Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/09

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

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

Contents


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

Category:Post boxes in Luxenburg[edit]

Misspelled: Luxenburg should be Luxembourg Jwh (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Mailboxes in Luxembourg exists --Jwh (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup! Ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 18:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Postal museum Luxemburg[edit]

Correct name as in Category:Musée des Postes et Télécommunications Jwh (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Post offices in Luxemburg[edit]

Luxemburg should be Luxembourg
Category:Post offices in Luxembourg exists Jwh (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1870 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1873 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1874 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1877 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1879 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1934 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1936 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1940 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1941 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1944 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1946 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1947 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1950 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1953 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1955 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Built in Milan in 1957[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1957 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Built in Milan in 1960[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1960 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Built in Milan in 1961[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Built in Milan in 1962[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1962 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1965 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1989 in Milan[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom (all files)[edit]

This category breaks the categorisation hierarchy and is in breach of COM:OVERCAT. The whole point of a category structure is to aid finding specific images; I don't think it's helpful to ask a user to wade through such a potentially vast category (at present 2072 images) to find what they're looking for. If such a category should exist, we already have Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom, and this is just an unnecessary gloss on an existing category, although I strongly suggest that parallel categories should be deprecated as leading to maintenance nightmares, as well as being profligate of other resources. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't think this guy has the first idea what he's talking about. Firstly, this category has not replaced the 'by location' tree, it's parallel to it (therefore OVERCAT is immediately a non-issue), so quite why he thinks people need to 'wade through it' to find images if they have arrived at 'in uk', is beyond me. Second, I've asked him what maintenance issues this causes, or what backlogs it produces, and he said nothing, he just responded by filing this. I had already pointed out all the ways this category actually makes maintenance easier, the response I got didn't give me the impression he understood what I was talking about at all. All in all, I don't think an inability to understand why something is of use to others, is good grounds to get rid of it. Before I expanded the number of branches, the only way users could browse through all the images we have of uk post boxes, was to go through what now sits under the 'by location' tree. That did, and still does, consist of a mess, where over 800 images are just 'in England', even though there's a county sub-level, and there are many cats with 5 or less images. All in all, there's got to be nearly 50 categories to wade through in there given the haphazard way people have added lower levels. Plus there was over 200 that weren't even categorised in it, just dumped at the top level. He might think it's a great idea to force people to wade through all that even if they're not interested in location at all, I however think that's insane. More branches are required, and having an 'all files' cat is a necessary component of that for both maintenance and to serve those who still aren't given a branch that's of use to them, whether he understands why or not. Ultra7 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "This guy" has been on Commons since October 2007, and has spent the last two years or so mostly maintaining categories, so possibly has as much idea as anyone else as to how they should work. That's apart from my 115,000 edits to Wikipedia and nearly three years as an Admin there. Nowhere do I see any support for parallel categories. The point is made implicitly that the "by location" tree for this topic needs maintenance. Indeed, but it's only one of many trees that need work, but it isn't a priority in my view, when we have uncategorised images going back years- yes, years. That's what should be happening, not the creation of some bastard abortion of a parallel structure; the difficulty of maintenance is ensuring that all images appear in both subtrees, and that cannot be guaranteed to happen. It's a dangerous (slippery slope)precedent to set, and should, IMO, be strangled at birth. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    Who gives a crap how many edits you have to Wikipedia? Irrelevant. And if you really want to get into a pissing contest between who's done what on Commons or for how long, bring it fucking on. I'll stand by my experience through my many thousands of edits here compared to you any day, which go beyond mere category maintenance that's for sure. And I've done my fair share of that too, and many more thanks to CATSCAN, a tool whose usefulness you seem to want to completely negate in cases like this (or at least make it three times longer to 'maintain' without an all files cat). I don't care what you think the priorities are, if you don't want to maintain this tree, then you know where the door is. Readers are clearly far better off having access to an all files cat even if it's 95% full, than being expected to sort through 50 cats by location when the aspect they're looking for has nothing to do with location. Only an absolute idiot would spend the time looking through that tree in that manner, if not interested in location. And 'UK' is a perfectly reasonable point to start that tree, there is no precedent being set here at all in that regard - all significant aspects of postbox images are dictated from the postal service area level - which in this case is the UK, obviously. If you want to argue that it's not necessary to categorise UK post boxes by any other quality than location, then go ahead, I'd like to see you attempt argue that case, because it's patently absurd. Ultra7 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think that's the way to behave to another editor. Calm down, please. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This category is not necessary as its redundant to Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom. A flat-category of 2000 files is not particularly useful for end-users, no chance of finding anything in it. I'd agree that the "by location" tree is one aspect of the whole, and might even be the least useful possible sub-tree. Colour (especially gold at present?), design, date, postcode are all rather more interesting. But the need to look through the by-location tree, if you are interested in another aspect, has already been negated by the work you've done.

