Commons:Categories for discussion

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

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

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

Skip to table of contents

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


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


Add {{subst:cfd}} tag:

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

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


Create a subpage of "Categories for discussion" :

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

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


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

  • To make your discussion visible here you have to add the newly created sub-page to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04. The log is sorted by date. Add the following code at the bottom without erasing the existing requests. Remember to save the page.
{{Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category: CATEGORY-NAME }}

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


Notify the creator with {{cdw}} tag:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing a discussion[edit]

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

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

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


Current Requests[edit]

April 2014[edit]

Category:Zeevaartschool, De Ruyterschool[edit]

I created the categor in error. It is a duplicate of Category:Zeevaartschool, Vlissingen. PLease remove it. Thanks --Bardenoki (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Grey's Court (Old Castle)[edit]

This category duplicates Category:Greys Court. It should be either deleted or converted to a redirect page. Motacilla (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms in heraldry[edit]

There is already the Category:Inescutcheons in heraldry whichs contains coats of arms that show a heraldic shield (coa) within. As I understand the condition for a category "... in heraldry", the image has to show the "..." item depicted in a coat of arms anyhow. If I follow the name of the category name here each and every CoA belongs to this category, which can't be true. Since the cat is biting its tail! --Maxxl2 - talk 14:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, is already true what you want to say. We must clean up, respectively rename this category - the german translation "Wappen in Wappen" applies it correctly.--Juergenk59 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
+1: Merge to Inescutcheons in heraldry and delete it, as example for the misinterpreting what Maxxl says File:Coa Genealogy Research Center of St. Louis.svg -- Perhelion (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to change if mayority decide it, I accept aguments exposed. Thanks--Heralder (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:St Leonard's Church, Littleworth[edit]

I created this category in error, having got the dedication of the church wrong. I have now moved all files to the correctly-named category. This file should now be deleted. Motacilla (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Touristic trains of Chambéry[edit]

Je souhaiterais faire supprimer cette catégorie. Je me suis trompé de nom et j'ai donc créé la catégorie "Touristic train of Chambéry" pour remplacer celle-ci. Lev. Anthony (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Natalia Poklonskaya[edit]

Some of the fan images in this category are derivative of the news conference that Poklonskaya became notable/an internet meme for. The conference video is copyrighted, so for images that clearly derive the setting (basically, any of these where she is sitting at a table with microphones in front of her) would be a derivative, copyrighted work. Others of her that are standing or less obvious being from that video should be okay. (This is the video in question [1]) Masem (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I would have to disagree with your statement that these would qualify as derivative works. These images are not based on the exact imagery from the video, but are the artist's own interpretations of the conference itself. The artworks are not traced from the video image or anything else which would suggest derivative work, and each has a unique and different artistic style specific to the artist's own creativity; hence, there is ample threshold of originality so that the copyright of the image belongs to the author of the artwork.

    As an example: Imagine if Barack Obama held a press conference at the Oval Office, and an Associated Press photographer took a picture and published it. An artist can draw Barack Obama at a podium at the Oval Office without the artwork having anything to do with the AP photographer's photograph. You cannot state that an artwork is a derivative work of a commercial image simply because it appears similar to it. If multiple people take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower, and one of them happened to do so on behalf of a commercial entity, does that mean that everyone's Eiffel Tower photographs are derivative works of the commercial entity? No, of course not. The creator of the video is the copyright holder of the video, and not the copyright holder of the press conference. Nobody can "own" the press conference, and Аргументы Недели-Крым (Argumenty Nedeli-Krym) cannot be the exclusive owner of all visual images of the press conference, simply because they were one of many who were present at the conference and took audiovisual imagery (ITAR-TASS was present as well, in addition to other agencies). -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 05:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Some of them are closer to borderline than others. Either way, the category has to be renamed. What we have in the category and what the category's current name implies should be in there are totally different. I propose Category:Fan art of Natalia Poklonskaya. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That category title sounds reasonable, no opposition here. ("Category:Artwork of Natalia Poklonskaya" would probably sound more straight to the point though.) -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 06:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer a category named something like "Artwork/Fan art depicting..." because "Artwork of..." makes it sound like it's her artwork. Dainomite (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the standard naming scheme would be "Natalia Poklonskaya in art". But as long as there isn't anything to fill the parent category, there is no point in creating such a subcategory. darkweasel94 22:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that these images violate anyone's copyrights. I'm not a lawyer, but the en:Derivative_work says, "The transformation, modification or adaption of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright." Since these adaptions portray a animesque fantasy invented by the artists rather than reality itself, I would have to say that these adaptions "bear [their] author[s'] personality" and are thus original. These images aren't photographs modified with Photoshop, and they aren't remixes of video footage; instead, they are drawings created by passionate artists. Heart and soul went into making these. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    There are previous cases that I am going off of. At one point, Susan Boyle (the housewife that rose to popularity on UK's Idol show) was recluse and no free photos of her were obtained. People attempted to create fan art of her appearance on the show as free replacements which was deemed inappropriate and removed as a clear derivative for the show's production, even though it just shows her face, dress, and the microphone it held. A second case is that we lack presently a free image of Kim Jong-il. Someone tried to use well-done graffiti of Jong-il that was painted on a wall of a country with favorable use of freedom of panorama which otherwise would have been free, but that was deleted because the image they used for Jong-il was a clear derivative of a press photo. The key to remember here is that the work being derived from is a network's camerashot of the conference, so things like angle and lighting are the creative elements here. (Yes, it is silly that these could have copyright, but they do, and we have to abide by that) --Masem (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    Nobody can "own" the press conference, and Аргументы Недели-Крым (Argumenty Nedeli-Krym) cannot be the exclusive owner of all visual images of the press conference, simply because they were one of many who were present at the conference and took audiovisual imagery (ITAR-TASS was present as well, in addition to other agencies). Notice the camera flashes during the video? There were at least 3 or 4 Russian media outlets there with still photography cameras. You cannot say that all images with a bunch of microphones placed here and there in front of her are copyrighted by this agency. These images feature objects which appear in different angles, whereas the copyrighted video is filmed only from one angle, which means that these artworks feature artstyles that are specific to the artist's own, and they are made based on their own imagination and creativity. I firmly believe that this is becoming silly copyright paranoia.

    You cannot copyright "the arrangement of a few microphones, a hairstyle, and a uniform". You can copyright still images and moving images, however none of these artworks are specifically and implicitly based on an exact and particular copyrighted work so that they become derivative works. These artworks did not originate from any particular copyrighted image, but instead originated from the idea of the conference which took place, which happened to be filmed and photographed by multiple people working for multiple agencies at that particular time. They share a similar idea, but not identical one, and originality did occur in the formation of these works.

    As an example of what would be undeniably and irrefutably considered a derivative work, this image would be considered a derivative work (pencil sketch based on video footage). This image (warning, NSFW) would be as well (painted artwork based on photographic and video footage), as is this image (a derivative of this meme), and this image (derivative artstyle of the Love Live! television anime series).

    I believe that this sort of paranoia hurts free content as a whole. If people are going to have their artworks unfairly labelled as "derivative works", then why would there be any further incentive for people to release works under a Creative Commons license? These artists granted OTRS permission to use such a license based on their good faith and desire to share, only to be shut down as derivatives with unsubstantial evidence.

    You keep saying that "the few but essential creative elements of the footage, such as lighting and angle" are copyrightable by ANK's video (this is a direct quote from you). Why, then, do you keep ignoring the important point that all of these images have differing lighting and angling to the ANK imagery? ASLE owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, Evan Yang owns the copyright to his angles and lighting, and BonKiru owns the copyright to his angles and lighting. What is with this silly double standard that only ANK's angles and lighting matter, and not the angles and lighting of everybody else? Have you not realised the holes within your reasoning? You can't have your balalaika and play it too. -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

    As I explained on, the ANK video is the one that launched the meme, and that specific angle of her sitting behind the microphones' is clearly ANK's camera and thus the copyright we have to worry about. In the case of File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Evan Yang.jpg unless that artist was there, that image is clearly drawn off ANK's composition of the scene, and thus presents a derivative work problem. It might be completely in the clear, but case law is not strong here, and we know that derivative works are possible copyright infringement and as such, we should not consider that image free, its too far in the borderline for that. In case of File:Natalia Poklonskaya by leaf98k.jpg, this only using visual references but no composition or lighting from the ANK, so it is very difficult to claim derivative copyright on that and as long as the artist has give a free license, that's fine. (Personality rights, perhaps, but that's different) File:Natalia Poklonskaya by 薫.jpg is n iffy case because is clearly a different angle but with elements of the setup, but that's probably reasonably okay. I only think there's 2 or 3 images that are a problem here, not the entire category. --Masem (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It is quite clear and completely undisputable under Wikipedia policy that this is a clear wp:WP:BLP1E, and does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. I suggest therefore that deleting all of these images would be worthwhile. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, I wouldn't contest her notability as it is two-pronged, her position on the government, and the meme. But that's an issue to resolve at And even if the subject isn't notable at, thre's no reason to delete freely given images that are otherwise not derivative work problems. --Masem (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • This isn't the English Wikipedia. Dainomite (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • enwiki has no jurisdiction over ruwiki, jawiki, zhwiki and all the other Wikipedias where the images are used. There is no consensus on the Chinese Wikipedia that matches your opinion, so even if enwiki did decide on WP:BLP1E (which it didn't), the decision would not hold here on Commons. Furthermore, Commons is not Wikipedia (i.e. an encyclopedia), it is a repository of free-license content intended for use on multiple Wikimedia projects. -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 04:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is grotesque and ridicolous. Following this reasoning, every depiction of some notable figure in a press conference is a derivative work (since the press conference will have appeared in copyrighted videos) and thus copyrighted. Such a generic setting and situation can hardly be considered "derivative work". If you want to delete these images, find a better excuse.--Cyclopia (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As I note, not all of these are "clear" derivatives; maybe 2-3 of them really are in the grey zone and the rest are sufficiently novel to not be an issue. The problem is with copyright is that while the conference setting may not seem unique and all, copyright still is applied, and it would be better not to consider these free. The issue that I point out is that there's only been one video of her in that position - compared to say 100s of Obama at the White House press stand - so the video's owner could clearly track down derivative works. Hence it is better to consider these non-free. We're not losing the bulk of the images, still, enough to show the phenomenon of her popularity. --Masem (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is clearly a legal issue. Since it seems there is no evident judgement, the issue must be decided by Commons lawyers, rather than by users who are not even provably paralegals. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I, too, find this ridiculous. I don't understand why the whole category is discussed. Maybe a couple of the pictures were made to look like the original press conference, but I don't think they can qualify as derivatives. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't see how this can be similar to drawing a scene from a TV show as Masem suggested. The original video simply depicted an official event, an event that can't be subject to copyright. It wasn't a stage play, it was a press conference of a state official. There were no decorations or stage costumes that could be subject to copyright protection. The uniform is an official uniform, not a stage costume. The microphones are unoriginal, well below any possible threshold of originality, and they aren't part of a stage decoration or something like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 1. Wikimedia Commons is not hosting for any free-licensed file. According to COM:SCOPE file must be be realistically useful for an educational purpose - the many/most of files (or even all of them) must be deleted - they are not photos, they are en:courtroom sketchs, they are not created by famous/notable photo artist, graphic artist, or painter (notable for own article in wikipedia).
    2. If we will have kept these files nevertheless - they must be moved in separate sub-category "Artwork of (Artwork depicting) Natalia Poklonskaya". The main category Category:Natalia Poklonskaya should be used for real images of person (photography or other non-fan-art images). Alex Spade (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    COM:SCOPE says: "The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"."
    The files certainly provide informative knowledge about what's discussed in the article.
    You seem to imply that we don't need so many files, but how can we decide which ones aren't needed? This is a depository for files to be used on all wikipedias, we can't decide for many editors in many different wikipedias which files they should choose. Some may prefer to use just one, some may prefer to use 10 files at once, some may like this, some that. Having as many files as possible gives them more opportunities to create a good article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    They're notable enough to have significant media coverage. In fact, a handful of these free-license images actually appear over the news, which is one of the multiple reasons why the original artists were contacted for OTRS. Furthermore, these images are used on various Wikipedia projects of different languages, and hence COM:SCOPE is fulfilled. As a parallel, Category:Polandball comics images are used in places such as Wikiversity, which would also fulfill COM:SCOPE. Who decides what is and isn't "educational"? Such an arbitrary word is purely subjective; some people consider the bible to be educational, whilst others disagree—these things are all based on personal values, and you cannot make a Commons procedural argument based on personal values. -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 04:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep There is a legitimate question as to whether any of these files should be here. If we host these files though, the idea of a category to contain them seems entirely approriate, especially as it is being used as a link target by WP.

