Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2011/01

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

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

Contents

Category:Mount Tambourine, Queensland[edit]

Reasons for discussion request Typo- cat has been replaced --Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Spanish Revival Style architecture in Australia[edit]

Misnamed cat; correct title is Category:Mission Revival Style architecture in Australia (may be empty, will soon be filled with Queensland State Library images). --Cerebellum (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Hermann_Bödeker[edit]

Please delete (category name was wrong) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Deleted by Joergens.mi. --rimshottalk 22:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Karl-Thiele-Weg_(Hannover[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Arminuswerft_(Hannvoer)[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Leine-Verbindungskanal[edit]

Please delete (wrong name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Lindener_Stichkanal_(Hannover)[edit]

Please delete (wrong name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Tischbachstraße_(Hannover)[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Fourth_Regional_Conference_of_Wikimedia_Serbia[edit]

lopobvwe 62.194.19.121 11:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And what is exactly problem with this? -- Bojan  Talk  15:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Lacks rational. Closed. --  Docu  at 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Hannover_Nordstadt[edit]

Please delete (Category and name was not wright) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Welfenschloss[edit]

Please delete (new category now is Category:Welfenschloss (Hannover)); indeed there is a second one Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Former_Serials,_periodicals_and_journals_from_Hanover[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Commons WikiProjects[edit]

I can't see any difference between this category and Category:WikiProjects. I suggest merging this one into that one, which is larger. Also, the Commons identifier beforehand is unnecessary, so "Category:WikiProjects is a better name for it.--Chaser (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Hi. I created this category in par with "Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects" at en.wiki. The "Commons" prefix helps avoid confusion with Commons-content and other content. I have requested CD to move the contents to this category from "Category:WikiProjects", but I guess that hasn't been done yet... Rehman 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we're in agreement. All I'm asking is to move the content of this category to the other one. If you agree that we should migrate the content to Category:WikiProjects, then it can easily enough be done manually. Oh, I just noticed that you created the category today. Sorry about that. I think since you created it, we could just close the CFD and migrate them. You can decide whether you want to delete the old category or leave a {{category redirect}}.--Chaser (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. I meant to keep this category, and delete or redirect Category:WikiProjects... Rehman 03:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you're right. I opened this to respond with several other CFDs and then didn't re-read it before replying. Anyway, I don't care which category we use, I just thought it was silly that there were two. I'll withdraw this so you can carry on with moving things into this category. Pardon the distraction.--Chaser (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn.--Chaser (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Buildings_in_Russia[edit]

Since there is no Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in Russia per Commons:Deletion requests/Kotelnicheskaya, this category and all it contains (except those files tagged {{PD-RusEmpire}}) should be deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Stop! Don't delete photo of buildings! Amendments allowing FOP for buildings will adopt in future." at COM:FOP#Russia by TarzanASG (talk | contribs) [1].   — Jeff G. ツ 19:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support deletion and salting (at the very least). Appoint Jeff G. as lifetime enforcer. Add "geography" to banned list, too (single-purpose accounts like yours truly often hide buidings, cars and telegraph poles in "streets" and "valleys"). NVO (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • "single-purpose accounts like yours"? I have made over 9,200 edits to this project over nearly four years.[2]   — Jeff G. ツ 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
      • (ec) Read in full: "like yours truly" and what's the point of this edit count contest? Back to the subject, I was dead serious. Since commons is overwhelmed by lunacy and inconsistency, perhaps wikipedias need a different image depository. In which case large chunks of data can be safely killed here and restored elsewhere. Right now it's done by manually duplicating files from commons onto local wikipedias, - but it's time to speed up migration. Better sooner then later NVO (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep First, no need to hurry because of the (maybe) upcoming changes in Russing law. Let's wait until it's adopted or not. Second, when keeping at least PD-RusEmpire as suggested we cannot delete the category. --SibFreak (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Sib, if you play the PD-1918 card, Jeff G. will demand the names of the authors (example). Sysops will have their way anyway, so the question is: how to respond to a wholesale deletion, rather than how to delay it. NVO (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep first of all even Russian law allow to make photos of old buildings - and there are a lot of such pictures in this category --MaryannaNesina (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep First, any deletions should be made strictly on an individual basis, because many buildings of the images in this category are in PD, and some of them are not the focal point of the image. Secondly, there is clear intent of Russian legislature to introduce changes in the law allowing FOP in Russia in the nearest future. Third, anyway there is no clear judicial practice regarding enforcement of the current vague legal situation with Russian FOP. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pure lunacy. Most buildings in the category predate 1917. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Buildings from before 1917 must be kept anyway; also whatever was built after 1917 by the architechts who died before 1942 is PD and must be kept (even though these files have not been tagged by {{PD-RusEmpire}}). Unless somebody wants to check every file in the category, I would suggest to keep it and to nominate specific buildings.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Most building's design is in PD. Jeff, you should inspect every photo separately (if you want, certainly)! -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per above. "no Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in Russia" is generally teorethical argument for building photo. There is no trusted judicial opinion or court practice, and thus are now preparing amendments to the Civil Code, which in the near future should ensure the freedom of panorama in explicit form. In addition, this category contains many old buildings, images of which are in the public domain. I ask for a moratorium to deletion reqwuests based on "no freedom of panorama in Russia" prior to the coming changes in the Civil Code of Russia. --Kaganer (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It seems OK to remove the category, however many files are well in PD and must be kept unless proved they break the russian laws. I'd like to see what russian laws are violated for each file under question.--Vissarion (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Dumb nomination. There are many old buildings in Russia. --Pauk (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Perhaps the request starter does not know that in Russia there is still also a lot of buildings built in the 19th, 18th century or even earlier. They are all PD and not protected. Deleting the whole category content is similar nonsense as if you e.g. would delete everything that currently is in Category:Human sexuality just to get rid of porn. A.S. 11:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. I am against, because this nomination is on the verge of disruptive behaviour. Any files may have problems with licanse, but you must nominanate conrete images. Let us nominate category United States for deletion - it is unbeautiful and unnecessary images! SmesharikiAreTheBest (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. per. Pauk. --Skydrinker (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedily kept per above. More than 20 000 pictures were nominated at once and quite a bit of them are absolutely ok. FOP copyvio should be nominated for _regular_ deletion (speedy deletion is not for suspected FOP copyright violations as decided there) on case by case basis, because there are numerous de minimis, {{PD-trivial}}, {{PD-Russia-2008}}, {{PD-RusEmpire}} cases and so on. We already have a history of striking down of such indiscriminate meganominations (see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai), because such nominations are essentially unmanageable. Trycatch (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Lower_Saxony_in_the_21th_century[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Deleted, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Symbols[edit]