With regards to Catscan - a very powerful tool - this category is not really necessary to obtain its full functionality. A deep scan of Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom replicates this category. A deep scan of files in Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom by location and not in Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom by colour can determine files with location, but no colour info. More advanced queries can identify files that are in colour and type, but not location; in colour or location, by not type; are anywhere in the tree, but don't have postcode area info.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but when there's more than two branches, it's infinitely easier to have an all files cat as the base point for searches. Otherwise figuring out the searches needed to ensure there's full consistency becomes insanse, it's a logic problem in itself rather than what in reality should be a simple and quick maintenance exercise. Even your example is wrong - it finds locations without colour, but of course it doesn't find the reverse without the reverse search. Trying to apply that to a 4 or 5 branch system without a base point is a total headfuck, especially without a shred of a manual for the tool either. And it's hardly onerous for users to scan it either - ten clicks and a bit of scrolling on each page, and you're through the whole lot. Easier to do that than to do it in another, irrelevant, branch, while also tracking where you are in it. Simply compiling the all files cat by going through the by location branch was onerous beyond belief. Had I actually been looking for a particular image and that was the only option, I would definitely have just given up. All I can see happening is people turning to the red category as an all files proxy, if they want to look for a candidate image that isn't neatly encapsulated by any of the other branches. Ultra7 (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Users will not scan a category with that many files if they are looking for a postbox. They will either take something off the first page, or give up and go somewhere else. Using some sort of search, even the primitive search provided by Mediawiki is more likely to be effective (eg [1]). And my example queries are not wrong: It said its to find locations without colour, not the reverse or both. The reverse search is needed if you want that combination. So what? That's a different search logically, and an in one by not the other search is also viable (tick difference instead of subset). The methodology I mention could be trivially be applied to a category tree with 10 distinct sub-trees,
The more advanced queries I mention above are superior to an all-files flat list for one simple reason - they are dynamic. Before you can use it for anything you first have to ensure the all files is actually current. If you find any particular task onerous, there is probably a better way of doing it. For instance, AWB can utilise output from CatScan or directly compile the list of all files in the by-location category and add a category to them.
A model of a more helpful category structure is that at Category:Buses in the United Kingdom, the unsorted files are placed in a temporary category, and new files can be dumped in there by the regular maintainers before being sorted properly into the multiple trees. If you are creating a new subtree, you can dump everything back to unsorted, and remove them from there as you go rather temporarily misusing the meta-categories (which should always be empty) as an extra intermediate step. That means 2 edits per file, instead of 3 edits per file. And when you are done, you don't have anything in the maintenance category.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It might surprise you to learn then that I'm the primary creator behind the Category:Buses in the United Kingdom tree as it is today. It has no 'all files' tree, and that's pretty much what puts me off trying to figure out what searches I would need to fully cross check all images (it's been on my 'to do' list forever). I've had a stab at it, but I always seem to miss some. I created the 'unsorted' cat primarily as a convenience for non-subject knowledgable editors, but it actually also helps me catch most uncatted images anyway - I simply check for images in one branch but not another, and also not unsorted. That generally catches most new cases, but I'm sure it won't catch all. For postboxes though, I see no need for an unsorted cat, as pretty much anyone should be able to determine the branches from a simple visual inspection (maybe not postcode). The so what bit though, is that without the all files cat, and in the absence of an 'unsorted' one, I am pretty sure it requires 2*X searches to fully cross-check, where X is the number of branches. With an all files cat, I'm pretty sure it's only X+1, where the '1' is the one to verify 'all files' has all files, first, then X searches to verify each branch against it. If you actually know of the way to craft the search so that in one click it can verify that a postbox has all the right branches, I'm all ears, and if it works, I'll bin this cat myself. I've never used AWB, I'm not a fan of embedded tools. The only thing I would do with a functionality that can put all files in one branch into a single cat, is to seed a new branch! Ultra7 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the technical discussion might better belong elsewhere (eg your/my talk). The big advantage of using a tool like AWB is you can get it running and do other stuff that needs human intelligence. It also stops you flooding watchlists (reason I noticed this was the hundreds of edits on mine. Incidentally AWB is not "embedded" as its a separate program, the embedded tools are HotCat and Cat-a-Lot ;)
With regards to the 2X vs X+1 comment what exactly are you trying to do? Is it to determine if all postbox images are in all the trees, and if not which files need additional categories?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
In a word, yes. Ultra7 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
With the current set up of Catscan2, its possible to get it down to 2 queries, with a 3rd step to process. 1. Scan the whole tree for the current, full list . 2. Scan for the files in all of the categories (example uses location, colour, and type, so X=3). 3. Subtract the 2nd list from the first. The all files category doesn't speed things, while a category of "all fully categorised images" would remove the need for more complex step 3. That's 3 steps regardless of what X is. The subtraction can be avoided by carrying out X queries, in this case [2], [3] and [4]. (Adjust the namespace from article to file on all these queries). For what its worth, there's 389 files at present - see this gallery.
It ought to be possible to tweak Catscan to allow a single step process, basically what's needed is to provide "combination" settings on both the positive and negative cats. I've asked Magnus if this is feasible.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The first method is a non-starter as far as being a quick and easy maintenance job, but the second method is better than anything I've used before, or at least as easy as using an all files cat, so in that case I drop my insistence on needing an all files cat. I was unaware that you could do that type of search involving examining one level and a subordinate level within it (the biggest issue in all this is the complete lack of an instruction manual for catscan, meaning you just have to experiment). Therefore, if nobody else thinks the cat is worthwhile for just looking for images, then it can go (I still do, but am not going to go into battle about it). Good luck with Magnus, but in my experience he just ignores such request (not that he is obliged to answer). Although of course, if there were combination settings available, then if you had an all files cat, then the task would require just a single scan, however many branches - one click to list all the images that have at least one cat in the branches but doesn't have 'all files'. Then you just go through that list adding all files, and any of the other missing branches, to each image. Ultra7 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The all files category does not make it any simpler, in fact it is guaranteed to add one step (the refresh to ensure its up to date). Its just as easy to compare against the entire tree, than against a single category with the content of the tree. That only fails if there's loops involved or irrelevant daughter categories which slow things right down. For instance, Category:United States is a subcat of Category:United Kingdom. I agree a usable manual for Catscan would do the world of good, I might have a stab at such a thing here. And I might get a useful response from Magnus, you never know...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I generally agree with user:Rodhullandemu that such categories are a nightmare for maintenance and consistency. Moreover, we have no single tool that helps in even detecting inconsistencies, let alone correction. I find that many of the "xxx by name" categories are superfluous, but that is another way of making (flat list) or (all file) categories, bypassing the trees that are too deep while avoiding the overcat fundamendalists.