I would support splitting the category for "Photographs of ..." and "Fanart of ..." though (and I recognise that the definition between the two is likely to raise questions).
As to hosting the files within Commons' scope, then that's not the question at issue here. I would though support keeping them. The Poklonskaya fan phenomenon is WP:Notable in its own right by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A category discussion request isn't a way to get images deleted. 65% of the images in this category are now in mainspace use somewhere, so at least these are automatically ok as far as educational value is concerned. If there are copyright or other concerns, please file them at each image individually, not the category. darkweasel94 22:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Portraits with 2 persons[edit]

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

Category:Group portraits with 3 persons[edit]

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

Category:Roundhouse Park[edit]

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

Category:Three Sisters[edit]

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

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

Category:Rotterdam School of Management[edit]

Empty. Request removal. Timelezz (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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


Die Kategorie Museum am Burghof ist veraltet. Das Museum heißt jetzt Dreiländermuseum Dreiländermuseum (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Weiterleitung erstellen von Category:Museum am Burghof auf Category:Dreiländermuseum. Keinesfalls löschen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Selbst erledigt. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Museum am Burghof was redirected. --rimshottalk 22:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Kurhaus Göggingen[edit]

{{delete}} Jkü (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now moved to Category:Parktheater Göggingen‎. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Agencia Brasil[edit]

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

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per general policy cats should be with english name. There may be another policy to avoid special characters in cat names. --Denniss (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sound from the United States[edit]

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

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

Category:Typographers from the USA[edit]

Didn't noticed the category Typographers from the United States. --Stiegenaufgang (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Typographers_from_the_United_States to prevent other from making the same mistake. --rimshottalk 22:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Weymouth and Melcombe Regis[edit]

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

Category:Descriptions at the Bovington Tank Museum[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Hiking trails in Oregon[edit]

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

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

Category:Remote views of Klal building[edit]

All media has been placed in Category:Clal Center, the correct name for this building. Yoninah (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Category:Old maps of Mons[edit]

Redundant, all images here moved to Category:Old maps of Mons (Hainaut) Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Blankensee[edit]

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

Category:Border crossing of Georgia[edit]

Suggest deletion of this category as replaced with more accurate Category:Border crossings of Georgia slleong (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Geagea (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


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

Category:Mascaron Corbels at the Prinzenbau Stuttgart[edit]

Should be deleted, replaced by Category:Fratzenköpfe am Prinzenbau Stuttgart, es gibt Fratzenköpfe nicht nur an den Schlusssteinen (corbels), sondern auch an Konsolen Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Satellite images of the Great Lakes[edit]

Created in error. Replaced by Category:Satellite pictures of the Great Lakes. Please see Commons:Help desk thread - here. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wild animals[edit]

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

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

Category:Textures (computer graphics)[edit]

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

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

Category:Bishopbourne, Tasmania[edit]

incorrect naming - correct name is Bishopsbourne. Peripitus (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bridges of the United Kingdom by type[edit]

I created this category in error; please consider it for deletion. Motacilla (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Category:Order of Brazil[edit]

  • This category and the 19 files tagged with it is an incorrect description of those files. They all seem to be part of an alternate design by Felipe Menegaz (talk · contribs) for the Wikproject Brazil page, being tested in his user space.
  • Additionally, the 10 files whose names start with "Order of Brazil" are parts of that new page design, and no longer related to their file names. They were originally images that appear relevant to those names, and uploaded by that user, but were overwritten by that user with the irrelevant ones.
  • The user has been inactive for six months. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:California communities with Hispanic majority populations[edit]

Not a good category idea, as this will change over time, and of course, at one time ALL of California was Hispanic majority. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been five years since I created the category and I have no idea why I did it. It has some relation to w:List of California communities with Hispanic majority populations. Evrik (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Its a good idea on the face of it. I think the solution on Wikipedia is to have such places in a list, so they can be added/removed easily. I didnt notice any flaws in it until the categories were discussed at wp.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, out of scope, per Mercurywoodrose, such information is better kept in a list at Wikipedia. Also, there is no corresponding system for the rest of the United States in Category:Hispanic people in the United States, probably for good reason. --rimshottalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Edifício na Avenida 5 de Outubro[edit]

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

Category:Restaurants and pubs to Josef Švejk[edit]

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

Category:Photographs of Cavinti, Laguna by Ramon Velasquez[edit]

Delete category as redundant. It was a temporary category for sorting out images, all done now. P 1 9 9   21:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photographs of Carmona, Cavite by Ramon Velasquez[edit]

Delete category as redundant. It was a temporary category for sorting out images, all done now, so no longer needed. -- P 1 9 9   21:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Jewish community of Thessaloniki[edit]

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

Category:Tram routes by number[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Kirchweyher Bahnhof[edit]

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

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

Category:St. Nicolaikirche Elstorf[edit]

Duplicate of Category:St. Nicolaikirche (Elstorf) Aeroid (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:St. Nicolaikirche (Elstorf). --rimshottalk 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Postmarks uncategorised by city[edit]

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

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

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

Category:National Anthem of Pakistan[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess I'm heading towards

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

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

Category:Category:Spoken Wikipedia - English - summary videos[edit]

I was confused - this probably is not part of Spoken Wikipedia which is its own thing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Spoken Wikipedia - English - summary videos, but I guess this doesn't change the reason for the nomination. --rimshottalk 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Völkischer Beobachter[edit]

Based on my reading of the Hirtle chart, images of these paper would have had to be PD in Germany by 1996 to be PD in the US (otherwise it is 95 years from publication). As Germany has a life+70 general term, it is very doubtful anything from this paper will be PD in Germany in 1996, and thus not PD here. Masem (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This article refers. It appears that the copyright of Völkischer Beobachter is held by the Bavarian Finance Ministry, who own the copyright on works by its publisher Eher-Verlag, and who do defend their copyright vigorously: "The ministry owns the copyright to publications by the Nazi publishing house Eher-Verlag, which include National Socialist newspapers such as the Völkischer Beobachter and Der Angriff as well as "Mein Kampf," and has refused to allow reproduction of the titles. It justifies its decision by arguing that straightforward reprints without critical remarks could be used by neo-Nazis for propaganda purposes. Germany's influential Central Council of Jews has also condemned the republication of the Nazi papers by Zeitungszeugen." Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sultanate Oman caves[edit]

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

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

Category:Caves of Palastine[edit]

Spelling. "Palestine" has an "e" after the "l". Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, how to modify?--Ashashyou (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wiener Neustadt island[edit]

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

Category:Jewish ceremonial hall in Łomża[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Cities in British Columbia[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Category:Luster terminals[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The contention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The adjective "Universal is defined asː-

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

The adjective "Outboard" is defined asː-

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

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

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

and Lüsterklemm 050.jpg

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

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

Spring clamp connectors (such as Wago terminals type 224)

and many others.

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

To sum up the aboveː-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Kiesa Ellestad[edit]

Category was renamed to "Kiesza" (proper stage name of performer). Rob (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As this is her real name, it should be kept as a redirect. --rimshottalk 19:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Parc attractif Reine Fabiola[edit]

empty category Dinosaur918 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, still empty. --rimshottalk 21:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Evangelische St. Ulrich Kirche Augsburg[edit]

replaced by Category:St. Ulrich (Augsburg) which follows the standard naming scheme Neitram (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hjørring-Hørby Jernbane[edit]

To be deleted - replaced by Hørbybanen Beethoven9 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hjørring-Løkken-Aabybro Jernbane[edit]

To be deleted - replaced by Løkkenbanen Beethoven9 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


To be deleted - replaced by Løkkenbanen Beethoven9 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary architects[edit]

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

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


If the English name for "Porticus" is "Portico", as claimed at the top, we have two problems. : (1) COM:CAT says that category names for common topics should be in English, not Latin or whatever "Porticus" is. (2) We already have a Category:Porticos, so this basically needs to have its contents moved over there, and then we should delete this category. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree, this should be:
Rename Category:Porticus to Category:Porticos (35 entries moved, 59 to go)
Rename Category:Porticus in Chile‎ to Category:Porticos in Chile‎ (0 entries moved, 15 to go)
Rename Category:Porticus in France‎ to Category:Porticos in France‎ (0 entries moved, 2 to go)
Rename Category:Porticus in Paris‎ to Category:Porticos in Paris‎ (0 entries moved, 20 to go)
Rename Category:Porticus in Germany‎ to Category:Porticos in Germany‎ (0 entries moved, 40 to go)
Rename Category:Porticus in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to Category:Porticos in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (0 entries moved, 8 to go)
Rename Category:Porticus in Ireland to Category:Porticos in Ireland (0 entries moved, 12 to go)
Rename Category:Porticus in Russia to Category:Porticos in Russia (0 entries moved, 24 to go)
Rename Category:Ancient Roman porticus to Category:Ancient Roman porticos (0 entries moved, 1 to go)
Rename Category:Ancient Roman porticus in Ostia Antica‎ to Category:Ancient Roman porticos in Ostia Antica‎ (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
--rimshottalk 21:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Adrenaline Man[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable 4ing (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't need to be notable, but I remember a number of images and categories concerning this editor being deleted as promotional some months ago. I'll try to dig that out. Meanwhile, there's an issue as to whether images of the uploader claiming "own work" are properly licensed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Same issues as previous discussion Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bridge over the Lech in Schongau[edit]

Please delete. In fact, there are two bridges over The Lech in Schongau, which now have their own category ("Road bridge ..." and "Railway bridge ...") Karl432 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Files from Blendo Games[edit]

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

Redundant to Category:Atom Zombie Smasher‎ and Category:Flotilla (video game)‎. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

How so? Source categories are not the same than topical categories. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Yeah, I botched this one. That wasn't what I wanted to do at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem :) Thanks for fixing it! Jean-Fred (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


A SoundScape is something completely different, see the English Wikipedia article. This is a misnomer that ought to be renamed, perhaps to "Category:Tower of David SoundScape exhibition" or similar but I can't think of an appropriate alternative right now. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this even covered by FOP? I imagine it was not permanently situated there, but only for the duration of the exhibition. --rimshottalk 23:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


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

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

February 2014[edit]


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

Category:Fisher Bastion (Budapest)[edit]

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

Category:Street musicians in Kenosha[edit]

Nominating for deletion. Empty and unlikely category: Only file was File:Bristol Faire Harpist.JPG, which was was in Bristol (Kenosha County), not the city of Kenosha. Closeapple (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection against deletion of this one file category. (I had created some categories of this sort when I learned that a category should contains a substantial amount of files or should be likely that the category will grow quickly. Those cats can also by deleted.) --Elgewen (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I see why you thought it was in the city: I found 3 or 4 other files labeling the Bristol fair as "Kenosha" also. It turns out that the Faire's address is Kenosha for post office purposes. (For anyone who cares: Legally, it's actually in the formerly-unincorporated town of Bristol (rural/no municipality), which was annexed by village of Bristol (newly-created municipality) in 2010. And just to drive everyone crazy, somehow the Faire managed to run its phone line over the state border: +1 847-395-xxxx is an Antioch, Illinois phone number.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Chris Clemons[edit]

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

Category:Official social partners of politicians[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Spouses of politicians[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Women in Ancient Greece[edit]

Contrast Category:Ancient Greek women. One of these needs to merge into the other, but not sure which one. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I would keep distinct the two categories, and not to join them. One thing are the "Women in ancient Greece"; another are the "ancient Greek Women". In the first one I would put artistic representations of anonymous women in daily life or mythology (see e.g. Category:Women in ancient Greek pottery); in the second one I would put sub-categories of female personalities and famous women of ancient Greece (for example, Sappho, Arsinoe, Cleopatra, etc..). But it is important that on the top of the two categories it is explained this distinction to not create misunderstanding and confusion; or that a see also is put there. --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Art in Greece[edit]

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

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

Category:The Alamodome[edit]

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

Category:Generic Venn diagrams[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikimedia Deutschland office in Frankfurt[edit]

Delete, replaced by Category:Wikimedia Deutschland office in Frankfurt Bolongarostraße Denis Barthel (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ranij ki Baori, Bundi[edit]

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

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

Category:Greek revival churches in Mississippi[edit]

Needs to be moved to Category:Greek Revival churches in Mississippi. The parent is Category:Greek Revival churches in the United States, and all other state-level categories are "Greek Revival churches in [state]". The {{Us states}} template used in some other categories, e.g. Category:Greek Revival churches in Washington, D.C., doesn't notice the Mississippi category because of its different capitalisation. Nyttend (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend. Emw (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Meta categories by country[edit]

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

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

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

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

Category:Peaks in Oregon[edit]

This seems redundant and unneeded. I think Commons is better off with Category:Mountains of Oregon and Category:Volcanoes of Oregon, and there are already redundancies with those. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Described as racist[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Political parties in the Russian Empire[edit]

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

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

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


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

  • It's too much pictures in this category, with different names. Subcategories was created for more simple search. Please don't tuch! --Arachno T 06:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aerial photography of Oregon[edit]

I created this category, but did not notice the existing naming convention, or that Category:Aerial photographs of Oregon already existed. Thanks @Jsayre for pointing this out! Pete F (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted in favor of the existing category. --rimshottalk 21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified location of bridges[edit]

I think it should be deleted. This alternate wording is not correct English and not at all a plausible alternate, and it shows up first in HotCat, degrading its useability. -- Tuválkin 18:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Gay Pride in Vienna[edit]

attempt was to associate category:Regenbogenparade to Vienna Ikipfler (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cervidae by gender[edit]

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

Category:Urinating male dogs[edit]

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

Category:SVG typography[edit]

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

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

Category:Civil parishes in London[edit]

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

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

Category:Solidarności Alley in Krakow[edit]

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

Category:Róż Alley in Kraków[edit]

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

Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better still create the (real locomotives) category and make the (real steam locomotives) category a subcat of the first. I would expect the phrase "real steam locomotives" to mean that the category contains actual steam locomotives Oxyman (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Famous paintings[edit]

"Famous" is totally subjective and depends on individual cultural background. Not a relevant category. BrightRaven (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted per discussion. Clearly subjective and POV. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Periodic Trends[edit]

Category name needs to be in lower case. Leyo 18:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:John Button (rallycross driver)[edit]

Move to Category:John Button, as there is no category at this location right now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Elizabeth River[edit]

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

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

Category:Award of the CSSR[edit]

Should be renamed "Awards of the CSSR" for accuracy and consistency with other such categories —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, looks uncontroversial to me. --rimshottalk 18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Awards of the CSSR, as per nom. --rimshottalk 19:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Awards of CSSR[edit]

Dup of Category:Award of the CSSR (proposed to be renamed to Category:Awards of the CSSR) and not currently in use —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, looks uncontroversial to me. --rimshottalk 18:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 19:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Thun train station[edit]

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

Category:Tiendas of San Pedro Atocpan[edit]

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

Category:Italian Air Force Wings[edit]

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

Category:Pinot Gris (cépage)[edit]

Should be Pinot Gris (grape) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, category names are supposed to be in English. --rimshottalk 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pinot Gris (vin)[edit]

Should be Pinot Gris (wine) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, category names are supposed to be in English. --rimshottalk 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Self-Portrait With a Bandaged Ear (F429)[edit]