The did your key 74.133.10.157 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything to discuss about this category? --rimshottalk 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. No reason given. --rimshottalk 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Johannes-der-Täufer-_Kirche_(Hannover)[edit]

Please delete (wrong written by copiing) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Done. In the future, for uncontroversial misspellings, just use {{bad name}}. --rimshottalk 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Karl_Friedrich_Wunder_postcards_back_sites[edit]

Please delete (wrong written: mysterios):) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


Deleted, misspelling. --rimshottalk 18:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Phillip_Holzmann[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please use User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands for category renames.
If a category was already moved, in general, you can just add {{category redirect}} to the old name. --  Docu  at 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, your discussion requests are not very explicit. More explanation would be helpful, for this one, it would help if you would at least mention how you think it's correctly written (and link a WP article). Note that this can be done in any language. --  Docu  at 06:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, misspelling. --rimshottalk 18:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Vitraux_de_la_cathédrale[edit]

to delete - the right category is : Stained glass windows of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Rouen Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Si la bonne cétégorie est celle citée, je ne voie pas de problème pour la corriger. C'est juste qu'étant français, j'ai mis le nom en français.--Giogo (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Márcio_Thomas_Bastos[edit]

nominating for deletion as incorrect name, should be pt:Márcio Thomaz Bastos, also unnecessary cat as it has no affluents and its only file would be File:Thomaz Bastos.jpeg Santosga (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Depots_of_Saint_Petersburg_Metro[edit]

For the same reason it rains, practically 70.153.123.49 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything to discuss about this category? --rimshottalk 17:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. No reason given. --rimshottalk 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Nikki_Sexx[edit]

Nikki Sexx 94.236.137.135 17:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, and? Powers (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep. That's a IP comeing by every day and posting nonsense DRs. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kept As Saibo said, continuing nonsense DR. Tabercil (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Orli-Wald-Allee[edit]

Please delete (wrong category name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Koblenzer_Straße[edit]

Please delete (wrong category name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Stained_glas_windows_of_Église_Notre-Dame-de-Lorette_(Paris)[edit]

please delete - the right category is: Stained glass windows of Église Notre-Dame-de-Lorette (Paris GFreihalter (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Deleted, wrong name. In the future, for uncontroversial misspellings, just use {{bad name}}. --rimshottalk 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Kröpcke[edit]

Please delete (we have a new category) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Category:Aerial_views_of_Hanover[edit]

Please delete (wrong name) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Église_Saint-François-Xavier-des-Missions-Étrangères[edit]

todelete - the right category is: Église Saint-François-Xavier (Paris) Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Deleted by User:Foroa -- Common Good (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Dachenhausenpalais_(Hannover[edit]