I do however understand that our current system is not adequate for many searches, especially visual searches (we need media, don't we) when one searches for example a superfluous model, detail, angle, setting, light angle, color of background, .... In such cases, we need categories with many images to allow for efficient visual inspection. Basically, many deeper categorisations into fine administrative levels of the country don't make sense most of the time; larger categories are often handier. We might end up having a post box category per hamlet or per street.

Wikimedia don't seem to take care about even the basic bugs (for example search bugs and unpredictability), let alone "luxury" features. Catscan can help a bit (especially its image display but unfortunately without the related categories), but its server is unreliable and it aborts at 1000 images. Catscan2 is slow and difficult to operate, has equally a unreliable server, and as far I can see, it results in file names. To see one file, one has to open and close a window/tab, so useless for visual inspection. None of those tools are really production quality and availability. So one can hardly blame someone to try to find ways to improve the visual search. I guess that wikipedia software (and the Commons administrators not to shout enough) should be blamed in the first place; after all, I think that with a number of minor extensions in category display, many problems could be solved. --Foroa (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a couple of villages in there. Plus the obligatory 'in Leeds' cat, suitably subdivided in ways not replicated further up. Ultra7 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Personally I stop by-location categorisation at the county or major city level, as I think that is the finest level I think has any realistic purpose. At that level I'd switch to finer categorisation by sub-topic. So I'd split "Fields in Devon" into "Wheat fields in Devon", not "Fields in Mid Devon". Providing more precise location categories (down to village level or below) is sensible, but intersecting with the topic is overkill.
Re Foroa - I assume you mean the Foundation not Wikimedia, as having lack of responsiveness to improving end experience? A clunky work-around to make useful output from a Catscan2 query is to use Wiki markup, and create a page with those links. The problem is that tool, like most, is designed with text in mind (easier to code), when its clear to us that the media capability is critical.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete - as per nomination S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Which specific part? The part that alleges a breach of OVERCAT (simply false, it being a parallel category), the part that says it's not helpful in finding images (false, unless my opinion, and specific use for doing just that many times in the last few days to both categorise images and create new categories like Category:Royal Mail drop boxes which would never had been made if I had to wade through what he claims is the only category branch needed, is irrelevant), the part that claims people wouldn't look through 2,000+ images (see previous), the part that calls it "unnecessary gloss" (whatever that was supposed to mean), or the bit that claims it leads to maintenance and resources issues (the maintenance issue apparently being that people have to ensure images are properly categoried!?!?, and the resources issue apparently being that he is the person who is forced to do that). Ultra7 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
All parts (otherwise I would have said so) S a g a C i t y (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Consensus appears to be in favor of deleting the category. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:1980 in tram transport in Italy[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Pine martens in heraldry[edit]