F429 is the wrong catalogue number in the name (it should be F529). But in fact F529 is just one of the bandaged ear portraits. Best just leave out. Redirect to existing "Category:Self-Portrait With a Bandaged Ear"? Don't know how to do it myself. Nikki Olsen (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support rename: I created Category:Self-Portrait With a Bandaged Ear (F529). With this number and in this style there is only this painting which has to be correctly named in an own cat. VG Gallery
@Nikki Olsen: Your change of my referenced claim on loan… is only possible if you have a better reference, therefore I will revert your claim previously]] The information in institution and provenance should be consistent. Commons:Rename a category.Regards--Oursana (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Oursana. That was a very nice scan you uploaded of F529 and your documentation sets an impeccable standard I do wish more would follow at Commons van Gogh. I'm not sure creating this new category fixes everything that needs fixing here, but I've added in the Wikipaintings version I uploaded as well. F529 really isn't in Zurich any more. I assume it's back with its owners. However I defer to your wishes. Nikki Olsen (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:ATR 42-300 (Summit Air)[edit]

I beleive this category requires deleting. According to the FAA registry ( these aircraft belong to Jefferson Financial Company. Summit Air in the NWT has never owned an ATR. I have been unable to find a US based Summit with the exception of Summit Air Ambulance who don't use the ATR, and who became defunct in 1950, 30 years before the ATR was flying. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 08:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, empty, as per nom. --rimshottalk 06:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]


I think it should be renamed to "SoE (Indonesia)" - to clarify its meaning and avoiding confusion with other "SOE" abbreviations • Jaybear...disc. • 09:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem with adding "(Indonesia)", but not "SoE" with large "E". Even id:Soe is writing it with small "e". The large one came from differnet ways of writing like Soë or So’e. Maps with correct writting: [2], [3], [4]. --Patrick (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cortile Ottagono[edit]

delete. Category:Museo Pio-Clementino - Cortile ottagono had already been more extensive. I merged contents into there. Danny lost (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok for the merge but Category:Museo Pio-Clementino - Cortile ottagono should be moved to Category:Cortile Ottagono as similar categories (Cortile del Belvedere‎, Cortile della Pigna, Cortile di San Damaso‎...). --ThePolish 22:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Good morning. Look at all cats under Category:Museo Pio-Clementino, and also Category:British Museum by room. I think they are more usable this way, although it is a little arbitrary not to couple them with "Vatican palace" or "Musei Vaticani". Do you think of renaming them all? Danny lost (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I see that all the categories of the rooms you linked are called in this form "Category:Museum xxx - Room xxx", and it's OK, it's correct. But yesterday I explained you that the exact form for the categories of the squares is "Category:Cortile xxx". You can check this respectively in Category:Museo Pio-Clementino and in Category:Squares in the Vatican City. So, I propose to rename Category:Museo Pio-Clementino - Cortile ottagono in Category:Cortile Ottagono. --ThePolish 14:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I see now. Ok. Danny lost (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, i propose to close the discussion. --ThePolish 17:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:CY-51 Fruitful Bough (ship, 1996)[edit]

Redundant to Category:CY51 Fruitful Bough (ship, 1996)

Also have the following duplicate/empty categories to deal with

Thanks, Nick (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Is I understand it we've so far been using categories named after license numbers as they are written on the ship's hull, i.e. including dashes, spaces, etc. E.g. From this this image of Fruitful Bough it is apparent that the licence number includes a dash. This practice is also being used by [5] (compare "PD 109" vs "LH517"). So I don't see a need for your recategorisation of these ships. I say we keep using the old categories and redirect the categories that have been recently created by Nick. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @De728631: The dash isn't formally part of the vessel's registration number, which is issued on behalf of the UK government by the Marine Management Organisation, and shouldn't be used in the naming of categories, because it's the preference of the boat owner whether or not to include a space, a character in between the letters and numbers, etc. There's a formal list which should be used to determine categorisation [6] and I'd strongly advise we use that list, otherwise you run the risk of having several possible categories with images in each depending on how the registration number was painted on, whether it appears as AB123, AB 123, AB-123, A.B 123, A.B.123, A.B. 123, AB.123 and so on. I'd suggest everything is categorised as it appears on the official MMO lists and categories redirected accordingly if necessary.
I'd also note, the existing category didn't show up when I searched through Commons - probably because Commons search is a bit rubbish, I only stumbled across it after finding another image on Commons via Google
Finally, I only created one of the categories, the BA 45 category was made redundant by a category you created, De728631, which I think probably emphasizes the issue of all of us being run round in circles because there's not (yet) a coherent naming strategy for these categories. Nick (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I agree with you that as of yet there's no proper system for this at Commons. So by all means let's go with the official sources. We can use {{category redirect}} on these categories instead of deleting them. De728631 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hera Barberini[edit]

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


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


this is just the dutch term for ferries, so should be upmerged to Category:Ferries in the Netherlands Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Why should typical Dutch "pontjes" be categorized under an Englished named category? Also a better translation for ferry would be veerboot. And the word veerboot would never be used to describe a pontje. Using English category names makes it very hard for non English speaking Dutch people to correctly categorize. Perhaps Wikipedia could investigate the possibility for multi lingual categories. --Baykedevries (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I can find no evidence that the Dutch term pontje is particularly unique, representing something different than the english word ferry. example of use from dutch wp:
Eemdijk is een klein dorp aan de rivier de Eem dat in de gemeente Bunschoten ligt, in de Nederlandse provincie Utrecht. Het dorp telt ongeveer 800 inwoners. Eemdijk is onder de naam Dijkhuizen ontstaan in de vijftiende eeuw, na de aanleg van de zeedijk, die Veen- en Veldendijk heet. Het dorp heeft een pontje, dat op zondag niet vaart. Bij dit pontje nam Drs. P in 1973 het filmpje op voor zijn lied Veerpont

google translate:

Eemdijk is a small village on the River Eem located in the municipality Bunschoten , in the Dutch province of Utrecht . The village has about 800 inhabitants . Eemdijk originated under the name Dijkhuizen in the fifteenth century , after the construction of the seawall , which Fen and Field Dijk hot. The village has a ferry , which does not fly on Sunday. This ferry Drs . Took P in 1973 the film for his song Ferry

Commons categories are in English, unless the category is based on a word that unique to another language, or is a place name, etc. thats policy, this discussion wont change that. I do wish, however, that there was a way to have category names translate for readers. lots of work, that, it would probably have to be done manually.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

    • Conventions can be changed. Maybe it's time for change.

If all photographs of "pontjes" from all over the world would end up in the Ferries category we might not be able to spot the ferries due to excess "pontjes". And as stated before it would be very hard for non English speaking people to find the "pontjes" in their county. Also I don't think there will be much interest from non Dutch people in the Dutch "pontjes" so why us an international language? I vote for change! --Baykedevries (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge to Category:Ferries in the Netherlands. Pontje (singular of pontjes) means "little ferry", and Commons standard is to have English category names. This is not the place to change conventions. Moreover, Commons is international in scope so it is wrong to assume that non-Dutch would not be interested in these photos. --P 1 9 9   13:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Hanging on to established conventions, probably due to system limits, makes it harder for people to find and categorize important images. But lets agree to disagree both on the subject of "pontjes" and the conventions discussion. --Baykedevries (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, consider this: if I want to find an image from India but don't know Hindi, I will never find an image with a Hindi filename, description, and category. That's why we must use an international language. Anyway, like I said, this is not the place to change conventions. -- P 1 9 9   15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Paintings in the Vatican[edit]

Rename to Paintings in the Vatican City. The Irregularity is annoying , and it is clearer that it's not identical with Category:Frescos in the Vatican Museums. Danny lost (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. Ham (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Driving cabs of watercraft[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of moved contribution.

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting premature category emptying[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing edit warring by ŠJů[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading edit summaries[edit]

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

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

General discussion[edit]

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

Category:Cappella Niccolina frescos[edit]

Rename to Category:Cappella Niccolina. AS with other cats at Category:Apostolic Palace. Danny lost (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Frescos are not the only thing in the chapel (altar, windows...). Might have pictures someday --Sailko (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Belvedere (Vatican)[edit]

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

Category:Images from the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung/0194[edit]

Category should be deleted - it was created only because of a wrong date information during a mass upload KAS-ACDP (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is not empty, then? --rimshottalk 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Images from the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung/0195[edit]

Category should be deleted - it was created only because of a wrong date information during a mass upload KAS-ACDP (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is not empty, then? --rimshottalk 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Images from the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung/1917[edit]

Category should be deleted - it was created only because of a wrong date information during a mass upload KAS-ACDP (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is not empty, then? --rimshottalk 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sea captain[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Buildings in Fort Wayne[edit]

Needs to be moved to Category:Buildings in Fort Wayne, Indiana for harmony with its parent, Category:Fort Wayne, Indiana. All other subcategories of Category:Buildings in Indiana by city include ", Indiana" in their names, except for Indianapolis, and it's a subcategory of another category that doesn't use ", Indiana". en:WP:USPLACE is also relevant; of course it's not binding on us, but as it notes, only the biggest cities in the USA generally don't include the state name in common usage. "Fort Wayne" by itself isn't as likely to be recognised by Americans and non-Americans, so adding the state name will make this category easier to use for its primary audience. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Support move, per nom. reasons. Look2See1 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Support move, makes perfect sense.Steve46814 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Universities and colleges in Fargo[edit]

should be renamed to Category:Universities and colleges in Fargo, North Dakota as there are at least 5 other cities with the name Fargo. Mjrmtg (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess that I started up this category (?), anyway - I have no objections at all against your proposal. Just go ahead as far as I am concerned. Thanks for noticing! Mvh, Bjoertvedt (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion can be closed, all photos moved to Category:Universities and colleges in Fargo, North Dakota --Mjrmtg (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Driving cabs of vehicles[edit]

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

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

Please discuss the crucial questions:

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

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

Category:Two brothers[edit]

Most photos and categories in Category:Brothers should be moved to this category, right? Mjrmtg (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is also the newly created category Twin brothers -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This discussion can be closed. I've tried to move all appropriate images from Category:Brothers to here. --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pedestrian crossings by city[edit]

The category is almost empty, categorization through Pedestrian crossings by country and its subcategories is sufficient and this category redundant. ŠJů (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, it is only almost empty as it is relatively new and should be given the chance to grow Oxyman (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Freedom Square (Budapest)[edit]

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

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

Category:Franciscan Square (Budapest)[edit]

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

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

Category:Archduke Joseph Square[edit]

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

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

Category:Holy Spirit Square (Budapest)[edit]

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

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

Category:Trinity Square (Budapest)[edit]

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

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

Category:Mauch Chunk, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

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

Category:Anser anser f. domestica[edit]

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

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

Category:Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow[edit]

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

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

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

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

"Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow" ist ein Eigenname

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

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

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

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

Category:Notice boards[edit]

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

Category:الرسم والاظهار المعماري[edit]

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

we can simply translate it to "Architectural Drawing and Representation"[edit]

--hasanisawi (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Excavations (construction)[edit]

I've uploaded a couple of dozen images of construction excavations in Toronto -- enough that I think there should be a specific subcategory, like Category:Construction excavations in Toronto. I'd like the input of others first. I suspect all kinds of excavations, in other locations, haven't been categorized as excavations, and, that if this were done, we would need a category named something like Category:Excavations by geographic location.

Categories truly suck, as a feature for organizing material. While some quality control volunteers see us as having a tacit agreement to use one true categorization schema, I believe we have isolated chaotic archipelagoes of incompatble schemas. Under a lot of those schemas, this category would be Category:Construction excavations. Geo Swan (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • OK --JMCC1 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Kingdom Centre (Riyadh)[edit]

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

Category:Internet applications[edit]

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

Category:Modern movement in the United States[edit]

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

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

Category:Media of Tatra KT8D5 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Per SJu, unecesarily difficult system.--Juandev (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you please elaborate on how having all pictures of a certain model of tram in one cat is difficult? And what proposed alternative do you have that satisfies the parallel tree structure endorsed by the previous CfD? Liamdavies (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • But to place all the images in there would create COM:OVERCAT, and they would all be removed owing to their belonging to the child 'by number' tree. Liamdavies (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • No they dont, because this category will be deleted.--Juandev (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
My solution is to create a brother/cousin category (titled 'media of'), this can sit besides the 'by registration number' cat tree and does not create overcat. If this cat is deleted and depopulated all of the images will be removed from the parent cat and will only sit in the child cats. In a nut shell: if you want all the images of a certain model of tram operating in Prague to be in a single category, support this tree, if you want all the pictures to be spread across individual categories and NOT be in a SINGLE category, oppose this tree, if you want both, support this tree. Liamdavies (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra RT6N2 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra RT6N2 in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3 in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3M in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3M in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3R.P in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3R.P in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3R.PLF in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3R.PLF in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3R.PV in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3R.PV in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3SU in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3SU in Prague ŠJů (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T3SUCS in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T3SUCS in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T4 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T4 in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Tatra T6A5 in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Tatra T6A5 in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Škoda 14T in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Škoda 14T in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Škoda 15T in Prague[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Škoda 15T in Prague. ŠJů (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media of Trams in Prague by model[edit]

Incorrectly named overcategorizing duplicate of Category:Trams in Prague by model. ŠJů (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pile drilling machines[edit]

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

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

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

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

Category:Ohio township route shield templates[edit]

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

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

Category:People looking left[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Coats of arms of Portuguese nobility[edit]

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

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

Category:Power generation, transportation and distribution[edit]

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

Category:University libraries in the United States[edit]

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

  • Keep. The name isn't hugely significant, since this can easily include all college libraries. The type of institution (or its name) isn't really relevant to the images in the category. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tram rail tracks in Porto[edit]

Sould be renamed Category:Tram tracks in Porto (or Oporto), to match the rest. There was a recent move to get rid of the weird "Tram rail tracks" phrase, this is a forgotten left over needing fix. -- Tuválkin 19:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds resonable = Symbol support vote.svg Support. --JotaCartas (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, please start a CFD on Category:Tram rail tracks, I would vote Symbol support vote.svg Support there.    FDMS  4    13:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Concretion stones[edit]

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

Category:Tram rail tracks in Portugal[edit]

Sould be renamed Category:Tram tracks in Portugal, to match the rest. There was a recent move to get rid of the weird "Tram rail tracks" phrase; this is a forgotten left over needing fix. -- Tuválkin 22:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Match which rest? All child categories of Category:Tram rail tracks by country are called Tram rail tracks in .... Where was that recent move you speak of? --rimshottalk 07:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. The main category is Category:Tram rail tracks. --rimshottalk 07:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
While most child categories under Category:Tram rail tracks by country do follow indeed this awkward phrasing, most their grandchild categories do not — those are mostly the city categories, i.e. the most significant semantic nexus of this tree. Most of those were created anew as "Tram tracks", a few others were renamed to match it, and that’s the consensus and what seems better English vis-à-vis the pleonasmic nature of the phrase "Tram rail". -- Tuválkin 21:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Screenshots of Translate extension[edit]

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

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree --Ioannis Protonotarios (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Joost van Vollenhoven (1866-1881)[edit]

Dates in category name reflect only period during which he was mayor of Rotterdam. Dates can be changed to (birth-death) 1814-1889. Dates are used to disambiguate from other politicians with the same name as can be observed on dutch wikipedia. ErickAgain 10:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • You are absolutely right! What was i thinking.... This picture was categorized as " Joost van Vollenhoven" and that category was full of pictures of a much later man. Robert Prummel (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand in art[edit]

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

I think this should perhaps be discussed principally.