Please delete - had been a mistake (sorry) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Use {{speedy}} for typing errors instead. --ŠJů (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Stained_glassd_windows_of_Elijah[edit]

please delete - my fault! Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For simple typing errors, use {{speedy}} instead of delete discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador_training_in_San_Francisco,_January_2011[edit]

what ist important from 63 files? Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep: This category collects images taken at the Wikimedia Foundation offices, during the Campus Ambassadors training as part of an effort to show what the Wikimedia Foundation is doing in terms of advancing use of free knowledge encyclopedias in the university setting. If that is not in scope of Wikimedia Commons, the scope need to be expanded. Or it may be that the deletion request was a little hastily made, perhaps.// Hannibal (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This set of photos documents the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. It's important in the same way photos from meetups and Wikipedia 10th anniversary parties are important: it supports the projects by documenting and supporting the contributors.--ragesoss (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's stupid I know, but I would like to be untagged. For personal / historical reasons I do not like pictures of me to be googleable. I guess this goes against openness, so that's a paradox. Maybe my name could be coded so it looks the same on the wiki, but it confusing to the google? Let me know what you think. Sincerely, Saudade7 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC) (the girl who almost won citadels).
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. No reason to delete the included photos en bloc, no reason to remove the category. --ŠJů (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Kept. -- Common Good (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Damas_Towers[edit]

This is a broken redirect. 84.62.200.57 11:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


'Deleted. by Foroa. Please use {{speedy}} next time. -- Common Good (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Hanns-Lilie-Platz_(Hannover)[edit]

Please delete (wrong written) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


Deleted. Please use {{speedy}} next time. -- Common Good (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:925_Jahre_Hückeswagen[edit]

Incorrect category name: must be in english because this event has no specific designation 93.211.77.143 18:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep [3] --4028mdk09 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Sock puppet, 925 Jahre Hückeswagen is a propper German name for a German event (already linked). Giving this German event an English name is simply nonsense. -- Ies (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Ies said it. --Wuselig (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Ies said it. --Carlomorino (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this categories must be in english: "Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However there are exceptions." But which exception should be given here? I propose a reomval to Category:925th Jubilee of Hückeswagen. --80.187.106.139 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I learned something new: The translation of "should generally be" is "must". --Wuselig (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Name kept. This is the proper name of the event, no need to translate it. --rimshottalk 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Škoda_1000_MB_de_Luxe[edit]

empty category alofok* 19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The category name can be good but the subtype isn't enough different to have its own category. (As appears through fulltext search, only ca 2 images would appertain here now.) A gallery page would be a better way how to group images according to subtypes and detailed variances. --ŠJů (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The "de Luxe" is only a version of the equipment. Nothing else. alofok* 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. --rimshottalk 20:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Vehicles by color[edit]

Such categories are pointless, as there's no use of them - I believe that categorizing vehicles by color is not encyclopedic at all. There's no way that we'll ever list all possible color combinations. Commons is not flickr nor somebody's private repository where he can create absurd taxonomies for amusement.


The same reasoning applies for deletion of all categories inside of it, and all categories listing vehicles by color (some of them):

--Peter.shaman (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons is a media repositary, so it is normal to have categories by visual aspects. Doing that per country might be an overkill indeed. --Foroa (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Agree with Foroa. Commons is not an encyclopedia, but a media repository. --  Docu  at 07:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Commons serves as a source of stock photography for all the wikimedia projects, and anyone else willing to abide by our licenses for that matter. Sorting images in this way allows editors to find the images they need with a minimum of effort.KTo288 (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - Categories such as these currently serve no purpose. Silver sedans, for instance, currently contains 1605 photos. Is anyone going to wade through all of these to find the right one? Sorting things like this is much too vague to be useful to anyone. At the very least make these categories invisible, until en:Wikipedia:Category intersection becomes functional. This would also make the ridiculously narrow subcategories (I'm looking at you, Category:Black sedans in Kraków) even more unnecessary. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Just realized that everyone (per Foroa) seems to agree to the removal of all the "cars by color and bodystyle by country and city". Am I correct? Mr.choppers (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kept. For a separate discussion on by country categories, feel free to start a new CFD. Wknight94 talk 04:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:LibreOffice[edit]

-- Mark85296341 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A reason is missing. --ŠJů (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Large software project, increasing in prominence. AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I think Mark85296341 was trying to nominate for deletion his screenshot, which he did 23 minutes later. --AVRS (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Closed, mistaken deletion request. --rimshottalk 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Maps_of_canals_in_France[edit]

a category "French canal maps" exists; they need to be joined Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

category:French canal maps has been delete by Foroa. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 09:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Kept, and keep the other one deleted. No real reason to prefer one over the other. --rimshottalk 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Le_Noyer[edit]

name is ambiguous (another Le Noyer exists) ; should be named "Le Noyer (Hautes-Alpes)" Fr.Latreille (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Disambiguated, --rimshottalk 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Iron_truss_fhishbelly_beam_bridges[edit]

