kind. But shouldn't this be discussed at Category talk:Visualization? I started a discussion there. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
And I gave a response over there. Maybe you can give a response here to my last question if this is an acceptable compromis. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the 2 discussions need to be tied together. One is not dependent on the other. We shouldn't be deciding for others in a separate discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I will try to summarize this situation here one last time: Infographics, and information graphics are two alternative terms. Both terms are relatively unknown and undefined, their popularity started rising since the 1980s. The biggest difference between the both is, that internationally only the term Infographics is popular. In the Netherlands and Germany less then 1% uses the information graphics, or its local translation.
  1. Now a category infographics was created here 2.5 years ago, which was focused on the core idea of infographics as a specific type of graphic formats. The Wikipedia article w:Information graphics explains: Information graphics or infographics are visual representations of information, data or knowledge. These graphics are used anywhere where complex information needs to be explained quickly and clearly, such as in information sign, maps, journalism, technical writing, and education.
  2. Now 20 July 2008 Timeshifter decided on his own to popularize the category by introducing the broadest scope possible: Images that are information graphics (infographics). Information graphics include signs, charts, graphs, diagrams, maps, tables, labeled drawings, etc.. Almost any illustration or animation that has elements of abstract information in it. Photos and drawings of objects, or photos from nature (such as plant, bird and animal drawings), are not considered information graphics unless there is an overlay of abstract information combined with them. Art and cartoons are not infographics.(see here).
  3. At the same time Timeshifter made it a top category in the field of all graphics, by collecting the categories charts, diagrams, graphs and maps in that category.
  4. One week later Timeshifter again decided on his own this new top category needed the name "Information graphics", and renamed the category. Every body knows "Information graphics are graphics that show information", so let it be.

Now there are two things we can do here.

  1. Restored the category, focused on the specific type of graphic formats, with the international term in use.
  2. Keep the top category on the broadest meaning possible, under the broadest term "Information graphics".

I will rest my case. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the Commons tries to make it easy for people to find stuff in the categories. I have already replied to nearly all of this in my previous comments. See my previous comments concerning popularity of words.
As for category descriptions Wikipedia and the Commons tries to use the standard, most common definitions of words used in article and category titles. Category descriptions should reflect this too. When it is difficult to figure this out we do the best we can in trying to figure out what is the most common definition from the various definitions in standard dictionaries. When that doesn't work we go to the standard reference books found with tools such as Google Scholar. All of this helps users of the commons in finding stuff. Since users of the commons are not all native speakers of English they need us to use the most common definitions. It is a judgment call to balance all these factors. See also the discussion at en:Talk:Information graphics for more info on Google Scholar results and definitions.--Timeshifter (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I will withdraw this request, and will remove the template from the category. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing this as withdrawn by nominator. Wknight94 talk 11:21, 15 May 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:Hip hop male singers[edit]

This category is basically comprised of rappers instead of rappers who "sing". It's redundant to Category:Rappers --Spellcast (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to agree how to name categories of hip hop vocalists / rappers / singers. Then we'll keep two subcategories by genre. The Category:Rappers (or however we call it at the end) should encomprise both female and male artists. --Javier ME (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it's necessary to categorise rappers by gender, but if it's going to be done, we can simply use Category:Female rappers and Category:Male rappers. Spellcast (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing stale discussion from 2008. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 05:47, 13 November 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:Richmond Internacional Speedway[edit]

Wrong name for race track. "International" is spelled wrong, as well as "Raceway" not "Speedway". It is called Richmond International Raceway. See official website. Propose rename to Category:Richmond International Raceway. --Royalbroil 03:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Obvious. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If the name is this clearly wrong, we don't even need to discuss it, just move it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:31, 21 November 2008 (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:Churches by religion[edit]

Should this not be "Category:Churches by religious denomination"?

All the subcategories within it appear to be subsets (denominations) of Christianity.

Church is generally used to describe Christian religious buildings. Other religions tend to use different names for their places of worship eg Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, etc.