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

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

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

Category:User BG[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Maps by year[edit]

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

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

Category:Files moved from en.wiktionary to Commons requiring review[edit]

English Wiktionary doesn't exactly have a lot of transferred files needing review anyway. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Category:Intersexuality in art[edit]

Rename to Category:Intersex in art in line with associated request to rename Category:Intersexuality to Category:Intersex.

Category:Intersexual symbols[edit]

Rename to Category:Intersex symbols in line with associated request to rename Category:Intersexuality to Category:Intersex. Nsw2042 (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


Category:The Cream[edit]

They were never "The Cream", always "Cream", and I'm proposing this should be moved to "Cream (UK band)" to distinguish from the Japanese band, or the component of milk. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree, in all points. --rimshottalk 19:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Museo Lord Cochrane, Valparaíso[edit]

This is essentially a duplicate category of Category:Castillo San José. Jespinos (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Museo Lord Cochrane, Valparaíso[edit]

The official name for this place is Museo Lord Cochrane, like the plate picture on the category:Museo Lord Cochrane says, it don says on any place that it is a san jose castle or something like that. I think that the san jose castle category should be deleted instead of this.

Category:Human icons (modified)[edit]

Rename. What modified stand for? I know there was a Nuvola project, that made a very good job and that we all are grateful (me too), but now this project is closed and I think that "modified" it's confusing. Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Southern California Trojans basketball[edit]

"Southern California" should become "USC" for both categories, hence:

so that all categories related to University of Southern California athletics conform to the "USC" label commonly used by both the school and media. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Brian Stock (footballer)[edit]

Redirects to Category:Brian Stock. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mattythewhite,
I made my best to solve the problem. But I'm not sure it will be enough. I don't know where I can find the right templates to make things clear for readers.
If you can help, thanks. Regards, --Wikinade (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Royal Library, The Hague[edit]

I'm currently in the progress (as a part of the Wikipedia in Residence program for this institue) to coordinate media donations for this party. Therefore i'm planning to clean up and organise the images in this category.

First of all, the translation is wrong:, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek calls itself 'Koninklijke Bibliotheek, National library of the Netherlands' (see logo here) in English. But per partnerships i would opt for the shorter 'Koninklijke Bibliotheek' instead of a translation.

Second, i would opt for two categories (again like we do with all other partnerships): a 'Media contributed by Koninklijke Bibliotheek' that contains media donations, and one 'Koninklijke Bibliotheek' with images of the building and directly KB-related media.

Because the current category contains mostly donations i would vote to rename the current category 'Media contributed by Koninklijke Bibliotheek', and i'll create a 'Koninklijke Bibliotheek' category for any directly related KB-content that i'll move after that.

TL;DR: rename this category to Category:Media contributed by Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. Not the category should be renamed to that, but most of the files and subcategories should be moved there. A few, like Category:Directors of Royal Library, The Hague, should not.
  2. The category should be merged with Category:Koninklijke Bibliotheek.
- Andre Engels (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I won't go into detail about name-giving, but what is common use in Commons, English or mother tongue? I can see that Det Kongelige Bibliotek is redirected to The Royal Library, Denmark and that Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden doesn't even seem to be a redirect to Category:Leiden University Library. On the other hand, Bibliothèque nationale de France is in French, and most German libraries use German names too: Whatever is used, redirects are needed. Apart from that, four main subcategories look obvious with every library: 1) Collections of Library X, 2) Buildings of Library X, 3) Librarians from Library X and 4) Institution. All can have several sub-subcategories. "Media donated by Library X" can be a useful separate category. Vysotsky (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Serbian Orthodox bishops[edit]

This one should probably be merged to Category:Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church PanchoS (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Helsinki pride[edit]

Should be moved to Category:Helsinki Pride. It's a name not a generic title. PanchoS (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. Palosirkka (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Depictions of Gabriel as female or androgynous[edit]

This category was created by User:Crice88, who has been arguing on the wikipedia:Gabriel page that the angel Gabriel is often considered female or androgynous. Though there do seem to be some popular authors sustaining this position, other editors on wikipedia:Talk:Gabriel consider this a fringe position, worth mentioning but not emphasizing. This Wikimedia Commons category appears to be an effort by Crice88 to pursue his agenda. He has tagged many commons images with the category though there appears to be no objective indication or reliable source that the images portray a "female or androgynous" figure. In other words, the categorization appears to be tendentious and pure original research. In the absence of objective evidence (e.g. prominent breasts) or reliable sources (e.g. art historians, theologians, or iconographers), I believe this category should be deleted. --Macrakis (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete -Woefully subjective, unnecessary, and confusing. Anyone looking for depictions of Gabriel will search under the archangel's name. (One of Crice88's sources contain the angel represented as a "hanging jewel"! Where would that go?) -There is already a category Female angels. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:PH-KCA at the 2013 Toronto Pearson Street Festival[edit]

This category contains images of a KLM airliner taxing within Pearson International Airport. I see nothing to connect these image to any festivals. I just googled Toronto "Pearson Street Festival", and it seems to be a real event, a kind of open house. I question whether images should be associated with the Festival, if they don't show members of the public. Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep the aircraft was put on static display for the festival and as other photos from the set, but not yet uploaded, show the aircraft was part of the festival. russavia (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Categories suck as an organizing tool. There is no practical way of knowing what element a category has held in the past, or why it was added or why it was removed. But one thing we could all do when we create a category is to leave a sentence or two of exposition explaining what the category is for. This might seem obvious. But nothing is obvious. We see categories creep in purpose because we have no overal schema.

    Clarification, you prefer the status quo for both Category:PH-KCA at the 2013 Toronto Pearson Street Festival and Category:2013 Toronto Pearson Street Festival? While the "Toronto Pearson Street Festival" may be what organizers called the event, there were no streets involved, were there? Street festivals -- don't they have dancing, open-air live music, face-painting, hot dogs, ice-cream cones? None of these elements were present on 2013-09-14, were they? They event was really more of an open-house, wasn't it? May I suggest the categories should call it an open-house, or reasonable equivalent, without regard to whatever confusing name the organizers chose? Geo Swan (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Birds perched[edit]

Overlap with Category:Sitting birds -- Tragopogon (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Streets sign in Prato[edit]

Rename to proper English Category:Street signs in Prato, to match all the others. -- Tuválkin 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Museu de la Música de Barcelona. Backstage pass[edit]

A . in category names should be avoided if possible. In Category:Wikimedia backstage passes there is no other subcategory with a .. Leyo 22:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't know it. No problem if you want to change it.--amador (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Trams in Lisbon by attitude[edit]

There are a number of issues with the names of this cat and its child cats:

  1. This cat and all child cats, attitude isn't really the right word, perspective is probably better.
  2. 'Lisbon trams on the background‎' doesn't really make sense, is it intended to be for images which contain trams in the background? In which case 'Lisbon trams in the background‎' should be used, similarly there are a few child cats that need renaming too.
  3. As mentioned at the CfD 'Lisbon trams backsides' and all child cats should also be renamed to the 'Lisbon trams from behind' syntax.
  4. 'Lisbon trams ahead‎' doesn't make sense, trams are automatically ahead of the camera, it should be 'Lisbon trams from the front'.

Input would be appreciated. Liamdavies (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I was working on clearing Category:Trams in unidentified locations in Lisbon, but important things like this should trump mere labour. Lets discuss, then:
  1. Liam says about this category that «attitude isn't really the right word, perspective is probably better». While I deeply bow to bwana (and how could I not, Commons having English as its working language) and thank for the correction, I humbly suggest that, before such renaming is enforced, the proper meaning of "attitude" is ascertained. While its informal English meaning is way removed from the original Latinate etym, what "attitude" seems to mean in grown-up’s English is exactly what is meant: «The position of the body or way of carrying oneself; posture.» If "perspective" is a good choice for this, the go ahead, but I see no support for saying that «attitude isn't really the right word».
  2. About Category:Lisbon trams on the background‎, so it ends up being only caused by my broken English use of "on" instead of "in"? By George then, lets fix it, my good man! However I have seen in some categories (about trees, if I’m not mistaken) the phrasing "(incidental)" appended to the category name, to be used for items which are not the main subject of a given image — but which are still worth categorizing. Maybe that would be even better?
  3. Category:Lisbon trams backsides has indeed a pending renaming discussion due to being an evident grammar error, and it should follow its course. The form "Backside" is used considering the fact that only a few series have one, as historically most Lisbon trams were bidirectional. "From behind" may refer to the momentary direction of motion of a bidirectional unit (recognizable by the position of the trolley pole and the motorman), which is a different thing than indicating the rear end of an unidirectional car. (There is no complement category "Frontside" for the same reason that there’s no separate category for "trams by day" matching "trams at night".)
  4. About Category:Lisbon trams ahead, again there is a misunderstanding to be blamed for the accusation of senselessness: "Ahead" here doesn’t mean "from the front" (see point above why not) but indeed «ahead of the camera», more exactly — facing the camera head-on, or, better, aligned to the ocular-to-objective vertical plane (or even line) of the camera. This is the counterpoint to "Category:Lisbon trams sideways" (leaving out most photos, which show the subjects at disparate angles), but more exact, as the perspective effect is lessened due to the oblongness of trams, “ahead” being their smaller attitude. And of course a tram may be head-on to the camera facing it with its backside (like this one — subcategory "Lisbon trams mooning" to be created whenever the number of possible elements warrants it). It goes without saying that this view head-on to the camera is something worth categorizing, as it is a relatively rare attitude and if useful to create iconic derivatives, when comparing different models, etc. Maybe "Lisbon trams head-on" is a better wording for this meaning?
-- Tuválkin 06:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
First off, please do not take offence from my forward way of speaking, I did not, and do not mean offence when I say it makes no sense. I understand that it would be hard contributing to a multilingual project such as this in a language that isn't your first would be hard (not a position I envy); sorry for distracting you from your work!
  1. Attitude has meaning in the position of an aircraft in English, but the usual meaning of it is slightly more emotive. For example "he has a bad attitude to work" isn't to do with his posture, but more their demeanour or behaviour. So although correct for aircraft (and possibly on a very technical level in this context) it is not really how the word is generally used (a tram is rarely aggressive). This is why I suggest perspective or position, I am easy as far as alternatives are concerned, but don't think it works in this context.
  2. Haha! Incidental could be used, but it may give the wrong idea in an image like this one: File:Portugal - Trams, Trains and Funiculars (6687539065).jpg where the tram (in the foreground) is not incidental at all, and it could be argued whether the one in the background is as well. For images like this File:Lisboa - Norte da Praça do Comércio.jpg the wording incidental might work, but I reckon you were on the right track the first time and we should stick with background.
  3. I see your point, I still think from the back would work, but what about Category:Lisbon trams from the rear?
  4. Again, I see your point, but still think the name is wrong, what about Category:Lisbon trams head on (not great, as it's an idiom, but closer)?
Thank you for taking the time to give such considered responses! I think we can get some much better names very soon. Liamdavies (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I should say I find this bulleted approach really cumbersome, even after changing the lists to numbered. If these 4 discussions were separated in 4 subsections (or 4 separate pages of CfD), it would be much better. Anyway, my replies:
  1. "Perspective" or "position" are in my opinion inferior to "attitude", but borderline acceptable to me.
  2. You’re right about "incidental"; it rises the issue about detailed categorization of background subjects as such vs. its crop extraction as a new image and its subsequent categorization as a separate item. As for the grammar fix renaming, lets do it.
  3. "From" is the problematic word here (and see below from JotaCartas about missing the whole point), as this not about the position of the photographer relative to the tram as in the other categories (sides, above, ahead), but what part of a unidirectional tram we are seeing (the rear being a special case as usually the front is prefered, just like the night/day case already mentioned). My counterproposal therefore is is: Category:Rears of Lisbon trams or maybe even Category:Rears of unidirectional Lisbon trams (but since 1995 almost all the fleet is unidirectional — only the remaining few from series 701-735 retain bidirectionality).
  4. "Category:Lisbon trams head on" is good for me. No worries about English idioms, they are part of the use of any language and Commons categories are riddled with them as it is.
If there’s no opposition in 1 week, I’ll go on with these category renamings. -- Tuválkin 07:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrapping up:
  1. Category:Trams in Lisbon by attitudeCategory:Lisbon trams by perspective: ✓ Done
  2. Category:Lisbon trams on the backgroundCategory:Lisbon trams in the background: ✓ Done
  3. Category:Lisbon trams backsidesCategory:Rears of unidirectional Lisbon trams: ✓ Done
  4. Category:Lisbon trams aheadCategory:Lisbon trams head on: ✓ Done
-- Tuválkin 01:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be interesting to analyze the "parent categories" (or possible).
Trams in Lisbon by attitude -> Views of trams -> Views of rolling stock -> Views of rail vehicles, etc.
Also similar categories: Views of trains; Views of locomotives; Views of land vehicles, etc.
The sub-categories of some Categories are as displayed:
To display all subcategories, click on the "►".
To display all subcategories, click on the "►".
To display all subcategories, click on the "►".
I think the "child categories" should keep as far as possible concordance with the "parents", so as an example:
  • Trams in Lisbon by attitude -> Views of Lisbon trams
    • Lisbon trams from above‎‎ -> ok
    • Lisbon trams ahead‎‎ -> Front views of Lisbon trams‎
    • Lisbon trams backsides -> Rear views of Lisbon trams
    • Lisbon trams facing left‎‎ - ok
    • Lisbon trams facing right - ok
    • Lisbon trams sideways‎ -> Side views of Lisbon trams
    • Lisbon trams on the background‎ ???
    • Lisbon tram details‎ - ok (perhaps not in this category)
    • Tram interiors in Lisbon - ok (perhaps not in this category)
    • Lisbon trams with motion blur - ok (perhaps not in this category)
--JotaCartas (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a very reasoned proposal, and support it. I still think 'Lisbon trams on the background' should be 'Lisbon trams in the background', as on the just doesn't read well in this context. Liamdavies (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, «in the background» is right and «on the background» is wrong. Can we get over it and dully rename this one, please? -- Tuválkin 22:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
In answer to JotaCartas’ suggestions, a few comments:
  • Concordance with other categories, both parents and siblings, is good, but only worth the trouble if we’re copying a working model. And the thing is that, regardless of its problems, Lisbon trams in Commons is one of the more detailed and complete set of categories we have, with all images classified within all relevant trees. Besides, more important that the exact wording of a category is its semantics — and that needs to be ascertained with at least the same care. (After all we still have a disagreement between "Lisbon trams" and "Trams in Lisbon", but its homogenization will be done soon and qualmlessly now.)
  • Concerning "Views of", I cannot agree:
    • First out, it is a redundant wording that makes sence mostly for big subjects, like buildings, that can only be taken in whole from afar. In our case, anything that is not Category:Tram details or Category:Tram interiors is a view of a (whole) tram. And that we don’t call Category:Views of trams, we call it simply Category:Trams.
    • In meta categories such as this one, the word "by" needs to be present — attitude, position, perspective, anthing, but always "Trams by" it.
  • Please read above to see how the current categories Category:Lisbon trams ahead‎‎ and Category:Lisbon trams backsides are not opposite (indeed this one is both). Therefore a symmetrical wording for these two, as proposed, is misleading.
  • "Category:Lisbon trams sideways‎" → "Category:Side views of Lisbon trams", sure why not?
  • Concerning the remark that 3 subcats should «perhaps not in this category» be, yes, they all belong here ("by attitude" or however you want to call it), as opposed to Category:Trams in Lisbon by setting. The difference is that setting is independent of the photographer (on a steep grade, towing a trailer, in a depot, with passengers, etc), and “attitude” depends on the photographer’s location and chosen angle (detail or wide shot, point of view, etc.). (Indeed any category for photos could be bagged into one of these two.)
-- Tuválkin 07:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Category:Lisbon trams sidewaysCategory:Side views of Lisbon trams: ✓ Done -- Tuválkin 01:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