I think it's wrong written Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done the "fishy" typo is gone now, see Category:Iron truss fishbelly beam bridges --:bdk: 06:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Renamed, --rimshottalk 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:FV_Biberach[edit]

Out of scope category: The club "FV Biberach" is not within the Commons' project scope. 80.187.107.25 20:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Help me out here; what is FV Biberach? Powers (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There [4]. Thanks and Greetings. --Bene16 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
A football club (350 members) in en:Biberach an der Riss. Had it's good time in the 70s. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. If the German and French Wikipedias both have an article on the club, then it is indisputably within Commons' scope. Speedy keep. Powers (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there are two Wikipedia articles that deal with the club "FV Biberach", I think this category has its eligibility. I suggest to keep this category. The category name seems to be OK, too. Furthermore, it would be a nice contribution if somebody can contribute more photographs in order to fill this category. --High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


Kept, if there is at least one Wikipedia article, the subject is notable enough. --rimshottalk 06:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:José_Thomaz_Nonô[edit]

empty cat of a politician with only local notability, it is not foreseeable that there will be a need for this cat, that already exists since 2005. Santosga (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Deleted, empty category, may be recreated if images of him are uploaded on Commons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Disneyland_Hotel_at_Disneyland_Resort_Paris[edit]

No images. 84.62.200.57 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


Deleted, might just want to {{speedy}} it next time. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Judges_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals[edit]

This should be courts of appeals (plural). That phrase should also probably be lowercase. See en:United States courts of appeals. Chaser (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, on both counts. This should also happen for Category:United States Court of Appeals. --rimshottalk 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I've roped that one in, too. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has a page with the same capitalization and number (courts).--Chaser (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support renaming to Category:Judges of the United States courts of appeals. MKFI (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Renamed, straight-forward change. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Cornell_University_ILR_School[edit]

The official name of the school is the "New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations" and the category name is meaningless outside its context. The abbreviation ILR should be spelled out, as the English Wikipedia article title was for several years until it was unilaterally shortened last month. Thanks, 71.107.87.78 06:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Opposed. The current naming of this category aligns with the consensus established on the English Wikipedia here. Therefore, please leave category as is. —Eustress talk 00:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Commons avoids acronyms and other local abbreviations. --Foroa (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved, to avoid acronyms and because Eustress's considerable argument doesn't apply anymore. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Festivals_of_Bangalore[edit]

Empty category. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I guess any content it did have has already been deleted or moved, can be recreated if needed. Would have been speedly deleted it myself.--KTo288 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Hummer_vehicles[edit]

Should be called Category:Hummers. Same categorization scheme as Category:Humvees. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's called Hummer vehicles, like all automobile brand categories. --MB-one (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Technically, like all VEHICLE (not just automobile) brand categories. But yes, I support MB-one's intention to retain. As there have been no other changes in months, and as there is no consensus to move this, I will remove the tag. Ingolfson (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hummer vehicles is much more clear, especially in an international context. --Foroa (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done, no consensus for change. --rimshottalk 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Women_named_Barbara[edit]

Also:

Wikimedia Commons is not a forename database. For a list of people by the name Barbara (and similar categories) you may NOT collect all people and all content related to them in a category but you may create a list at the appropriate place in Wikipedia. Martin H. (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there's too many pointless categories and that creates only clutter. Similar to this is my request for deleting: [5].Peter.shaman (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think it's a collection from Category:People by given name. Still, the question remains why these 11 categories of female names should be deleted and not the whole hierarchy of Category:People by given name, male and female. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between sorting people by forename and sorting people by gender. The two categories obviously follow a different approach at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't; there are many entries in those queries which are not "Women named Foo", and for people with multiple first names it's conceivable that they won't show up in such a query; then there's Category:Ida Maria as Category:Women named Maria. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Ida Maria was just sorted wrong a few days ago? --Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, as useless categorization. These women really don't have anything in common (well, besides the forename, of course) that it's worth categorizing for. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Oryzomys_perenensis, Category:Oryzomys megacephalus, Category:Oryzomys seuanezi[edit]

Outdated names; no images left in these categories after I put File:Distribution Oryzomys megacephalus-group.PNG in Category:Hylaeamys Ucucha (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC) & 17:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC) In cases of synonymy, you can use "catredirect" as for example here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 23:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Horses_in_human_activities_through_ages[edit]