Wrong Name. The contents of this category should be moved into Weasels in Heraldry. Kiltpin (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  • This discussion and the one for Beech Martens should be combined.
  • I have made all the arguments on the Beech Martem discussion page [[5]]
  • The contents of both categories should be moved into the category Weasels in Heraldry [[6]] - because, that's what they are. Kiltpin (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Bus cockpits in Poland[edit]

This category has no encyclopedic value. It is pure spam. This category collects a random mixture of bus cockpits of many different buses from Europe that stopped in Poland, get their cockpits photographed and Heureka we have this superfluous category. It makes no sense to categorize photographs of bus cockpits like this. If there is a certain need for this, please create "Bus cockpits of polish buses" or so - that would make more sense 91.57.90.123 13:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Tri-axle buses by country[edit]

This category has no encyclopedic value. Categorizing buses according to their number of axles by country is nonsense.Really no value for any encyclpoedia 91.57.90.123 13:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Jingu Qiguan[edit]

The right Category is Jingu qiguan Gerd Leibrock (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Jingu qiguan. --rimshottalk 20:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Nanjing under the Six Dynastyies[edit]

wrong name. typo. MtBell (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Billion coins[edit]

the name of the alloy is "Billon", not "Billion" [7], so name should be Category:Billon coins Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • That's right. My fault. --Carlomorino (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Bicyles in Hanover[edit]

Delete - wrong name (bicyles instead bicycles) and empty Traumrune (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Fonds-de-Gras train station[edit]

Misspelled. Correct category exists as Category:Fond-de-Gras train station Jwh (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:39, 13 October 2012 (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:Stockphoto gadget[edit]

wxxxxwww@@ 197.30.47.212 22:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


1025: Object error. Can't guess sense error. -- Rillke(q?) 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:One Mile Beach, New South Wales[edit]

Cat should be moved to Category:One Mile, New South Wales. One Mile Beach is a single beach in the suburb en:One Mile, New South Wales. AussieLegend (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems this has now been done. The discussion can be closed. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Ancient Roman mosaics from Greece[edit]

bad name of this category Raoli ✉ (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the categories should be made consistent. -- (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Bird wings in heraldry[edit]

Redundant title, should be combined with 'wings in heraldry'. Kiltpin (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The title is redundant. Indeed. I agree totally with User:Kiltpin, it should be combined with 'wings in heraldry'

--Gustaw Korwin-Szwedowski (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Tandem rotor helicopters[edit]

This is a typo of Category:Tandem-rotor helicopters (for which I am responsible). I apologize for the disturbance. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Tandem rotors[edit]

Has been moved to Category:Tandem-rotor helicopters. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Tandem-rotor helicopters. --rimshottalk 20:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Multistoried buildings[edit]

I don't think this category is useful for anything. At them moment it's basically a synonym for Category:High-rises, but in any case covers a huge range of buildings, so you may as well just use Category:Buildings to find them. ghouston (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Monuments in Cassano Magnago[edit]

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Strategy video game[edit]

this cat need to be deleted, I did a mistake cause I wanted to create Category:Strategy video games‎. W like wiki (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Simulation video game[edit]

this cat need to be deleted, I did a mistake cause I wanted to create Category:Simulation video games‎. W like wiki (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Nationstates[edit]

Sorry, I did a mistake again. The name should be Category:NationStates (like en:NationStates). THX!!! W like wiki (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 04:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:The Urantia Book[edit]