I doubt that most, if not all of the pictures in this category don't belong to the "Sunny" category. I think the users who uploaded most of these pictures thought that a category is the same as a hashtag. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What kind of image would be appropriate for this category that would not fit under Category:Sunlight ? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Trams of Hong Kong Tramways Limited[edit]

The subcats of this category need to be reexamined. In August this year all trams (well, some/most were), this however is probably not a great idea, and should be undone. I suggest this for two reasons: the first is that I think it makes images harder to find having to search through dozens of catgories, each with only one or two files in it. And the other is that numbers get reused in Hong Kong, so we will end up with mutlitple different trams in the same category, a category meant for one specific vehcile, on that front this system fails. It would be be better to categorise them by type, not number. Liamdavies (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Ah, I didn't know that tram numbers were reused. I assumed they were constant and could be used as an identifier, as per aircraft (e.g. see the subcategories of Category:Concorde (Air France)). Given that, it probably does make sense to move towards categorising different types of trams, unless there's another way of uniquely identifying individual trams. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't like the cat by unique number concept with trams; it becomes really hard to find pictures for articles, as one must trove through large amounts of categories to find images. Remember that this project is to support the other projects as a media repository, it doesn't do that job if people can't find images for articles. Aircraft are far more mobile (not just in flight, but by operators) so require a unique identifier for many reasons, and in that context is does make sense to categorise them by number. This also comes in handy in the event of an emergency or crash, where images of a specific aircraft is needed for a specific article. Trams, trains, buses, taxies, cars, etc on the other hand do not. They are linked to the operator, city, and manufacturer, but their numbers are far more fluid, just like number plates; a tram can be renumbered through it's life, or assume the number of another tram (in Melbourne we have had over a six trams numbered 7, three with one operator). Additionally, when a tram moves city it will often change number, whereas a plane or ship won't, it becomes almost impossible to track vehicles by unique identifier if they keep changing (an example of this is the Mulhouse trams). For all these reasons, I oppose all cat by number of trams, and advocate cat by class - it is not a battle I am winning, holding ground, but not winning, and finding content is just becoming harder and harder.
Contrast finding article images with the two systems Category:Trams in Melbourne by class, Category:Trams in Amsterdam, Category:Trams in Saint Petersburg by model (pretty much all of Category:Trams in Russia which I categorised by model, linked to larger manufacturer cats) vs. Category:Tatra T3 in Prague, Category:Škoda 14T in Prague. The easier option for content users is clear. Liamdavies (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Liam, you’re not winning this battle because you’re wrong, wanting to go against the categorization principles of Commons (and of common sense). The problem you express is genuine, but the way you want to solve it is problematic. While it is about not creating fleet number categories for individual cars it can be accepted, but when you suggest (as you did for Prague and you’re now doing here in Hongkong) to delete the categorization work already done by other people, you’re going to find desperate opposition. The issue you raise can be solved in a number of ways that don’t include the removal of individual fleet number categories. I suggest you explore them. If you do so, you’ll find yourself fighting a winning battle instead, and we all gain. -- Tuválkin 00:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how I can be 'wrong', surely it is your subjective opinion that I am wrong, but hardly an empirical fact. The problems I have raised with this level of useless categorisation relate to COM:SCOPE; the scope of this project is to present and catalog images for the Wikipedias to use, if reusers (such as myself) tell you this level of categorisation makes finding images useful to articles harder, and simpler categorisation would make it much easier for reusers that should be taken on board. The point of this project is to support other projects, if it fails to do that it is inherently problematic. Do you have other suggestions as to how these trams could be usefully categorised in a way where reusers could find relevant images? I stand by my opinions that a) this categorisation is not only unhelpful but open to being very wrong in the future, and that b) categorisation the way I have done in Category:Trams in Russia offers all images sorted by city and class, offering simple acessible categorisation for people wanting images either to use in articles, or after being sent here from Wikipedia articles through comcats. The arguement that someone has spent time and therefore it shouldn't be changed is stupid, that time may have been unwisely wasted; my contention. Can you please demonstrate how this overly precise level of categorisation aids lay users who click a comscat link, or article creators looking for images? Liamdavies (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Guy, did you just called me stupid, really? Is this how you want to deal with this matter? Fine, then. -- Tuválkin 06:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Certainly not, I did not mean that you personally are stupid, nor do I think you are. I apologise if you thought I did, it was not my intention, and I'm sorry I was misunderstood. I think the argument that something took much effort and that means it shouldn't be changed is ill thought out. Liamdavies (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I somewhat disagree. I like categories for specific objects where that is appropriate, as for me that actually makes it easier to find images of that object. Personally, I would love to see all trams, trains, buses and cars categorised individually (and for the category links to be thumbnails rather than just plain text!). But perhaps that is best done in the long run by Wikidata rather Commons categories. I don't view Commons' purpose to be supporting the other Wikimedia projects - rather, I view it as a project in itself that curates freely-licensed multimedia content. That means that I prefer to see category structures set up that can handle a couple of orders of magnitude of growth, and categorising by object helps to do that. On the other hand, categorising by type could easily lead to very large categories that won't be so easily navigable any more.
For me, the key argument here is if it is the case that these trams don't have unique identifiers, as that means that the category structure I set up is meaningless. Can you confirm that is definitely the case here, please, with a solid reference? If so then I'm happy to rework the category structure to by type rather than number (or for you to rework it if you want. ;-) ). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Then you are sadly mistaken on the COM:SCOPE of Commons "The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation." The primary purpose of Commons is to hold images for use in Wikipedias and other projects, at the moment categorising things into the most minute of categories hinders greatly the ability to find images for articles, it is highly conceivable that one would want a photo of a Honk Kong Tram for an article, what purpose within a Wiki article would one wish to find a photo of a particular trams? How does it help? You also support categorising all cars by registration plate? How would that help article writers?
The best source I have at the moment is en:Hong Kong Tramways#Fleet, have a look at all the fleet numbers in the table, numbers have been reused and rebuilds using the same numbers, but the vehicles are clearly not the same. Category:Hong Kong Tramways No. 27 and Category:Hong Kong Tramways No. 28 are clearly different vehicle types. Liamdavies (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have missed out the other half of Commons' scope, according to that page: "that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all"... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I read that as a subordinating clause, but it doesn't change the fact that the major duty of Commons is to support the other projects. Can you please elaborate on my questions? Liamdavies (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That's interesting; I actually read it as the main aim, with the second point being more of a means than an aim. With your questions: I could envisage it being important for an author of a Wikipedia article to quickly find an image of a specific tram were it to be involved in some sort of notable accident (as is sometimes the case with plane accidents, although as there are a lot more trams and fewer major accidents with them than planes this would be somewhat less likely to happen), or wanting to be easily able to find an image of the tram if it otherwise becomes notable (e.g. if it ends up as a museum exhibit, or is used for important activities that are worth describing in an article, or if it's refurbished/maintained in an old style e.g. as #70 and #120 are); the same could in principle apply to cars (but that's getting off-topic, and thinking about this I expect Wikidata will do this much better than Commons categories can).
The enwp article is in need of much better referencing. :-( However, it is reasonably probable that it is mostly correct in what it is saying. How would you suggest that rebuilds are dealt with here, though, since trams could end up in multiple generation/type categories here? Also, what about the different versions within a generation? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
"I could envisage it being important for an author of a Wikipedia article to quickly find an image of a specific tram were it to be involved in some sort of notable accident", can you provide an example of that? And how many articles require general fleet pictures, not individual trams? Planes are very very different, they are built in small batches and move airlines, it is also the case that - due to their nature - almost all aircraft crashes are notable per en:WP:GNG (loss of life, significant coverage, and so on). This is sometimes the case with trains (although most incidents with trains would not be notable), but is almost entirely not the case with trams, there may be rare specific cases, but they should be dealt with as the exception, not the rule. Editors will most likely (and in almost all circumstances) require a picture of a model of tram, or a tram in a livery, or on a specific route for an article, and in that case having to trove through multitudes of largely empty categories is a massive waste of time (I've done it, it's horrible). When I argue against this level of categorisation, I do so as an editor of tram articles, someone who actively searche(s/d) Commons categories for images for articles - it makes it much harder for no gain to have them categorised by fleet number (not to mention the problems raised here). Then there are problems with maintenance, look at Category:Cable cars in San Francisco. Without active maintenance it turns into a complete mess of overcat and incomplete subcats - how is that useful to anyone? I see what you are proposing as no different to categorising Category:Cars by registration plate number, in fact, that would make more sense, cars are individually optioned (meaning a build run with not be basically identical), come in different colours, are owned by different people, operate across multiple cities, etc etc. Trams for the most do not and when they do that can be dealt with by categorisation like Category:Citadis 302 trams of Mulhouse on hire, in that case as the trams have different numbers in the various cities they operate in a cat by number technique would actually break the continuity you are advocating.
I hope this gets undone, but an coming to the view that many Commonsers are much more concerned with finding the smallest pocket to place an item of media, rather than presenting them in a simple, open, usable way for reusers and Wikipedians to find. This I feel is not only a huge waste of everyones time for zero gain, but also hindering the usefulness of Commons - if I can't easily find an image I won't bother, hence why this image is still here, finding a replacement image is just too hard, and I refuse to upload an image I have taken of a T3 as someone will hide it away in a deep pocket never to be seen again. This is one user who is quickly becoming disillusioned - if I continue to upload images to Commons I will redact all identifying numbers to prevent my images from being hidden so deeply (this is not something I want to do, and the reality is I will probably just cease contributing). Liamdavies (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you didn’t learn one thing anyone else told you, as you’re blurting out the same newbie nonsense you did over 1 yr ago, with the additional error that now you threaten to vandalize images before you even upload them (see COM:POINT) and/or to depart in a tantrum. You keep refusing to consider that tools can/should be developed by the foundation to enable automatic galleries of images under a given cat down to a given depth (try join forces to demand this from people who are paid to make WM work, instead of whining at and bullying fellow editors), and that multiple category trees can (and in some cases do) cover the whole of any given set of photos. You should be able to implement your own preferred criteria-based tree over whatever others did. Don’t like having HK or Brno or SF tram series split by fleet number? Cool. Leave that alone (i.e. don’t terrorize other users about having their preferred tree deleted) and create your own: Create just two disjunct subcats for each series — "So-and-so trams’s interiors" vs. "Views of So-and-so trams" (*) — and there you go. That is not overcat, as the distincion "whole views / interiors" is a valid one (and it is perfectly okay to leave the interiors’ category empty for some lesser series) and has its own big tree (branches remotely at Category:Views of rolling stock and Category:Train interiors), and it neatly solves your (indeed our) problem of lacking galleries with lotsa pics to pick from (whoever needs a specimen photo wont want an interior, anyway) and solves everybody else’s problem of not having you lobbying for deletion of fleet number categries. Go ahead and do this, and get other ppl to join forces in adding these categories, instead of removing other categories. Or don’t, and let me think that you just cannot be reasoned with. -- Tuválkin 04:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
(Unindent) I'm not sure this is really the place for a general discussion. Could we focus back on this category tree, please? I'm happy for it to be rebuilt differently, but I'd like to see a concrete suggestion on how to rebuild it. I asked above "How would you suggest that [tram] rebuilds are dealt with here, though, since trams could end up in multiple generation/type categories here? Also, what about the different versions within a generation?" - any thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
All trams of the same build/rebuild should be categorised together, and then nested into the previous build, much like Category:Light Rail trams (MTR) (specifically Category:Phase I LRV (rebuilt) (MTR)‎ into Category:Phase I LRV (MTR)‎ for the rebuild).
User:Tuvalkin: thanks for calling me a disruptive, no nothing, 'noob', terrorist, it really makes me feel welcome and like sticking around; I suggested building parallel trees, but people (including you) said that I didn't understand even the most basic principle of categorisation and that that would be COM:OVERCAT. So I guess I just loose either way yeah? Liamdavies (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I said you should be build parallel trees, yes, and suggested how that would not be overcat and indeed useful for people looking for images more generic than those of individual vehicles. I hope the insults are completely unbased, and I suggest that you ignore them and just do your thing. Will you? -- Tuválkin 12:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Tuvalkin: Yes, the insults are baseless - I forgot I am also a vandal - but your the one throwing them, not I, so it is for you decide if you insulted me needlessly or not. Read through the discussion again, I suggested renaming the current tree and building the current names as another I was told in no uncertain terms: "such change would be a next flagrant violation of categorization principles and a nonsensical break of category structure", and words to that effect a number of times. I am sick of being told what a stupid, dullard bastard I am by people so obtuse they do not even bother to try to understand what I am saying. Liamdavies (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, «renaming the current tree and building the current names as another» is exactly what you been asking not to do. See the little yellow box of Ca-a-Lot? It has "move" and "add" for each category. Never click on move, unless there’s consensus. Use "add" — insults will be proved baseless if you do it. -- Tuválkin 20:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Lisbon[edit]