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

Category with a unsuitable name and scope. What is it supposed to contain? AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that wouldn't be covered in the existing Category:Use of horses. I suggest the content of this cat be merged into that category or relevent subcategory. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Guys ! The intention was to create a more "historical" than "horsed" category - having in mind a future entry in the french wikipedia project bearing that title and studying that topic to illustrate. So just "Use of horse" would be a bit too much/large in scope and not "historical" enough. A sub-cat of "Use of horses" ??? Thib Phil (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The phrase "through the ages" does not exclude recent times. When something becomes "historical" may be vague and open to different interpretations. Perhaps you could create more specific subcategories for time and/or place? For example something like "Use of horses in the 19th century" or "Use of horses in Ancient Rome", etc? Just a suggestion. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent idea - should be interesting indeed ! Will try, using above mentioned cat as a "meta-cat". But I have first to finish the cavalry's history. THX Infrogmation ! Thib Phil (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A meta-subcategory Category:Use of horses by period or a simple subcategory Category:History of use of horses would be more compatible category names. --ŠJů (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Renamed to Category:History of use of horses, original unintuitive name deleted. Pitke (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Kate Gleason Hall (Rochester Institute Technology)[edit]

Over-categorization. It removes important images from the main university category and hides them in a subcategory. And is a separate category really necessary for just two images? The building doesn't even have its own article on Wikipedia. --Powers (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep, many buildings have separate categories without articles on wikipedia & I'm sure this one will grow with time. Many cats are set for future growth. Since this category is a sub-cat of the main university category, I don't see how it hides images. FieldMarine (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There are enough images in the main category that users looking for images of the campus are likely to ignore the subcategory. It's much more useful to have them all in the main category. Powers (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, it's more useful for someone unfamilar with the university to have them organized in a subcat, but that is a personal opinion. FieldMarine (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There's also the issue that Gleason Hall is only a small portion of one of the photos depicted; even if this category is kept, that photo should be in both the subcategory and the parent category. Powers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep but naturally some photos will need to lie in both cat and subcat. TheGrappler (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Some? There are only two. So you want a subcategory for a single image? Why keep that single image out of the main category? Powers (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The file is still in the main category, but under a subcategory. In this case, a subcat that better organizes the files in the main cat & makes it easier to search for ones of a similar subject. It is not uncommon for buildings to have their own category. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sequestering a single image in a subcategory is not better organization. It unnecessarily hides it from people browsing the parent category. Powers (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep: No consensus to delete. King of ♠ 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


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

Category:Buses_by_year_of_registration[edit]

Is it reasonable to have such a category tree? I mean it is surely impossible to find out the year when a bus was built for the majority of buses that can be photographed. Especially this category seems quite superfluous. Which encyclopedic value lies behind a category ""Buses by year of registration by country""? The images on Commons and its categories must meet the project scope that seems not to be achieved here. 80.187.107.144 22:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The more useful part of this is probably Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by year of registration (2001 to 2051) as it uses the license plate of a bus to identify that. --  Docu  at 11:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It's reasonable to have a category tree by year when was the bus built. We can discuss what category-name is most suitable for such purpose. Year of registration is the year when the individual vehicle was oficially admitted to traffic. If we should differentiate old buses and new buses, this year is the crucial criterium. Terms "registrated" can be considered as equivalent to "introduced into service", eventually "produced" ("manufactured"). Of course, not every bus can be categorized by all existing criteria: type, operator, bus line or net, year of registration, year of taken the photo, color, specific feature (advertisement, equipment...) etc. In some countries exist many fans which gather such information (see http://seznam-autobusu.cz/ for buses in the Czech Republic), in some countries exist official lists or significant marking (as license plates in UK) etc. We have to put up with the fact that only some of buses can be categorized by this year. But it doesn't mean that such categories are not useful. Even if such category contain only one percent bus photos from the country, it can give a good representation what buses were built is such period. --ŠJů (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw, see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/06/Categories by place or year of construction for a related discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What happens when a (British) bus changes hands, from owner to another - do they always retain old plates (or the original timestamp?). NVO (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. As with other motor vehicles in the UK, buses are given a registration number (known as a "mark") not at the time of manufacture, but at some point between the initial retail sale and the first use on the road, and this mark stays with the vehicle until it is either de-registered or re-registered. De-registration only occurs if the vehicle is destroyed or exported; but re-registration is comparatively rare, and is usually done for vanity reasons (e.g. so that the mark matches the owner's name and/or initials).
When a vehicle is first registered, the mark will incorporate some form of date coding: between 1 February 1963 and 31 August 2001 this was a letter (suffixes were used until 31 August 1983, prefixes thereafter), but since 1 September 2001 has consisted of a two-digit number (i.e. 11 for vehicles first registered in the period 1 March 2011 to 31 August 2011; 60 for vehicles first registered in the period 1 September 2010 to 28 February 2011; etc.). For example, this coach was first placed in service in April 1965, and its body number (653006) suggests 1965 manufacture. The photo was taken less than a year ago, but it still bears the original mark GUP 743C, where the suffix letter C denotes 1 January 1965 to 31 December 1965.
Re-registered vehicles cannot be given a mark suggesting that it is newer than it really is. So, a bus bearing a 10 mark may be re-registered with a 09 mark, but not with a 11 mark. This coach was first placed in service in April 1972, and its body number (728388) suggests 1972 manufacture. Accordingly, it was originally given the mark DOE 111K (K=1 August 1971 to 31 July 1972), but was later re-registered SCK 56K (K again, no change of year) and again re-registered VAL 466G (G=1 August 1968 to 31 July 1969, i.e. older than K) - this is a vanity mark chosen so that the first three letters match the manufacturer's model designation - the chassis is a Bedford VAL. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
But many buses have those personalised numberplates to include the companies initials so the plate is not a good indication. Agathoclea (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
True, personalised registration marks do exist on buses, but they're certainly in the minority. One operator, en:Oxford Bus Company, normally books registration marks including the letters "OXF" - but always ensures that the year letter/number matches the true age of the vehicle. Today in Oxford I observed HF11 OXF on a 2011-built bus - one of a batch. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep: King of ♠ 00:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:County_Road_509_(Brevard_County,_Florida)[edit]