I created this category not realizing a category already already existed. I would like this category and all its contents (all uploaded by myself, and now made obsolete by one, alternate file) to be deleted. Thank you kindly, and I hope somebody doesn't have to press the delete button 200 times. Xaxafrad (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Poof.-FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, duplicate of Category:Urantia. --rimshottalk 20:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikimedia takes American in San Antonio photos[edit]

Typo in the name. TParis (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted author request over IRC. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Bridge at Nimreh[edit]

Category stands empty after its only file was deleted Rrburke (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Category can be deleted. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Free churches in the United Kingdom[edit]

I created this category, and its sub-categories for England, Scotland and Oxfordshire, by mistake. I therefore nominate them for deletion. There were already well-stocked "Evangelical and Free churches" categories for East Sussex, West Sussex and Kent, so I have added "Evangelical and Free churches" categories for Oxfordshire, England, Scotland and the UK. Motacilla (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 20:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Salt evaporations ponds of the United States[edit]

Name should be "Salt evaporation ponds of the United States" (no "s" after evap) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, yes. That was my fault. I think this can be treated as an uncontroversial case that could be requested immediately at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Stemonitis (talk)

Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Church of Holy Trinity (Žodziški)[edit]

Wrong name. Moved to Category:Church of the Holy Trinity (Žodziški) Renessaince (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Jan Lewicki[edit]

Delete this category. Jan Lewicki is identical with Jan Nepomucen Lewicki (same birth and death dates) Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Jan Nepomucen Lewicki. --rimshottalk 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Zacatecanos[edit]

Redundant to Category:People of Zacatecas W like wiki (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:People of Zacatecas. --rimshottalk 20:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Josef Brandt[edit]

This category is a superfluous duplicate of "Józef Brandt" and should be deleted. Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Joseph Brandt is the Anglicized form of the Polish name Józef Brandt. I changed 'Category:Joseph Brandt' to a redirect page. Hiart (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Pittsburgh Steelers images[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Pittsburgh Steelers, because on Commons we don't use "images" in categories GrapedApe (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure? --rimshottalk 20:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, duplicate. --rimshottalk 19:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Dutch paintings in Stockholm[edit]

Empty category, to be deleted Szilas (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks[edit]

Rename to "2012 anti-American protests" Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Demonstrations and protests relating to Innocence of Muslims (video). --rimshottalk 20:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Innocence of muslims[edit]

Rename to "Innocence of Muslims" Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The category has already been renamed to Category:Innocence of Muslims (video). Senator2029 18:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Innocence of Muslims (video). --rimshottalk 20:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Sakramentshäuschen[edit]

to delete, see Category:Tabernacles, redundant category GFreihalter (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Category:Wall-reflective No. 5[edit]

שגיאה טכנית. תודה יעל י (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Wall-reflective No. 5. --rimshottalk 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Architecture in Hayward, California[edit]

empty category, will add "buildings in hayward" shortly Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Heraldry SVG elements[edit]

This category is completely redundant to Category:SVG coat of arms elements. There is no discernible sense to differentiate, see also this talk (there is no feedback on the page of the creator) Perhelion (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We must know what is the differnce between w:heraldry and w:coats of arms: "Heraldry is the profession, study, or art of creating, granting, and blazoning coats of arms". There can't be a heraldry graphical element and there is also not such category, but there is logically be Category:Coat of arms elements‎. This include all subcategories from the same one man creator. It would be the same thing if we categorize "SVG fish elements" under "Fishing SVG elements" or "SVG cake elements" under "Baking SVG elements". -- πϵρήλιο 14:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I emptied the sub-categories and merged its contents with “Category:SVG coat of arms elements” so that an immediate deletion of “Category:Heraldry SVG elements” is feasible and recommended. --Kölner sprinter farbig.svg maxxl2 - talk 21:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


Merged to Category:SVG coat of arms elements. --rimshottalk 07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:Doors in the Tyrol[edit]

Rename into Category:Doors in Tyrol Anna reg (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Doors in Tyrol. --rimshottalk 22:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:NATO Medal (United States)[edit]

useless category, the united states wear the "standart" ribbon of NATO who can be found here: Category:Ribbon bars of NATO Flor!an (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:Feldbahnloren[edit]