(*) See Category:Trams in Lisbon for a more complete “poor man’s” full categorization: facing left / facing right / head views / side views / details / interiors; with minimal overlap. It works, too. -- Tuválkin 04:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Elephants in promo[edit]

"promo"? Please use real words. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate alternative seems to be Category:Elephants in advertisement. I've already moved it to Category:Animals in advertisement. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Rename to Baobab (software), to redirect this category to Adansonia; also, this util is no longer called Baobab, but en:Disk Usage Analyzer - JotaCartas (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Falkenstein castles[edit]

I suspect that this is not a meaningful category. It collects various subcategories for castles named "Falkenstein", but many of those share only the name and nothing else - as "Falkenstein" (Falcon's stone) is a quite popular German name for castles and different noble dynasties. There were various castle-building noble houses called "Falkenstein" in German-speaking Europe, and I think that there is e.g. no close connection between Burg Falkenstein (Harz), built by Falkensteiners from the Harz area (German Wikipedia: Falkenstein (Harzgrafen)) and Burg Falkenstein, Höllental in a very different area, built by the local "lords of Falkenstein". So, this category serves in fact as a kind of "disambiguation category", but I do not think that we use categories for that purpose? --Gestumblindi (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether we should keep this category, but I wanted to point out that all the subcats in Category:Castles by name are of this type. Whatever the decision on Falkenstein, it should apply to them all. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Long exposure time[edit]

Here is a long list of exposure times; a lot of subcategories with only one picture. I suggest to combine some values into a bundle, e.g.: from 180 to 359 sec; from 360 to 600 sec etc. What do you think about it? Other suggestions? Medvedev (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a problem if there is a long list of exposure times. --ComputerHotline (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. I think it's not helpful to have categories with only one picture. Most of the Pictures with exposure >30sec were made in bulb mode and it depends on the photographer when he stops the exposition; thats why I think it's not realistic that some day someone uploads another picture with e.g. Exposure time 987 sec --Medvedev (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
So, we can create some categories like it :
> Category:Long exposure time
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 1 to 5 sec
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 6 to 10 sec
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 11 to 15 sec
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 16 to 20 sec

What do you think ?

--ComputerHotline (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I like your suggestion! Do you think the user will know, that exposure time of e.g. 5.2s belongs to the first category? I would make approximately logarithmic step hights :
> Category:Long exposure time
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 1 to 2 sec
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 3 to 4 sec
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 5 to 8 sec
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 9 to 15 sec
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 16 to 30 sec
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 31 to 60 sec

--Medvedev (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why logarithmic step hights ?
Look a new tree :
> Category:Long exposure time
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 1 to 5 sec not included
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 5 to 10 sec not included
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 10 to 15 sec not included
      |-> Category:Exposure times from 15 to 20 sec not included
"Do you think the user will know, that exposure time of e.g. 5.2s belongs to the first category?" 5.2 s -> Category:Exposure times from 5 to 10 sec not included

--ComputerHotline (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't like this "not included": I think it's difficult to understand; I like the first suggestion more. :) I think logarithmic step sizes make sence; you've got the same on your camera: it starts with "1s, 1.3s 1.6s" and follows with "20s, 25s, 30s", so at the beginning the steps are 0.3s wide and later 5s. I prefer to make the step size small at the beginning and then make them bigger. Between 1s & 5s you've got a lot of pictures and much less between 15s & 20s. --Medvedev (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
So, how do you want to name categories ?--ComputerHotline (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I prefer your first suggestion from 17:27, 26 January 2014 because there is no overlap between borders but with logarithmic step sizes like in my suggestion of 19:34, 26 January 2014. If you agree with me I would implement it. :) --Medvedev (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Where an image with 5.2 sec should be categorized ??? --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
In Exposure times from 1 to 5 sec I think? --Medvedev (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. That's why I have proposed this Category:Exposure times from 5 to 10 sec not included : it's so clear. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think we have reached a deadlock :/ --Medvedev (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Exact. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Limmat River[edit]

Löschen. Gleiche Kategorie wie Category:Limmat. Schofför (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as a category redirect. --P 1 9 9   19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Moving of the Vatican obelisk (1586)[edit]

Scope is good, more images can be found. But cat's name is misleading: it looks like it refers to a single work. Actualy none of the engravings are from 1586; one is from 18C. What about naming: Depictions of the installment of the Vatican Obelisk", no year? Danny lost (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't understand where is the problem. The moving of the Vatican obelisk is happen in the year 1586. This is a category which contains all picture that depict this event. It's not important the date of the engravings or of the drawings, but of the event. If you have problem with the name of this category, we can change it in Category:Moving of the Vatican obelisk in 1586. But is this a big change of the category name? Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
But you do. A visitor can have a hard time deciding if the cat refers to the event or to a publication/artwork. Even by a second look, all files look like they could be related, and a name in the form "Scene (year)" is regularly used for art. It is subcat under Category:Domenico Fontana, who IIRC did release such a book under a similar title. This should be made clear. So unbracketing the year is good, but I think we should add a "meta" touch with "depictions", "illustrations" or "engravings". Danny lost (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Plus, it's just a matter of good librerianship/semantics that cats will refer to the files within them, not to their "theme". Danny lost (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hebrew typefaces[edit]

Merge with Category:Hebrew typography, has more files this way and there's almost no distinction. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As creator of this category I have no objection as long as there are few items. Setreset (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dolan Duck cartoons[edit]

empty category Dinosaur918 (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hel Fortified Area[edit]

Topic should be deleted as a copy of "Bateria Heliodora Laskowskiego" and eventually linked to another topics such as Bofors, artillery or others. MOSZCZ (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Category:Bateria Heliodora Laskowskiego, Hel‎? It is included in Category:Hel Fortified Area together with 5 other categories. How do you plan to merge those? Jean-Fred (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Agence Meurisse[edit]

Cette catégorie comporte des photos de presse de l'agence Meurisse, dont la BNF nous dit qu'elles sont dans le domaine public. Cependant, il s'agit de photo de divers photographes, dont nous n'avons pas les informations bibliographiques. Ces photos sont-elles réellement anonymes (en ce cas, elles entrent dans le domaine public en France le 1er janvier suivant les 70 ans après publication) ou est-ce une omission de la BNF (en ce cas, nous violons potentiellement les droits d'auteur des ayant-droits des photographes ayant travaillé pour l'agence presse) ? Dereckson (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the evidence that the company had more than one photographer? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
For example, the fact a dead human can't take a photo after his death date, and the presence of 1937 photos in the 205 000 photos of the BNF fund.
This book explains p. 69 he quitted the Branger agency to work alone till the war, then states the business is booming, implicitely stating he didn't work alone anymore after 14-18. Later, p. 70, Meurisse is one of the first agency to keep archives instead to destroy old plates and than other agencies don't want to do that because it requires too many employees to handle something not cost efdective (« Cela demande trop d'infrastructures, de personnel, pour une rentabilité aléatoire. »). Finally, p. 70 too: « Jusqu'en 1937, les trois agences gardent un caractère artisanal, même si leur personnel augmente » (“The three agencies use traditional methods up to 1937, even if the staff increases.”), the 3 agencies being Meurisse and the other two it will merge with. --Dereckson (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Suivant l'exemple de la BNF, on a toujours sur Commons accepté que ces photos étaient sans identification de photographe et personne n'a apporté d'élément permettant de conclure le contraire. Les photos publiées en France dont l'auteur est mort avant 1937 et les photos anonymes publiées en France avant 1937 ne sont pas affectées par l'URAA, puisque l'extension en 1995 de la durée des droits d'auteur en France de 50 à 70 ans n'a pas affecté ces photos qui étaient dans le domaine public. 1936 + 50 + 1 + 8 = 1995. Pour une explication détaillée récente, voir à URAA and France. De toutes façons, pourquoi mettre en cause l'existence de la catégorie ? Je crois que la présente discussion serait mieux placée sur la page Category talk:Agence Meurisse et non ici. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Twinkles, Dazzlers, Grills[edit]

This is a very bad name for a category. Category:Dental jewellery makes more sense. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I do'nt think so. See the other items in Category:Dental jewellery. This is precious jewelry.R. Engelhardt (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
There are no other items, the category doesnt exist yet. heres the translation from the german WP article which uses the "twinkle" image we have:

"Tooth jewelery is the generic term for a variety of highly fashionable ornaments such as certain dental Twinkles (Brillies), Dazzler and grills. Even artificial tooth crowns can occur in some cases as a dental jewelry in question. In some Eastern European countries, non-veneered gold crowns are a sign of wealth. This often undamaged teeth are crowned, a violation of the medical care and diligence. Twinkles (from English to twinkle "flash") or are Brillies tooth jewelery with rubies, diamonds or precious stone imitation rhinestones in the bas-relief. Dazzler (from English to dazzle "dazzle") consist of an ornate gold foil. To grills Main article: Grill (jewelry)"

We should consider Category:Tooth jewellery as well. We can have separate categories for Category:Dazzlers and Category:Twinkles, but we dont have many images of these items, and thus they really dont yet need separate categories. thats my main concern, overcategorization of a small set of images. I also want to point out that this current category should not be all proper nouns. I dont know why we would separate precious from semiprecious or costume jewellery in this situation. I dont think the files even indicate this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


All subcategories are strangely named. What ist "Librettos opera" supposed to mean? "Opera librettos" would be right. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion "libretto(s)" is enough [13] "opera" is useless. Anyway, "opera librettos" is more correct than "librettos opera". --Limonadis (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The current naming scheme is indeed strange. As Limonadis suggests, "librettos" will suffice (unless someone wants to start a "librettos" vs. "libretti" discussion). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:David Tua[edit]

only one file in it. Alan Liefting (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


should be moved to category:Yahualica de González Gallo as this is the official name, whereas Yahualica without a de refers to a village/municipality in another Mexican entity. → «« Man77 »» [de] 10:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)]] → «« Man77 »» [de] 10:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eiffel Tower from Palais de Chaillot - 2000s[edit]

Category:Eiffel Tower from Palais de Chaillot photographed by John Doe on 1 January 2001 problem. As a general categorization rule, one should avoid to combine unrelated factors: there is no use to break down the categorizes that categorize images by point of view by year, photographer, or color --  Docu  at 13:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Two other subcategories there seem at bit lost: "West facade of Notre-Dame de Paris - 2010s" with 4 files and "West facade of Notre-Dame de Paris in the 19th century‎" with 7 files.

To improve categorization of the remaining images, a selection by point of view and perspective could be more helpful than these. Compare the following currently split between these two and the main category:
Cheers. --  Docu  at 14:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Native American sites[edit]

not well thought out category, given to the one image, which is now pretty well categorized. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pilbara region of Western Australia[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Pilbara. The "Pilbara" category makes the claim " this category contains specific locations in the region See also Pilbara region of Western Australia - for region wide features" but I don't believe this is a sufficient reason for two categories and indeed is more likely to create confusion rather than aid categorisation. Mattinbgn (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

support - as long as a good redirect goes in sats (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • actually I would have thought Pilbara region to be the more succinct rather than just Pilbara, either way whats ever is consistant for all regions, Peel, South-West, Great Southern, Wheatbelt, Gascoyne, Murchison, Kimberley Gnangarra 04:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not fussed about the naming, just the duplication. I am sure WA editors will determine a suitable name. ;) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Should be "JC Decaux", with a space, like all its subcategories (or, possibly, all the subcategories should have the space removed). Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Choosing "JCDecaux" is more sensible as this spelling is consistent with Wikipedias' articles and the company's actual logo. - Olybrius (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The company is called JCDecaux, without space, so I think the subcategories should be renamed. --rimshottalk 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Moves requested at User:CommonsDelinker/commands. --rimshottalk 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved to JCDecaux, where applicable. --rimshottalk 20:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Irish Americans[edit]

This category lacks any exposition, laying out who does or doesn't belong in it. If all it requires is that the individual is an American who can claim some Irish heritage, then I suggest it is too broad a category to be meaningful, because a very large fraction of Americans can claim some Irish heritage. Perhaps it should only include individuals born in Ireland, or who had two parents born in Ireland.