Only two items, none of which are photos of the road. This is an unnecessary level of subdivision. Imzadi 1979  19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep, as a major road in the area, I see room for growth. FieldMarine (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Until additional media are added to it, it's unnecessary and it can be recreated at a late time. Imzadi 1979  20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • There are a few additional photos of Route 509 (Wickham Road) in the subcats. FieldMarine (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Then move them into this category too. Imzadi 1979  02:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Since I have added the appropriate images to this category, and removed unrelated subcategories, this category should have sufficient media to be kept. Imzadi 1979  02:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Those edits have been reverted, please use discussion pages about those subcats prior to removing them so consensus can be achieved. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep: King of ♠ 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:County_Road_511_(Brevard_County,_Florida)[edit]

Only two items, none of which are photos of the road. This is an unnecessary level of subdivision. Imzadi 1979  19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep, as a major road in the area, I see room for growth. FieldMarine (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Until additional media that actually show the road in question are added to it, it's unnecessary and it can be recreated at a later time. Imzadi 1979  21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep: King of ♠ 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Or (heraldry)[edit]

There was mentioned in the discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/02/Coats of arms by tinctures by the way, that "according to en.wp: Or is frequently spelt with a capital letter (e.g. Gules, a fess Or) so as not to confuse it with the conjunction or." I emphasise, frequently, not ever.

This statement in the en:Or (heraldry) article has no specific source and is too vague. Capitalization (spelling) of other tinctures was also not clarified. I think, it looks very strangely when one of tinctures is with capital letter and all others are not. The reason "not to confuse it with the conjunction or" seems to be not acute as regards Commons categories.

There exist about 32 "Or" categories with capital letter and about 110 categories with small "or". Names which begin with the word "Or" are not counted. --ŠJů (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good finding. While I generally don't like lower/upper case mixups, I can live with the preferences of the Heraldic specialists. --Foroa (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
As I found, the main criterium is not the type of category and context but that category branches built by Ö prefer "O" and category branches built by BrightRaven, VIGNERON Skim and some others prefer "o". I see no other distinction between Vert a saltire Or and Vert a fess or than who created them. It would be strange to deal with one rename request o→O if there exist 110 other categories with "o". (This request was why I began to ocupy by this.) I'm not sure that personal preferences of one or two users can be considered itself as representating whole heraldry without relevant sources, references, arguments. We haven't judge which user is more "specialist" but who bring better reasons and solutions.--ŠJů (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I only created one of these categories. I used capital O to be consistent with all the supercategeries for combinations of tinctures. That is also why I suggested moving a category. But then I had not realised that there are so many categories with lower case o. I have no real preference. Renaming the supercategories (and a few subcategories) to use lower case seems like an equally good solution. /Ö 14:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If the only reason to use capital O is to avoid confusion with the conjunction 'or', I think that risk is small. (Unless we start getting more long and complicated category names like Category:Per fess Gules and Argent in chief a lion passant Or and in base a kris and kampilan saltirewise of the first hilted Sable.) /Ö 14:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the best choice is to rename all categories with Or in categories with or. --Massimop (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I’m not a specialist of english typography but someones (who?) tell me to use Or instead of or in order to avoid confusion with or (argent or Or and not Argent or or). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm creating new cats with small "or", but I have no preference. Please tell me if any conclusion is reached (in case I miss it) so that I would abide to whatever is decided.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's quite usual to see Or capitalised in heraldry; I think I would prefer to see the lowercase "or"s capitalised, rather than the other way round. — OwenBlacker | Discussion 10:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Mr Blacker above: if we are to be consistent, this ought to be in favour of capitalising the tincture's name. Even if there might be a smaller risk of confusing the tincture with the conjunction in Commons file names and categories, this is largely irrelevant because the convention is old and widespread in the field of heraldry and we ought to follow the example of professionals. Indeed, some authorities capitalise all tinctures (see examples here), perhaps for the sake of consistency, but I understand most only do this for Or. Waltham, The Duke of 12:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Or is customarily capitalized, even when the other tinctures are not. As far as capitalizing the remaining tinctures, that is a preference. Η936631 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's any strict rule in the conventions of English-language heraldic "blazoning" saying that one or the other is definitely incorrect, but I think I would probably prefer capitalized "Or" for general clarity... AnonMoos 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is this still running? It's been over two months without a comment and I think there is something of a consensus here. Waltham, The Duke of 08:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In official heraldry blasoning languages all colours and metals are written with capital letters, so it should all be Or.137.224.252.10 06:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And I suppose you have a source for such an affirmation?--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If this is still running. As many of us will know there is little or no punctuation in a blazon. This can be seen in most grants of arms. If a shield is blazoned correctly the tincture comes at the end of the phrase (Argent two bars between as many mullets Sable). So we would know that not only are the bars Sable, but the two mullets are as well. It also tells us the relationship between the bars and the mullets - in fact everything we need to know to be able to draw it. And we know that the information is complete because the tincture is at the end.
Not so long ago it was the custom on English and Scottish grants to skriven all the lettering in black except for names, the start of paragraphs and the first capitalised letters of the tinctures. To that end ALL tinctures should be capitalised - at least when dealing with UK heraldry or the blazon is written in English. Kiltpin (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Names with a capital letter[edit]