-Arb. (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically I guess you are mostly right, but is anyone confused by the present name?
By that way, at least on the West Coast of the United States, some Japanese Buddhist congregations term their place of worship a church. See for example Category:Seattle Buddhist Church. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll also note that there are many subsects of Christianity which would VERY MUCH INSIST insist that their church/religion is a DIFFERENT religion than other Christian sects, not just a denomination. Plus there are likely to be numerous small groups, cults or whatever that consider themselves non-Christian and call their places of worship a church. Ingolfson (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
With this said (to which I agree), is anyone still against keeping the current name? --rimshottalk 17:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually there are some country-specific cat-trees following the proposed scheme, such as for example Category:Churches in Australia by denomination. And, yes, church is clearly understood as Christian religious building. That isn't changed by the strange idea of a Japanese Buddhist congregation, whatever their motives may be. However, as the church (-building) related cat-structure on Commons seems to be rather erratic and inconsistent in total (probably due to incremental increase) a systematic overhaul might be warranted.--Túrelio (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Closing stale discussion from 2008. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 05:50, 13 November 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:Stairways[edit]

I am proposing to merge the following categories for which there is no clear distinction. The target for the merge is up for discussion but I am proposing Category:Stairways, if for no other reason than that's the name of the only enwiki category. Renaming/merging the numerous subcategories (e.g., Category:Stairs in Italy and Category:Staircases in Italy into Category:Stairways in Italy) - also overlapping in many cases - would be ideal as well but we can leave for a separate discussion if that is preferable.

Wknight94 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To be pedantic, although there are overlaps because of language, some of these categories are not identical for example stair wells are not stairs, and steps are not stairs. The stairwell describes the space that the stairs are in, If you were to remove the stairs, for example for refurbishment, the space would still be a stairwell even though at that moment there would be no stairs in it. Similarly a group of steps may together form a stair case, but each individual step would have an identity of its own. Rather than merge, nest these cats so that smaller elements are sub categories of the larger ones, e.g. steps to become a subcategory of stairs and stairs a sub category of stairwells followed by a winnowing out the contents of these cats, so that the main focus of images in steps are the individual steps, that of stairs the stairs as a whole, and that of stairwells the space occupied the stairs.KTo288 (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You picked a few that are more distinct, but how about stairways vs. stairs? Stairs vs. steps? When are steps not the same as stairs? According to your definition of "steps", that would be an empty category since none of the photos show an individual step. I can see stairwell being separate from the rest, but what technically is a staircase? From the photos available, I see at most two categories, stairways and stairwells, with the latter being a subcategory of the former - and there would be a lot of shifting to get them all correctly categorized. The rest of the categories are redundant. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The overlap I agree is semantic, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the staircase is the frame work i.e. the wood, masonry or metal work needed to hold the individual steps together to form the flight of stairs. (going back to my empty stairwell imagine one of those flights of glass and metal stairs, now imagine that the glass steps have been removed for replacement, the remaining metal frame work is the staircase). I guess it matters if you're a carpenter or builder, however in most common everday usage, most people will not differentiate between steps, stairs, staircase and stairwell. As to steps, I've added one of my most recent uploads to steps, although the image shows a number of steps, it was my intention when taking the image to capture the steps and the patterns it formed,and that is the way I've categorised it. One of the reasons I didn't consider stairs or stairwells, is that steps is the term traditionally used for "stairs" that are exposed to the elements. I didn't think of it at the time I gave the reply above, but steps also has a historical and poetic use, e.g. the Spanish Steps, that will resist a purely logical approach at categorisation. KTo288 (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if you formalized the distinctions like in your staircase vs. stairway vs. stairwell rule, we still don't currently have pictures which show the distinction. The steps have not been removed in any of the cases that I've seen, so why would we need a category for a stairway with the stairs/steps removed. (As an aside, I'm even having difficulty maintaining consistency while I type here!) As for steps exposed to the elements, that's yet another category: Category:Outside stairs. That would need to be merged somehow as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The one gives form to the whole, and the whole to the one, so its easy to see why one approach would to throw everything into the same cat. And I was not suggesting that we should have a category for stairs removed but a mental tool to work out what the focus of the image is and where it should be categorised. For example take an image and mentally remove the stairs from the image, if the image still has a value than its the space the stairs occupied that is of value and the category is "Stairwell". Do the opposite mentally crop out the extraneous detail until only the stairs are left, again if the image has a value without the background the category would be "stairs". Take another image mentally blur the individual steps until they are indistinct, if the balustrades, masonry, decoration e.t.c. is what gives the image its value than categorise as "staircase", if however the image is not worth keeping if the steps are blurred than the category would be "steps". KTo288 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a lot of work for the average user to undergo and almost impossible to maintain - but we'll see what others think. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose keeping Category:Stairs, Category:Steps, and Category:Stair ramps. The distinction between the various parts of a stairway are likely too subtle, but I agree there is a difference between steps and stairs (mainly steps have fewer accessories (rail, decoration, etc.) and are more likely to be outside. Finally the stair ramp category is clearly distinct. Superm401 - Talk 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As per Superm401 - we need to strike a balance between having to many terms and too much generalisation. As an aside, if we want to keep subcategories which might be too "esoteric", we could handle that by distinctly clarifying them with an in-between cat like "stairs" - "parts of stairs" -> "steps" Ingolfson (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose to keep all categories but to make'em subcategories of Category:Stairs as a main category --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Commons is a multilingual project (as illustrated by the no fewer than 30 languages that the word "stairs" was translated into). Given which, I'm concerned that this discussion is relying too heavily on subtle shades of meaning in English that may not exist in other languages (e.g. stairs indoors and steps outdoors). In order to keep this set of categories accessible to contributors and users of all languages, I would recommend focusing in on a few categories of broadly-defined content that are unlikely to get fuzzed in translation. I suggest two categories to answer the issues put forth in this discussion so far:

All of which leaves the issue of subcategories. There are appropriately many, relating to geography, period, construction, and so forth. I have two specific comments on this:

Okay, I've gone on long enough. One side-effect of insomnia: long-windedness. —Werewombat (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with Werewombat and his/her point on the multilingual nature of the project. Samulili (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing stale discussion from 2008. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 05:53, 13 November 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.

Kremlin Towers[edit]

Category:Spasskay Tower[edit]

Wrong spelling. The correct spelling is Spasskaya Tower. See en:Kremlin_towers#Spasskaya. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for discussion, is it? --Ikar.us (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nikolskay Tower[edit]

The same.

I place rename requests for both on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Ikar.us (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2008 (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:Sjeverni Velebit national park[edit]

mistake, please delete (moved to Category:Sjeverni Velebit National Park) --Suradnik13 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --Foroa (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2008 (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:Diagrams,_charts,_graphs_by_theme plus four related empty categories[edit]

Please delete, the discussion here has ended, so its time to act! --WikipediaMaster (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This deletion request includes also the following four categories that have been cleared!

Also related and marked for deletion: Template:Diagrams charts graphs

--WikipediaMaster (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete categories, keep template. The template is strictly for the easy listing of diagram categories needing to be cleaned out of charts and graphs. The template is currently only on talk pages, and saves me time in duplicating and updating the info on several talk pages. If the template is deleted then I will just have to manually copy and maintain the list on several talk pages. Deletion of the template will only increase the time required. It is much easier to delete cleaned-out categories (and their subcategories) from one template, rather than several talk pages. I can recreate the template in user space if it is a problem in its current location. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2008 (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:Banknotes by country[edit]

There is now two different kind of categories in this category: Banknotes of country and Bills of country, but I think that this two should unify into one. I'm not sure which is preferable. --moralist (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bills and Bills by country have been merged here. Banknotes is the remaining category, category:Bills is far too ambiguous. --Foroa (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey, so the "Bills of country" should be moved to "Banknotes of country"? //moralist (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to organise a move of all these bills by the end of the week. --Foroa (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It shouldn't be too hard, pywikipedia-bots can move entire categories. //moralist (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --Foroa (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2008 (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:Science and technology by country[edit]

The subcategories in this category should have similar names. I propose a move from Science in blablabla to Science and technology in blablabla --moralist (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In theory, science and technology are two separate and distinct things. In practise, they are often inseparable, especially at the research, institutes, government and education level. So fully agree to harmonise in one single merged "science and technology" category. --Foroa (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge would be good. Any reason this one hasn't been done? - Jmabel ! talk 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Merged and harmonised
--Foroa (talk) 17:41, 7 April 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:Architectural elements by period[edit]