I recently added a photo of Bernard Corrigan, an individual with an Irish sounding name, who some references asserted was backed by Irish money from Boston. But when I looked into his family more closely he and his siblings were born in small-town Ontario.

So, he is not from Ireland, and not from an Irish enclave in Boston, so I don't think he belongs in this category. Geo Swan (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly you think ought to be done with this category? Should it be deleted, or renamed in some manner? -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • IMO, as a bare minimum, it should contain expositary text which guides contributors as to who should be an element.
  1. I would suggest that individuals born in Ireland, who moved to America, belong in the category, but not individuals, who had a single grandparent, or a couple of great-grandparents, whose most meaningful attachment to Ireland is to drink a green beer on St Patrick's Day.
  2. What about 2nd generation Irish-Americans, who had at least one Irish parent, who assert they followed some Irish traditions while growing up in America? Personally, I don't think they should be included. Without knowing an individual personally we can't really know if their association with Ireland is meaningful. Children and grandchildren of Irish citizens are entitled to apply for Irish citizenship themselves, even if they never lived there. I'd include Americans with Irish heritage, who assert they applied for Irish citizenship. Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


Delete - we don't dupe category names across languages, especially when their content is largely irrelevant to that category Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Category:Tuercas and Category:Insertos Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Category:Animals in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base[edit]

An older category, Category:Animals in Guantanamo, was systematically emptied when its elements were transferred to this new category. The older category was then speedy deleted on the grounds it was empty. This always bugs me. Maybe a discussion would conclude Category:Animals in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was a more appropriate name -- or maybe it would't. It is not in line with some earlier categorization. In any case I don't think these kinds of actions should be taken without discussion.

Why Category:Animals in Guantanamo? Guantanamo is not just the name of a base, it is the name of a Bay, a city and a Province. The base only takes up the outer half of the Bay, the inner half is Cuban. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry if I was hurry but the 3 subcategories are all related to animals in the US naval base and it was the appropriate name. I've requested a deletion for some reasons: Category:Animals in Guantánamo (with the accent) would be the proper name related to the city, an eventual Category:Animals in the Province of Guantánamo... related to the province. And categories by province for animals in Cuba (or elsewhere) are still not existant... and btw this name was not technically correct. Would it be a redirect to the province, to the city or to the base? Anyway, I left the history of the original category in category's talk, as I do when I make this kind of moves. Just to note, a category by city for animals in Cuba exists but Guantánamo (city) is a different thing from Guantanamo Naval Base. Sorry for technical problems. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Just another note to explain the tech problem: The US naval base is entirely bordered by the Cuban municipality of Caimanera, not Guantánamo. So, a possible category related to animals in the city (or in its municipal territory) would not be a subcategory/main category of this one. At least a disambiguation. And btw I've simply followed the proper categorization form of subcategories related to the Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, that for almost all the categories chose the name as precisely as possible. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Another example: The Category:Nature of Punjab was deleted and its content (evidently all Indian) was moved to the Category:Nature of Punjab, India. Because the Punjab may refer to Indian or Pakistani one. In the same way... due to the fact that all the pictures come from Gn. Bay Naval Base; general categories as Nature of, Animals in, People from etc, preferably chose this style. An example is the Category:Domestic cats at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base‎, and not "Domestic cats in Guantanamo", created by you. I'm sorry for my length, explaining the facts, but it's just to explain the technical nature of this categorization. Again, regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hunza Valley[edit]

Deletion Request: Cat is redundant with Category:Hunza. I emptied it by recategorizing the files accordingly Rupert Pupkin (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The cat is being refilled right now. Well, I don't mind. We can keep the Cat Hunza Valley, but then we don't need the Category Hunza. One of them is superfluous. (And Hunza Valley had less entries than Hunza so I chose that one for deletion) Ohter opinions? --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

  • Comment - Sorry! I added more files to Category:Hunza Valley before I realized what was going on. Please forgive. Since Hunza is a valley, could it be named with "valley" included, since it is a geography feature? When cats have one name (which could be city, mountain peak, etc.) it's very hard for me to figure things out. But you are a better judge I'm sure than I am of cat names, since I find them very confusing. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have only basic knowledge about categories on commons. I look after (and for) images related to the Karakoram mountain range from time to time. And so I came across this category Hunza valley. Because it had not many entries and had only one master-category (i don't know how to call "higher" categories), i chose this one for deletion. I don't see any objections to my opinion that one category is enough. But I think you're right about the appropriate name. It should rather be Hunza Valley as all the files are about the valley. But I'm struggeling with the Category Hunza as a political division. Hunza is categorized under Hunza-Nagar district and within this district-cat next to the tehsils. But the valley spreads over different tehsils, so that does not fit so well... This is hard to find out. See for example the first sentence in category:Hunza, follow the link city of hunza to the english wikipedia and see what you find there... This is so confusing.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep the Hunza Valley category. My reasoning for supporting Hunza Valley is the following: According to en:Hunza Valley, the Hunza is a mountainous valley in Pakistan. The article distinguishes Hunza Valley from en:Hunza (princely state) which was a princely state until 1974 when it was dissolved, the article says. There is also Category: Baltit Fort; according to en:Baltit Fort, this fort is in Hunza Valley. There is also Category:Minerals of Hunza Valley‎ which are in Hunza Valley and Category:Hunza River. The en:Hunza River article isn't very helpful but it seems likely the river is also in Hunza Valley. According to en:Hunza (princely state): "The area of Hunza now forms the en:Aliabad tehsil of en:Hunza–Nagar District. It's very confusing, I agree. Best, Soranoch (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fachhochschule Ludwigshafen[edit]

I propose moving this category to Category:Hochschule Ludwigshafen am Rhein which since 2012 has been the new name of this school. PanchoS (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Decorated vehicles[edit]

Seems redundant to parent Category:Art vehicles. Suggest deletion and upmerging of all entries to the parent cat. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Universities and colleges in Ludwigshafen[edit]

Please move to Category:Universities and colleges in Ludwigshafen am Rhein. Sorry for creating this category with a name inconsistent to the rest of the tree. PanchoS (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Paintings in the Alte Pinakothek (flat list)[edit]

I don't think this category is needed. Flat list categories don't belong in the middle of the hierarchy, and this one isn't even populated. ghouston (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It looks pretty populated to me. Are we sure that all the items are adequately categorized for the AP without it? Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • query: "adequately categorized for the AP" -- what is "AP" in this useage? searching commons gets me nothing useful. Lx 121 (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Somebody has populated it in the meantime. It's not even a list, it also contains 777 images. If there's some need for this category for maintenance (I have no idea what that would be), it should at least be marked as hidden and removed from the main category heirarchy. --ghouston (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep -- if we had a TOOL for ordinary users to seamlessly flip-flop between flat lists & nested categorization, then we WOULDN'T NEED ANY separate "flat list" categories. however, UNTIL we get that, flat lists serve a useful purpose, & NOT just for "maintenence" or "experienced editors". Lx 121 (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So we should require every category that has subcategories to also have a (flat list) subcategory? How many categories would a single image here need to be added to? We could start with:
Category:Interior of the Alte Pinakothek (flat list)
Category:Alte Pinakothek (flat list)
Category:Art museums in Munich (flat list)
Category:Museums in Munich (flat list)
Category:Museums in Upper Bavaria (flat list)
Category:Museums in Bavaria (flat list)
Category:Museums in Germany (flat list)
Category:Museums (flat list)
--ghouston (talk)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete As per nomination. I'm hard-pressed to see a useful purpose to this category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


Category was wrongly moved by User:Foroa some time back, along with others such as this one, and all of these moves appear to display a lack of familiarity with applicable English usage. "Limestone" is a non-count noun (like "deer" and "fish"), so like Category:Shale and Category:Sandstone, we should name this category for the type of stone, rather than giving it a plural form that's never used in real life. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: while “limestones“ can be a count noun, meaning types of limestone, or geological formations consisting of limestone, I agree that the singular mass noun is more appropriate here, considering both consistency with other cats and the range of its present contents. (I notice a couple of subcats that should probably be dealt with at the same time, Limestones in Malta & Limestones in Ukraine.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dialog Arena[edit]

This category should be named Category:Stadion Zagłębia Lubin Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Old Polish Books[edit]

old is subjective, i also brought up Category:Old books Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:United States Navy officers[edit]

Should be Naval officers of the United States Philafrenzy (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agreed, category names should wherever possible follow the "[subject] followed by [modifier]" form. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Move requested at User:CommonsDelinker/commands, which will take a while as the category is huge. --rimshottalk 17:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Maybe too late for it on this one, but: "United States Navy" is a specific organization. If it were to be subject + modifier, it probably should be "Officers of the United States Navy". There are no "naval officers of the United States" other than "officers of the United States Navy" as far as I know; I assume that U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Marine officers would correct you if you called them "naval officers". And "naval" is neither the most common form in English nor most likely search term when looking for U.S. Navy officers. --Closeapple (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You're very slightly too late, actually, the bot moved the files just today. The discussion has been open for a few months, though, so there was plenty time to oppose, which no-one did. Is the current (new) state fundamentally wrong? It does keep Category:Naval officers by nationality consistent. --rimshottalk 20:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Microsoft web logos[edit]

We should have sperate categories, like Category:Bing, Category:Internet Explorer. taxonomic point of this category is low, so remove this. Rezonansowy (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, Category:Internet Explorer logos does not contain any of Microsoft web properties. (IE is web-related, but it is a computer program.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Taxonomic point of this category is confusing to me. There's no nothing like Microsoft web, can be Microsoft software, Microsoft hardware logos, so I don't understand the sense of it. --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. There is something called Microsoft web property which refers to websites, web services and web applications. Microsoft web logos is logos used to identify these properties but not logos merely used on them. For instance, Hotmail logo identifies Hotmail. But Hotmail uses Facebook logo too, but that logo does not represent Hotmail. (It represents Facebook.) So, Hotmail logo goes to Microsoft web logos but Facebook logo does not. Now, let me add a more difficult example: Microsoft logo does not go to Microsoft web logos because it represents Microsoft, the company, not one of its web properties. (That logo goes to Category:Microsoft company logos.
I hope these made sense. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion, but why other users do not speak? --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:University of Wales Institute, Cardiff[edit]

Move to Category:Cardiff Metropolitan University Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree: people who graduated from the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, in the daughter category "Category:Alumni of University of Wales Institute, Cardiff‎" do not automatically become alumni of Cardiff Metropolitan University. I suggest creating "Category:Cardiff Metropolitan University" and making "Category:University of Wales Institute, Cardiff" a subcategory of it. New files created on or after the establishment of Cardiff Metropolitan University should of course go into that category, but files relating to the former University of Wales Institute should continue to be placed in that category. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tudor Buildings[edit]

Fits awkwardly with Category:Tudor_houses and Category:Tudor style architecture (also incorrect caps). Jarry1250 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Dreißigjähriger Krieg[edit]

Inappropriate name. The image may be placed to Category:Renaissance armour‎. Passerose (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Coalition of Radical Left (SYRIZA)[edit]

Please rename to Category:SYRIZA, as the subtitle has changed a few times (and is no more "Coalition of Radical Left") while "SYRIZA" (which used to be an acronym) is what the party remains being referred to both in Greece and worldwide. PanchoS (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gilberto González[edit]

Self promotion, See deletion request,_moderna_y_folcl%C3%B3rica._Nacido_en_Maracaibo,_Edo._Zulia,_Venezuela.jpg Wilfredor (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Either this should be merged with Category:Gifford, East Lothian or vice versa; although other places called Gifford exist, from a quick survey of the gallery all the files here appear to belong to the Scottish town & surrounding region. (I have removed a few Category:Images from the Gifford Photographic Collection.) —Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Gifford, East Lothian. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Electric lamps with emergency exit pictograph[edit]

Bad named, no lamps, the accurate categories for those safety lighting devices are Category:Luminous emergency exit signs and Category:Emergency exit pictograms, under parent Category:Emergency exit signs Bohème (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

*1) They leave being Luminous after empty battery (3...4 hours after energy missing);
*2) Standarts provide electric illuminant as luminous source, so construction of those devices implies redundant-powered electric lamp with pictograph of emergency exit on lampshade. Dmitry G (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lamp posts, Category:Lamp poles & subcategories[edit]

These seem too synonymous with Category:Street lights. JesseW (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

See the redirects to w:en:Street lights -- both of these phrases are redirects. JesseW (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, JesseW, a lamp pole is a utility pole. Meanwhile a lamp post is often a historcial and/or ornamented light support. Both are only one of several components. They are topped by the light source/lamp and its housing/lantern. A lamp post bracket is required for suspended lanterns. Whether you call them lamp poles or lamp posts, they hold not necessarily street lights, but all kind of park lights, garden lights, porch lights, courtyard lights, harbour beacons, they are beside promenades, footpathes, waterbodies, on piers and footbridges ... Sometimes they are lost in the countryside. For all those the Category:Lamp posts is absolutely indispensable. --Bohème (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that helps explain the intended distinction. Could you add that to the category pages? I'd do it myself, but I'm still not sure how best to phrase it. JesseW (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Former Lisbon trams in Sóller[edit]

Beter name would be Category:Former Lisbon trams in the Sóller - Port de Sóller tramway, so that it clearly doesn’t mean the exact location along the line but service in this system. -- Tuválkin 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Since no one’s against, I’ll do the move. -- Tuválkin 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Drigadnyj Podryad (band)[edit]

Переименовать категорию Drigadnyj Podryad (band) в Brigadnyj Podryad (band) (ошибка названия) Dogad75 (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Photos by Pedro Simoes[edit]

Correct spelling: "Simões". -- Tuválkin 14:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pictures of the male nude by Arno Roca[edit]

Does an ordinary flickr user deserve a category? I arno roca is no notable photographer and this category brings this person in spheres were only established photographers are bundled 16:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whether he "deserves" anything: categories are bundles, not awards. Having scores and scores of images of his cluttering the main category "Male nude" was very unconvenient, so I created it. If you can find any name to bundle them, please go ahead, I don't mind. But sub-categorisation is meant to keep in order the main cat, not to appoint or deny an award to a contributor. There is no implicit judgement in the choice. Otherwise we should ask ourselves whether every and each artist "deserves" a category of her own: not all of them are great artists... Love - --User:G.dallorto (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally: Roca is not an "ordinary flickr user" but an established professional photographer regularly published in fashion magazines:

I think we should encourage professional photographers to contribute us their work, rather than dismissing them, possibly out ot envy, as mere "flickr users". --User:G.dallorto (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We need good gay photographers, not amateurs!