Should be translated into English. What is the correct English word for Feldbahnloren? 188.104.111.21 10:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find one. That's the main reason for me to create it under the german term. Obviously there's no need for this type of railway cars to distinguish from others in English or American, but obviously there's a need to distinguish them here on Commons. Creating a new term would be Original Research. Just my 2 cents.--Markscheider (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Ich sehe auch keinen Grund für eine Übersetzung. Commons ist ein mehrsprachiges Repositorium für Bilder und andere Dateien. Da muss auch der geneigte Angelsachse es mal aushalten können, dass eine Kategorie nicht in seiner Muttersprache erscheint. --Mogelzahn (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Wobei das für mich nicht an erster Stelle stand. Aber es kommt natürlich verstärkend hinzu. --Markscheider (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking at English Wikipedia, the English term for Feldbahn is en:Feldbahn. The English term for Lore is lorry, but this doesn't seem to be a perfect match. I'm a proponent of using English category wherever possible, but this appears to be a case of "For some themes, there exists no identical or usable English term", so keep the existing name. --rimshottalk 07:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Feldbahnloren = Category:Mining carts ?! --Coalisi (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

NOPE. --Markscheider (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Kept, as a better English name hasn't been found. --rimshottalk 00:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:San Francisco Bay Area scenes[edit]

i dont see "scenes" used elsewhere on WC. can easily be upmerged, or changed to "Category:Aerial photographs of the San Francisco Bay Area" Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, might need a split in Category:Panoramics in the San Francisco Bay Area for panoramics. --Foroa (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I will create both.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I have created both.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I had long ago placed each of these images in at least one other SFBA related category. There is absolutely no reason for this category to remain, we just have to wait for an admin to review the backlog of discussions.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
When it is empty (and properly diffused), I can delete it. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I have double checked the diffusion (i did miss some last time, or new images were added), added the images to more categories, and now its empty. thanks for the guidelines.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted, empty after diffusion. --rimshottalk 22:53, 6 April 2013 (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:Migrant Mother by Dorothea Lange[edit]

AFAIKS there is no relationship to the 'Category:Graflex cameras' Frank Gosebruch (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a reason for listing the category here. As to the Graflex, who added it to the cat? Perhaps there should be a category "Taken with Graflex cameras?" -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do. Yann (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Closing with the removal of one category Category:Engines by cylinder layout, otherwise the categories as they were are reasonable enough.--KTo288 (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Napier Deltic[edit]

Challenged parent categories Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Napier Deltic engine is, amongst those who follow such things, a well known and unusual diesel engine. It began as a naval ship engine, but is best known for its long service powering the British Rail 'Deltic' locomotive.

User:MB-one evidently disagrees, and five times now has removed the parent categories. Despite one past agreement to leave them alone in the future. See

Their point appears to be that categorizing each image as a "locomotive engine" would be acceptable for individual images, provided that we had WP:RS attesting that the specific engine in each photo had been used for locomotive purposes. However as the engine type overall was used for both purposes, ships and trains, it is evidently impossible to now categorize the engine category under either.

This is of course a nonsense. Such an interpretation would make the entire MediaWiki categorization system impossible. As a similar example, the Soviet Zvezda M503 engine, developed for much the same naval purpose, has since been used in a German tractor pulling rig. Does this mean that neither engine, nor any other engine similarly useful for more than one purpose, can ever be categorized here? Of course not!