Delete this category + all of the subcategories. Useless category tree --Multichill (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems a lot of overhead to categorise one singe image: Image:Lucignano san francesco.JPG. The question is if it is realistic to be so precise in dates. --Foroa (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

O crap, dozens of similair categories were created see Commons:Village pump#categorization madness?. Multichill (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new category with a better lemma: Architectural elements by century and have emptied this category which is already covered by Category:Architectural elements by style so we can garbage it. --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, as empty and obsoleted by the other two categories.--rimshottalk 10:50, 31 January 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:Visit Nice[edit]

I completely fail to see how this would be distinct from Category:Nice. --Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, also there is a lot of gif and animated gif... Why ? - Zil (d) 19:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that User:Agora1950 started creating a kind of illustrated streetmap of Nice, and this category contains all the "accessories" for this webpage, content images as well as information icons.
The icons should be removed, the photographs moved to Category:Nice, or distributed to more specific categories.
--Ikar.us (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree to empty this category and then to delete it. I have started to categorize the images by Streets of Nice and, when there are significant buildings, by individual categories for the buildings. P.s.: The category Palais de Nice schould be also checked
--Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I see two possibilities:
  • Move the images to the Nice category, but before that, uncategorize the image that would not fit in the same category.
  • Do the first option, but also create an user category for the user who uploaded the image, this might be not necessary since the user already created a gallery.
Edit, user is inactive since september 2008, let's do the first options...
Esby (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile I've almost emptied this category by moving most of the images (more tnan 2.000) to Streets, Buildings etc in Nice. This was hard work — but now I hope it's comprehensive to find anything in Nice starting with the main category --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Good work here, what to do of the last files? Esby (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I say just put 'em in Category:Nice (and maybe other categories as well, no opinion on that). - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:39, 15 May 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:Architectural plans[edit]

Category:Architectural plans and Category:Floor plans. Whatever is the better name, we should combine these cats. TomAlt (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No objection. "Architectural plans" is slightly more general, because it would include landscape architecture where there is no floor, and would also include the "reverse plan" for a ceiling. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, we could first create architectural plans. Regards.--Mac (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop, stop. Now we have an unclear situaton: Category:Architectural plans and Category:Architectural drawings doubel up as "Topcats". I think that should be clearer and suggest:
*Category:Architectural drawings as Topcat that contains all kind of Drawings as now,
*Category:Floor plans as subcat
* As it doubles IMHO up with Architectural drawings we should delete Category:Architectural plans and move all entries over to Category:Architectural drawings. The term "Architectural drawings" allows to separate "by type" that means if its a section, elevation of floor plan. "Architectural plans" does not really allow this and is simply blurry because of the term "plan".
TomAlt (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
oK, after I cleaned up a bit I am confirmed in my conclusion: Category:Architectural plans should be deleted / redirected, because many people mix the term "plan" (in the sense of a layouted sheet with several drawings) up with "floor plans". As this will happen again all the time I suggest we move all "Sheets" into a new Category:Architectural drawing sheets and redirect there. TomAlt (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In the English Wikipedia we just merged the w:Architectural plan (just created by me) into the w:Architectural drawing article, because the term "Architectural plan" didn't seem to have one particular meaning.
So I think it is a good idea to remove this category here. I am not so sure about a new category named "Architectural drawing sheets". Ideally categories should relate to real types of architectural drawings: Types that could have a Wikipedia article. Now it seems to me, at first sight, that several of the images categorized in that new category could be categorized in other existing categories just as well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's true, some could also be sorted in the object cats like "Church drawings" or "Opera drawings" etc. But for the type, an arranged / layouted plan or sheet there has to be a separate cat. I'm open for suggestions for a better name. TomAlt (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing stale discussion from 2008. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 06:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Trash containers[edit]

Please have a look at the subcategories with all the different names:

  • Trash bins
  • Garbage bins
  • Waste baskets

Most of them should be merged. We need a clear structure and a "naming convention".