Rename Category:Argent and Or in heraldry to Category:Argent and or in heraldry (0 entries moved, 63 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, azure, Or in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, or in heraldry (0 entries moved, 469 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, azure, gules, Or in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, gules, or in heraldry (0 entries moved, 723 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, azure, gules, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, gules, or, sable in heraldry (0 entries moved, 273 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, azure, gules, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, gules, or, sable, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 55 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, azure, gules, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, gules, or, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 147 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, azure, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, or, sable in heraldry (0 entries moved, 142 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, azure, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, or, sable, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 26 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, azure, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, or, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 88 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, gules, Or in heraldry to Category:Argent, gules, or in heraldry (0 entries moved, 446 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, gules, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Argent, gules, or, sable in heraldry (0 entries moved, 264 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, gules, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, gules, or, sable, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 64 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, gules, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, gules, or, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 165 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Argent, or, sable in heraldry (0 entries moved, 108 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, or, sable, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 38 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Argent, or, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 66 to go)
Rename Category:Argent, purpure, Or in heraldry (talk) to Category:Argent, purpure, or in heraldry (0 entries moved, 14 to go)
Rename Category:Azure and Or in heraldry to Category:Azure and or in heraldry (0 entries moved, 798 to go)
Rename Category:Azure, gules, Or in heraldry to Category:Azure, gules, or in heraldry (0 entries moved, 395 to go)
Rename Category:Azure, gules, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Azure, gules, or, sable in heraldry (0 entries moved, 62 to go)
Rename Category:Azure, gules, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Azure, gules, or, sable, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 14 to go)
Rename Category:Azure, gules, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Azure, gules, or, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 34 to go)
Rename Category:Azure, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Azure, or, sable in heraldry (0 entries moved, 63 to go)
Rename Category:Azure, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Azure, or, sable, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 12 to go)
Rename Category:Azure, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Azure, or, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 35 to go)
Rename Category:Azure a five rays Or to Category:Azure a five rays or (0 entries moved, 4 to go)
Rename Category:Azure a fleur-de-lis Or to Category:Azure a fleur-de-lis or (0 entries moved, 17 to go)
Rename Category:Gules and Or in heraldry to Category:Gules and or in heraldry (0 entries moved, 804 to go)
Rename Category:Gules, Or, sable in heraldry to Category:Gules, or, sable in heraldry (0 entries moved, 223 to go)
Rename Category:Gules, Or, sable, vert in heraldry to Category:Gules, or, sable, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 31 to go)
Rename Category:Gules, Or, vert in heraldry to Category:Gules, or, vert in heraldry (0 entries moved, 76 to go)
Rename Category:Vert a saltire Or to Category:Vert a saltire or (0 entries moved, 3 to go)

Names with a small letter[edit]


Rename all categories with lowercase "or" to uppercase "Or". King of ♠ 02:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Dogs_by_function[edit]

This category appears to be a redundant duplicate of Category:Assistance dogs Benchill (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It is currently lacking categories for sports dogs, hunting dogs, guardian dogs, showing dogs and sleigh dogs (some of which seem to not exist yet), which would at least for the most part not be suitable additions to the "assistance dogs" cat. Pitke (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I would also like to say that I've been tempted to move some of the "Assistance dogs" subcats elsewhere (probably "Use of dogs") since the contents of that cat seem counterintuitive for me and some cats seem placed there simply because no more general "Use of dogs" existed then. Pitke (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok, I thought it was finished. I agree categories like Military working dogs belong elsewhere, looking at Assistance dog I think all except Guide dogs ought to be moved. Benchill (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Category:Assistance dogs has been made a subcat of Category:Dogs by function, which includes dogs which are not necessarily assistance dogs. King of ♠ 02:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Overcast_days_in_Hong_Kong[edit]