It is a simple mistake to see MediaWiki's categorization as being restricted to being a simply-branched tree. MediaWiki imposes no such limitation. If parallel inheritance is appropriate, such as usage for two purposes, then we can and should reflect that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I simply disagree. An engine is a locomotive engine, as long as it is used in a locomotive. An engine used to power a vessel isn't a locomotive engine. It wouldn't make anything impossible, if we stick to this principle. Maybe we can agree to create a new category Multi purpose diesel engines? But we have also another issue: the overcategorization (Opposed piston vs. Engines by cylinder layout). --MB-one (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, the "Napier Deltic" is not "an engine" in the way that Old Bess is an engine. It is a class of engines, not one, specific, named instance of an engine. It is perfectly likely that a class of engines can be simultaneously both locomotive and marine engines.
Secondly, you are assuming that MediaWiki categorization, and its use at Commons, is ontologically defining. It isn't - it's not powerful or capable enough to do so. Commons categorization exists as a navigational and resource management convenience. Categorizing resources into a category is for the benefit primarily of the category, not for the resource. It creates a category structure that has some useful ability for navigation, across resources that are "of interest" to the scope of that category. It certainly doesn't attempt to make a defining is-a statement about a resource.
As to the layouts, then there are two aspects to the unique layout of the Deltic: firstly it's opposed piston, secondly it's a delta layout. Both of these are worth recording, and recording through categorization. They are worth recording specifically and, if necessary, separately (we have no category for opposed piston delta or box engines, nor do we require one). The artefact that one of these categories happens to have been instanced on Commons as a subcategory is utterly trivial. The two category memberships for the engine category have separate functional relationships to that engine, and should be preserved as such. COM:OVERCAT is a reasonable principle in general, but it frequently falls down over details. A slavish conformance with such a policy, and a dogmatic refusal to consider the precise details of a situation, is one of the most locally common of Emerson's "hobgoblins of little minds". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete both as WP:OVERCAT and WP:POINTY edit-warring, in support of the issue above. We have very few Deltic images. We have no images that show the (few) clear distinctions between their railway and marine applications. The only purpose of these two sub-categories was to be POINTY about the categorization of the main cat and to split the images apart to make it even more difficult for readers to navigate. To quote a relevant comment from their talk page, made about a quite different category, "your hypercorrections are not helpful to our users". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
As I doubt there will be consensus I made the alterations I think should apply, I added the 3 classes of locomotive (are there any more?) that use these engines to Category:Napier Deltic in railway applications‎, I removed Napier Deltic from the class 55 cat as the locomotive now is in the engine cat, I removed Category:Diesel locomotive engines and Category:Marine diesel engines from the parent cat as they are now served by the subcats. I would not have personally have found it necessary to create the subcats but neither are they so bad that they deserve deletion. I do however agree that on the whole the categories can't always be so precise and that a fair amount of flexibility is often needed for the category system to work Oxyman (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Oxyman. --MB-one (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Beit Ben Zvi[edit]

שם הקטגוריה היה שגוי - אין "בית בן צבי" אלא "יד בן צבי" - מוסד מחקר ולימודים בשכןנת רחביה בירושלים יעל י (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

יד בן צבי שוכן בכמה מבנין: בית הפועלות, שני הצריפים השוודים ובית ואלרו (בית בן צבי). Deror avi (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

גם אם לבית שבו התגוררו בני הזוג בן-צבי קוראים בשם זה כיום - הרי שהקטגוריה אינה אמורה לכלול את הצריף למשל. מה דעתך? יעל י (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

מקווה שראית את Category:Yad Ben Zvi :) יעל י (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this done? --rimshottalk 22:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Closed, assumedly done. --rimshottalk 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Dauginava[edit]

Empty; Category:Daŭhinaŭ already exists Renessaince (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Daŭhinaŭ. --rimshottalk 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:André Marcel Baschet[edit]

It is proposed that the category be renamed to Category:Marcel Baschet. Looking at the result of this Google Book search it is clear that the artist is usually referred to by the short name. According to Grove, the full name is in fact Marcel-André Baschet, i.e. opposite order and hyphenated, but we should go by the common, short form. --Favonian (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support - I agree entirely - he's much more usually called "Marcel" than "Marcel-André" or "André-Marcel", and the BNF (which is my prefered Authority basis agrees with it :) ---Hsarrazin (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support - Tout à fait, il est connu sous le nom de Marcel Baschet. François GOGLINS (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC).

Moved to Category:Marcel Baschet. --rimshottalk 20:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Stevenage Borough F.C.[edit]

Should be retitled "Category:Stevenage F.C.", as the club was renamed to this two years ago, per this. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved to Category:Stevenage F.C.. --rimshottalk 20:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Players of Stevenage Borough FC[edit]

Should be retitled "Category:Players of Stevenage F.C.", as the club was renamed to this two years ago, per this. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Commons naming convention, it should be Category:Players of Stevenage F.C.. --Foroa (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Any chance of this move going ahead, this nom was made September last year...? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Players of Stevenage F.C.. --rimshottalk 20:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Billeté[edit]