A differentiation by type of waste and type and size of container would be helpfull:

trash / waste / garbage ... cans / bins:

Recycling bins / containers:

type / size of container:

-- 85.177.181.29 07:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Closing stale thread that we had forgotten about. -- User:Docu at 08:56, 9 January 2010 (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:House of the bakers (Pompeii)[edit]

  • Merge to Category:Bakeries in Pompeii (I am creating that soon...) or rename to Category:Bakery of Modestus (Pompeii). The current name is misleading as there appears to be dozens of bakeries in Pompeii. From image searches and cross-references to maps and aerial views, this appears to be the Bakery of Modestus in Regio VII, Insula 2, but I'm not positive on that. Unless someone can say for sure, we should avoid potentially misleading users and simply say these are images of an arbitrary bakery (or bakeries - I can't even tell if the one image is the same bakery as the other two images). —Wknight94 (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing stale discussion from 2008. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 06:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Category:Trash containers[edit]

Please have a look at the subcategories with all the different names:

  • Trash bins
  • Garbage bins
  • Waste baskets

Most of them should be merged. We need a clear structure and a "naming convention".

A differentiation by type of waste and type and size of container would be helpfull:

trash / waste / garbage ... cans / bins:

Recycling bins / containers:

type / size of container:

-- 85.177.181.29 07:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Closing stale thread that we had forgotten about. -- User:Docu at 08:56, 9 January 2010 (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:Social psychology (psychology)[edit]

How does this differ from Category:Social psychology? I suspect this is just badly named and its content should be merged. --Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue/reason is that social psychology has two "streams" which are reflected in the way the Wikipedia articles are named: w:Social psychology, w:Social psychology (psychology) and w:Social psychology (sociology), with a similar structure having been subsequently followed on Wikiversity: v:Social psychology, v:Social psychology (psychology) and v:Social psychology (sociology), hence this taxonomy has been followed into the categorisation here on commons. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Clear as mud. Can someone at least add something like headers on the category pages cross-referencing them and explaining the distinction so that images will be classified correctly? - Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing stale discussion from 2008. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 06:06, 13 November 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:Frank Lloyd Wright buildings[edit]

Should be named Category:Buildings by Frank Lloyd Wright, like all in Category:Buildings by architect. --TomAlt (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC) ✓ Done --Foroa (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Renamed, for consistency. --rimshottalk 19:23, 26 December 2008 (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.

Naval ships of the United States[edit]

We have a Category:United States Navy ships and a Category:Naval ships of the United States. Either there is a distinction that should be clarified, or these should be merged (and I don't know which name is to be favored). -- Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Naval ships of foo seems to fit the standard naming convention. Keep the other as a redirect. -Nard the Bard 06:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • naval ships of xxx is the Commons naming convention. --Foroa (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
      • So can we just turn Category:United States Navy ships into a {{seecat}} and have a bot move the images and any subcategories? - Jmabel ! talk 06:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I put a merge request on it (A move would work too). Redirects/seecats are only for empty categories (If all people started to move categories through redirects, it would be nice here). --Foroa (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

--- Merged into Category:Naval ships of the United States --Foroa (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (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:State highways in Massachusetts[edit]

Close to correct. These categories that go via Route X (Massachusetts) need to taken to Massachusetts Route x (like the 6A one). I am willing to move the images out of the categories for the new ones, but wanna make sure that it is all consistent. --Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 23:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to manually move categories around. If you prepare a set of category moves of the form {{move cat|old name|new name}} (just put them down here), I can tell User:CommonsDelinker to do them. While you're at it, if you have the time, you can look for other highway categories needing renaming as well. --rimshottalk 11:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Standardized all relevant subcats. Wknight94 talk 12:16, 15 May 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:Inauguration of Vladimir Putin[edit]

The category is empty and it not needed due to categorisation by dates --russavia (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This can go, not really necessary, scope-wise anyway.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, empty category. --rimshottalk 22:59, 21 December 2008 (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:Vladimir Putin in Minsk[edit]

Category is empty. We now have Category:Vladimir Putin in Belarus which is probably a better way of categorising such images, i.e. on a national level rather than on a city level. --russavia (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Same here, this came go, need we go so deep?Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, empty category.