Overcast days? A whole cat structure? - a limited use category, and open to discussion for every single picture (if one would bother). Do we want that specific categories, with ambigous criteria? I very rarely propose deletions, but these ones I think go too far. No offense intended. Ingolfson (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

HK SKW Museum of Coastal Defence Front A Kung Ngam.JPG
Personally, I like the idea that there is a category describing the weather in images such as this (also include to the right of this comment). I'm less convinced that this needs to be in there too. --  Docu  at 08:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
But could that not be done with a category like Category:Overcast weather, rather than creating a category tree which goes down into individual suburbs? Ingolfson (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably yes, but there are always people who like breaking down anything by country/city/district/street .. --  Docu  at 06:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think, local and regional categories by wheather have their usefulness as well as such categories by season (like Autumn in Giant Mountains, Snowfall in Paris etc.). When somewhere search images of his city or country of certain weather, a worldwide megacategory of such weather would be hardly useful itself. But they should be used primarily for such images where the weather or season peculiarity is very distinctive (or they can have a special reason if such weather is rare in involved area). I think, the category branch "Overcast weather" should have also some relation to the category Category:Clouds. --ŠJů (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I made it a subcategory of Category:Overcast *shrugs*. The category is pointless if every photo taken on an overcast day in Hong Kong is in scope, so it needs a description at least. But then, Hong Kong seems to attract pointless categories. I just finished deleting all the "multistory buildings" categories, and I have to wonder about the use of Category:Walk up buildings in Hong Kong and Category:Hong Kong in the 2010s, where it seems that every photo taken in a particular year is in scope for one of its subcategories. ghouston (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention Category:Morning in Hong Kong and Category:Evening in Hong Kong. I'm surprised Category:Afternoon in Hong Kong is missing. ghouston (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep: King of ♠ 02:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Primitive_portraits[edit]

POV category (a category "Portraits in naive art" would be ok where the naivity is the preferred style of expression (Rousseau etc.), but not this category where people include images they don't think to be good enough art by whatever standard) FA2010 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Primitive art" is normal word in art history without any merit rating. See termin in en:Naïve art#Characteristics, en:Primitivism, and Google books search. Primitive portrait is the term for portraits, 1) not absolutely right in anatomy and 2) created in regions far away from current culture center, (for example, Tudor portrait during the bloom of Italian Renaissance, Mexican provincial portrait during the times of Velasquez, portraits of Siberian merchants in the time of high classicism of Russian Empire; - so usually, not always, it is the provincial art). There also is a difference between naive art and provincial art see term in google books. As I'm art historian, this matter is known for me. I can find the catalogs of exhibition of primitive portrait (but now only in Russian).--Shakko (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No Primitive portrait article at the en:w but some occurencies of this term exist. en:Primitive art is redirected to en:Tribal art and seems to have a very different meaning. --ŠJů (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is 2 kinds of primitive art: one is tribal (en:Primitive culture), and second is in Western culture, but by by untrained (provincial) artists (maybe word related here with en:Geometric primitive). Also please note the difference between naive and primitive portrait

Naive - more about non-trained authors in XIX-XX century, it's like the game in modern time. Primitive - from XV-XVI to XIX, painters who thought they are skilled, but they aren't, and it is absolutely serious. (Sorry for my poor English, apropos).Shakko (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, so let's at least agree that this category needs a clear definition (it doesn't have any at the moment). --FA2010 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Delete: Not well-defined. King of ♠ 19:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


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

Category:Diagrams_of_route_shields[edit]

Empty category. No need for this category, is covered by others. Admrboltz (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Category:Diagrams of route signs and Category:Diagrams of route signs of the United States can be considered as full-featured and standard alternatives of this category. However, the whole category tree of route shields of the United States should be remade in order to be distinguished between all related files (including photographs) and diagrams of shields. + categories of the US MUTCD system should be more integrated into the world-wide categorization. --ŠJů (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No consensus: Stale request. King of ♠ 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:US_Army_Alpha_Unit_Shoulder_Sleeve_Insignia[edit]

embarkation 98.222.0.127 12:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Can you elaborate? Powers (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What are you asking? - SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm asking what 98.222 meant by "embarkation". Embarkation is not a reason for deletion or merging. Powers (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, -this category is unclear without description, so recommend deletion as it currently stands. -FieldMarine (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Upmerge contents to Category:Shoulder sleeve insignia of the United States Army. King of ♠ 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)