Shouldn't this category be called Billety. That is to say, in English, rather than in French? Kiltpin (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This, of course goes for all the sub-categories as well. Kiltpin (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
They are equivalent designations in British heraldry. You have many instances where the French word (or even a Gallicism of something English) is used in British heraldry. Seems to be more a matter of taste of the author. --- Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't really think that works. The reference comes from a book written in "MDCCXLVII". Which means 1747. The book was donated to the library in 1914. I think we and heraldry have moved on a bit since then. If nothing else, there is no "é" on the majority of English keyboards. Kiltpin (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
From a 1910 book. Do you ever look up something for yourself? Is it that difficult to do some minimal research before putting every category you stumble upon for discussion?--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
So 110 years old then. Do we have a convention that category titles should be written in English? Yes or no? If yes, then I don't need to do any research, minimal or otherwise. If no, then I don't need to do any research for the same reason. My second point about the lack of an "é" is still equally valid. I was going to say something about your 'stumbling' comment, but instead I am going to assume good faith. Kiltpin (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • First, we aren't yet in 2020 (and by the looks of it, I wonder if we will ever be).
  • Second, heraldry hasn't changed almost nothing in those last 100 years, to the point that many of the current treaties we use here as guidance are reprints from late 19th and early 20th century works.
  • Third in case you have not yet understood by both links above, both billety and billeté are used in British heraldry.
  • Fourth, if you really insist, then go for it and change the name to billety, I don't really care. Billety seems to be more commonly used, anyway, even if both are valid designations.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It was a reasonable issue to have raised, but I tend to agree with Darwin, authorities on heraldry tend to use both versions, as with so many heraldic terms. I think we just have to live with unco-ordinated terminology. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC))

Kept and a redirect created from Category:Billety, so that it can be found by both names. --rimshottalk 14:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Characters in the Mahābhārata[edit]

Move to Characters in the Mahabharata, to be consistent with parent category Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Redirected to Category:Characters in the Mahabharata. --rimshottalk 13:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Images by Dr Neil Clifton[edit]

Near-duplicate of Category:Photographs by Dr Neil Clifton‎ Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if this could be left for Faebot to do its thing and finish identifying all current matching images, I would be happy to merge the categories at the end of this week (when I can get back to my desktop after travelling) and ensure that any future runs take this into account. I tend to use "images by" rather than "photographs by", but if there is a reasonable rationale to stick to "photographs by" then I'll happily tell Faebot to use that as the preferred category in this case. Thanks -- (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If there's clear precedent for one over the other, then I don't much mind either way. Personally I use both for my own images, because I have photos and also many non-photos.
Wouldn't it be easier to stop Faebot though, decide on the target quickly and then re-start it? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Not just at the moment. I can merge very easily but I'm not back at my desktop to sort this out until Thursday night. Faebot has actually done its job now and will not be touching this category, so someone else could merge, but it honestly makes more sense to let it stand for a couple of days and I'll get onto it and tweak the bot to ensure this duplication does not happen again. Cheers -- (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge both into Category:Files by Dr Neil Clifton. Don't see the need for both categories. russavia (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you think it would be worth me moving the other Geograph user categories over to using the generic "Files by ..."? This is at least easy for the remaining categories yet to be created and I *could* harmonize the backlog in the longer term. -- (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with "Files by ", "Images by " and "Photographs by ", as appropriate. Some contributors might have all three. I would somewhat favour using the most specific.
We shouldn't label sound or video as "images". If we can't tell themn apart, then "Files by " is the best we can do. However technical media types ought to give us "Images" at least.
"Photographs" is harder, as there's no simple technical way. However those from Geograph or photo archives (and they're the bulk of our issue here) are clearly photographs. We could use that categorisation based on source, or a bland "Images" if we're re-categorising Commons upload that are otherwise indistinguishable. Personally I have "Photographs", "Book scans" and "Drawings", but it's probably impractical to ever select between those automatically.
My only concern with this specific group is that it's splitting "Geograph content by Dr Neil Clifton" on a randomly arbitrary basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Based on the discussion so far, I suggest I get Faebot to merge to the original category of Photographs. Thanks -- (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Faebot is paused at the moment and this gives me a bit of time to merge the category as suggested (I'm back home from tonight), and review the detail of the long categorization job. If anyone spots any other possible issues with Faebot's contributions over the last week or so, or suggestions for improvement, please do drop a note on my talk page and I'll be only too happy to discuss further and if necessary pause Faebot's Geograph categorization until there is a better consensus. Cheers -- (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, merge is now running and should complete in a few hours day or so. The 'Photographs by' category currently has 10,182 images, so it will be interesting to see if that increases due to previously unidentified Geograph imports. Thanks -- (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done The results are in, 33 previously unidentified images were merged into the original category. Faebot has been tweaked so that Dr Neil Clifton will be avoided on any future run (and I may later tweak it to use the original cat as an exception). Thanks for your patience. -- (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, it should not be hard to differentiate between basic media types (video versus photos versus audio). Though this is not an issue for Geograph categorization (they are all photos), if you have an interesting and specific categorization problem like this, I would be happy to put it on my back-burner to investigate. Cheers -- (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Images by Dr Neil Clifton has been merged to Category:Photographs by Dr Neil Clifton‎ . --rimshottalk 13:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)