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:São Domingos de Gusmão (Olivença)[edit]

  • Again a disputed Spanish/portuguees territory under Spanish administration. Ideal solution is an English name (that I could not find). Alternative: keep the Spanish version and a redirect from the Portuguese name. --Foroa (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept/not renamed/closing thread: apparently it wasn't made up. Redirecting suggested new name instead. -- User:Docu at 04:56, 13 January 2010 (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:Ponte da Ajuda[edit]

É falso. O nome dado a esta ponte por quem a construiu, D. Manuel I, rei de Portugal, é "Ponte da Ajuda" (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_da_Ajuda) e não "Puente de Ayuda", que será apenas o nome traduzido para castelhano. Por isso, a categoria não deve ser apagada.

This is false. The original name of this bridge is in fact "Ponte da Ajuda" , given by King Manuel I of Portugal. "Puente de Ayuda" is just a spanish translation. Therefore, this category should not be deleted.

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This bridges seems to be disputed territory on the border of Spain and Portugal. Best solution is a neutral English name (and Spanish and Portuguese redirects to it), but I could not find such a name. --Foroa (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The bridge is in the "disputed" border between Spain and Portugal. The literal translation is "Help Bridge", but I can suppose that there is no tradition on a English name. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept/not renamed/closing thread: apparently it wasn't made up. Redirecting suggested new name instead. -- User:Docu at 05:01, 13 January 2010 (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:Funerals of Patriarch Alexy II[edit]

Spelling error, should be Category:Funeral of Patriarch Alexy II --russavia (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For consistency with Category:Patriarch Alexius II, should it not be Category:Funeral of Patriarch Alexius II? Man vyi (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done --rimshottalk 23:29, 25 April 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:Patriarch Alexius II[edit]

Rename to Category:Patriarch Alexy II. Alexius II is a very obscure name for the Patriarch, and most usage tends to refer to him as Alexy II (or Alexey II). As Alexy II is the prevalent form used in English with the ROC, I have suggested it as Alexy II. --russavia (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems to be reasonable, we rename the English article, lets rename to commons cat as well Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, renamed some other cats on the way as well. --rimshottalk 23:30, 25 April 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:Saint-Petersburg State University[edit]

Rename to Category:Saint Petersburg State University (without the hyphen), as the hyphenated name in English is errenous, which makes this category harder to find, as Category:Saint Petersburg is the ultimate parent. --russavia (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


Moved to Saint Petersburg State University. --rimshottalk 07:17, 3 February 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:Ice hockey clubs[edit]

I started some times ago to categorize ice hockey teams in Category:Ice hockey clubs, by analogy with Category:Association football clubs, before I realize there is a Category:Sports teams AND Category:Sports clubs. I think the term team is better, because it's the one in use in the english wikipedia. What do you think is the best to choose ? --ohkami (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


Deleted in favor of Category:Ice hockey teams, by User:Foroa. --rimshottalk 11:47, 31 January 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:Underwater divers[edit]

"Underwater divers" is redundant and not a term ever used in real life. Hence, it would be better to upmerge Category:Underwater divers into Category:Divers, and, as the changes (recent, I believe) seem to have been made to differentiate it from categories related to diving from platforms - well, there's lots of ways to disambiguate that, such as "High diving" and "Competitive diving".

Category:Underwater diving is similarly inappropriate. --Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Might be that thinking of Category:Skydiving in Category:Diving was the reason of giving that name. It is a redirect now. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this discussion. There are descriptions/explainations on the category pages for a very long time. Diving is jumping into the water. But I suggest to create a new Category:Diving (jump into water) and let Category:Diving as a parent category for all uses of the word diving. --Diwas (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there's no reason to make the sport almost universally recognised as "High diving" or "Competitive diving" have the main Diving category instead of what many more people will think of as diving. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should we not create the following:

Until now, there are two things in one category.--Diwas (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Closing stale discussion from 2008. Please open a new thread if needed. -- User:Docu at 06:09, 13 November 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:Orchestras by city[edit]

We have Category:Orchestras by country, we do not need by cities as well. --Fluteflute (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree, this category is superfluous and should be deleted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing stale discussion from 2008. Category marked for deletion. -- User:Docu at 06:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)