Interesting. Where this rule is stated in Wikipedia statement of scope? Please show me. And, I suppose it is you who will be telling the difference between "good" and "amateur", won't you? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep

Category:Graffiti in funiculars in Lisbon[edit]

Should be Category:Graffiti on funiculars in Lisbon. -- Tuválkin 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


The name of the category, Esplanadi, refers to a non-specific entity, a narrow park between two streets, but the contents of the category refer to three separate locations; Esplanadin puisto, the actual park named so in the core of Helsinki, and its bounding streets Pohjoisesplanadi and Eteläesplanadi. I propose that the contents of this category should be divided into three separate categories, one for each entity. The name of the category for the park is still open to debate, as it appears as in the forms "Esplanade park" and "Esplanade" in equal measure.

Same in Finnish:

Kategorian nimi Esplanadi viittaa epämääräiseen käsitteeseen, puistoalueeseen kahden tien välissä, mutta kategorian sisältö kuvaa kolmea eri aluetta; itse puistoa, ja sen rajaavia teitä Pohjoisesplanadia ja Eteläesplanadia. Ehdotan että tämän kategorian sisältö jaetaan kolmeen osaan koskemaan Pohjoisesplanadia, Eteläesplanadia ja puistoa, erillään toisistaan. Kategorian nimi puistolle täytyy sopia erikseen, koska muodot "Esplanadin puisto" ja "Esplanadi" esiintyvät samoissa määrin. Nelg (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Heritage streetcars in Seattle[edit]

Category:Heritage streetcars in the United States had no entry for Seattle. After starting Category:Heritage streetcars in the United States I came across Category:Streetcars in Seattle (historic). I anticipate some people will think the new category should be merged with the older related category. But "heritage" systems refer to older systems that are currently in use. Thus I think there should be two categories, and I am seeking endorsement. I may move a couple of the images from the old category to the new. Geo Swan (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Police of Washington, D.C.[edit]

There is something odd here. Washington DC has several Police departments, including Category:Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and independent Police Departments for Congress, and for the Parks within the city. The category Category:Government of Washington, D.C. has Category:Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia as a member, but Category:Police of Washington, D.C.. Shouldn't Category:Police of Washington, D.C. be a member of Category:Government of Washington, D.C. with all the Police departments included in it? Geo Swan (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me, but my knowledge of U.S. police and government is very limited, so I don't have any strong opinions. --Sebari (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Good question, but not necessarily. Two issues:

First, Category:Police of Washington, D.C. is already a subcat of Category:Emergency services in Washington, D.C., which itself is a subcat of Category:Government of Washington, D.C.. Placing Category:Police of Washington, D.C. directly in Category:Government of Washington, D.C., without instituting some sort of larger reorganization, would create an COM:OVERCAT problem.

Second, and although we are very inconsistent in our approach to this on the Commons, Category:Government of Washington, D.C. seems to refer to the government of the district, not to all government in the district. So while the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia‎ would seem to belong to Category:Government of Washington, D.C., a congressional police force (just to use an example) would not necessarily full under the rubric of the district's government (but rather the larger federal government).

Sorry, but I feel as though I have just possibly made this more complicated. Sigh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Views of Igreja de Sao Domingos, Lisbon[edit]

Rename to correct spelling "São". -- Tuválkin 14:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Concordo. José Luiz disc 01:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Igreja de Sao Domingos, Lisbon[edit]

Rename to correct spelling "São". -- Tuválkin 14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Interior of Igreja de Sao Domingos, Lisbon[edit]

Rename to correct spelling "São". -- Tuválkin 14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Concordo. José Luiz disc 01:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Exterior of Igreja de Sao Domingos, Lisbon[edit]

Rename to correct spelling "São". -- Tuválkin 14:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Concordo. José Luiz disc 01:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Jean skirts[edit]

What’s more correct? Category:Jean skirts or Category:Denim skirts? -- Tuválkin 00:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's denim skirts. The word 'jean' doesn't exist, exept as a girls' name. --Judithcomm (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Denim skirts[edit]

What’s more correct? Category:Jean skirts or Category:Denim skirts? -- Tuválkin 00:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Oaxaca, México[edit]

repetive and unnecesary Thelmadatter (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What does it repeat and how is it unnecessary? --rimshottalk 17:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There already is Category:Oaxaca to cover the state and Category:Oaxaca, Oaxaca for the city. One of the students working with me created the category by mistake. I have since moved the photographs here to the previously existing two categoriesThelmadatter (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are still 18 files in there. Are those for the state or for the city? --rimshottalk 07:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of Jewish national identity[edit]

Overcategorization. There is already category about symbols of Israel Δαβίδ (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of Armenian national identity[edit]

Overcategorization. There is already category about Armenian symbols. Title is original resarch. Δαβίδ (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Athabasca Landing, Slave River[edit]

Nonsensical title, Athabasca Landing (now known as the Town of Athabasca), is not on Slave River. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that there was a talk page. The source for the images that were in this category mentions a route from Athabasca Landing to the mouth of the Slave River, which would have been along the Athabasca River. The category mentions a 16 mile portage to Fort Smith, which would have been from Fort Fitzgerald, also known as Smith's Landing, the category for that is at Category:Portages between Fort Fitzgerald and Fort Smith, on the Slave River‎. 117Avenue (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This leaves the question as to whether Athabasca Landing and Category:Athabasca, Alberta merit two separate categories. I think the do, even though they both are for the same geographic space, they are for two separate historical eras.
I suggest we leave Category:Athabasca, Alberta for all images after the community was renamed, and I suggest Category:Athabasca Landing, Slave River should be renamed to one of the names I think you have agreed is appropriate: Category:Athabasca Landing or Category:Athabasca Landing, Northwest Territories; or Category:Athabasca Landing, Athabasca River; or Category:Athabasca Landing, Alberta.
I believe the actual category renaming -- preserving contribution history, requires someone with administrator privileges. Geo Swan (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't need two categories, it's the same town. 117Avenue (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Particle experiments[edit]

Contains no files and only one single subcategory. IMHO the contents shall be moved to Category:Particle accelerators and the category shall be deleted. Passerose (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Largo do Terreirinho[edit]

Rename it Category:Largo do Terreirinho (Oporto), because exists also at least another one. -- Tuválkin 23:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps better Category:Largo do Terreirinho (Porto). --JotaCartas (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Category:Evangelical church (Klášter nad Dědinou)[edit]

delete category - wrong translation, new category created, see: Category:Evangelický kostel (Klášter nad Dědinou) RomanM82 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How is this the wrong translation? What is the correct translation, given the use English rule at COM:CAT? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The translation seems to be good (see [14]), the English name of the category is consistent with other categories of Category:Churches of Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren in Královéhradecký seniorát, the Czech name of the category is not conform with Commons language policy, the category with English name was created earlier than the category with Czech name. --ŠJů (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


This category should be renamed Category:Wikimedia barnstars, with the content of Category:Actual barnstars moved here, and "actual barnstars" deleted. since when do we have internal categories trump reality? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (mostly) — I totally agree that moving the real life barnstars into this category is a must. Moving the awards out of this category also is a must. I think that Barnstar awards might be a better name than Wikimedia barnstars, since the barnstars are used across multiple projects, and some may even be used outside of WMF projects (independent wikis using Wikimedia Commons as their shared multimedia repository. Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I like barnstar awards, esp. since the images can be used anywhere, as they dont have wikipedia/wikimedia graphics in them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The architectural meaning has clear primacy. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Closing this in favour of real life having first claim to the mainspace, wikimedia barnstars will all be moved there, however because there are so many wikimedia barnstars, rather than a straight move and swap, the wikimedia barnstars will be diffused into sub-categories with wikimedia barnstars as the parent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 February 2014‎ (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Actual barnstars[edit]

This category should be deleted, and content moved to Category:Barnstars, with that categories contents moved to a new category, Category:Wikimedia barnstars, as reality should get the main name, not our internal award procedures. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support mostly — See my reasoning above. In a nutshell, I support the moves, except I would recommend something like Category:Barnstar awards as the destination for those. Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar awards is better than my idea.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Closing this in favour of real life having first claim to the mainspace, wikimedia barnstars will all be moved there, however because there are so many wikimedia barnstars, rather than a straight move and swap, the wikimedia barnstars will be diffused into sub-categories with wikimedia barnstars as the parent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Category:Unions (sindicatos) and social movements[edit]

This category name doesnt make sense, if its specific to argentina and/or mexico. content should be merged with unions and social movements categories, or organizations in argentina Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Save Outdoor Sculpture![edit]

shouldnt this be a hidden category? its in the line of featured, quality, valued, photochrome, black and white, etc. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, CA[edit]

rename to Category:Strawberry Creek, no other creeks of note with this name found Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment As the original creator of the category, I have no objection to the proposed change. I was just following the naming conventions of the time to the extent that I knew them. If there is a consensus for it, go for it.

--Coro (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — Unless there is a good reason not to include it, I find the secondary location name quite helpful. I've stumbled across several categories where there was nothing to distinguish to identically named topics, so two (or more) very different sets of photographs cohabitated in the same category. Sometimes it was humorous, usually just annoying. In this case, two creeks named Strawberry Creek might not be easily detected by sight, and the problem could linger on for years. I think it helps to add that extra level of identification, even if it's not immediately obvious that there's a likely conflict elsewhere in the world. Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Buddy Bears in Berlin[edit]

Deletion requested at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale given. Don't know about those SuperDragons, but the Buddy Bears are heavy sculptures that usually have remained at a place for years. German law requires that sculptures are permanently placed in the public space. Permanently is defined by the absence of an obvious intent to move it out of public space after a period of time. Moving it somewhere else in public space is fine, changing mind is fine, too. Even taking it in by night should be fine, as long as it is not obvious that it wouldn't be placed out again. Finally the key idea is that the existence of a photograph shouldn't lend the object more permanence than intended by the creator.
So the Wrapped Reichstag wasn't covered by the Freedom of panorama because a destruction date was given in advance. On the other hand, if the desctruction of the cover foil had been a later decision, photos taken earlier would have been okay.
So keep this category tree as it will generally hold valid Public Domain photos, maybe with a few exceptions that need to be taken care of individually. --PanchoS (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Deletion requested at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I was under the impression that the remaining Superlambananas were permanent. They've been around for years. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Kept, not empty and reasons where given why it might stay that way. Nominate individual files for deletion that you think are not free. --rimshottalk 10:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Immagine & poesia[edit]

should be renamed to Category:Immagine & Poesia, its the name of an arts movement, in italian, thus the capitalization. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:White people[edit]

This can either be patrolled, or simply renamed Category:People colored white. I think having a category for white people is just asking for trouble. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Opposition. White people are White people, this is a roof-racial definition (parallelling Black people, Asians, Latinos etc) widely-acceptable among most fields of social sciences and media today (this is what earlier in the 20th century was "Caucasians"). Such categories obviously don't deal with synthetic paint on body, but with the complexity of human society, which Wiki has no reason to escape. Orrlingtalk 00:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand patrolling it. however, the category should have about a half million images in it. we need to add at least a small fraction of them if kept as a racial classification. and we have to decide which half/3/4 white/1/4 white belong in it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree partly. These are fair points. Maybe you should see this discussion, that is sort of similar, and have your take there too. Orrlingtalk 08:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I lift any previous opposition by me to dismantling this category. Now that we've settled Category:People with black skin by recategorizing its content into Category:Black Africans and the like I think that the White racial companion can be seen as unneeded too. Media relating to people that are artificially coloured white can be categorized into a new "Category:People colored white". Orrlingtalk 06:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Libraries in the United States photographed in 2012[edit]

It is absolutely meaningless to create categories by the date of the photo taken. Szilas (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agreed. The whole "[building] photographed in [year]" category structure needs to be seriously examined. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't create these categories but I won't vandalize them like Szilas did with this edit If someone wants to bring them up for discussion, then fine, but don't vandalize templates, etc. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Great Library[edit]

This category was nominated for speedy deletion, but I've removed the tag and restored the content for the time being to allow for a discussion. First, I am not 100% sure that there was any problem with the plain category name. But for all I know people were categorizing images pertaining to the famous library in Alexandria here. So, assuming I am alone in the position that the current name is fine, what is the best rename? The proposed replacement (Great Library of the Law Society of Upper Canada) is not great (and I don't mean that to be critical of the user who proposed it, as it is much better than many alternatives that come to mind). Not sure if that's the full official name or not, but as a lawyer in Ontario, and a member of the LSUC, I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who would refer to it as such (although I have no doubt someone will prove me wrong by pointing to multiple examples on the web). I, personally, would lean towards "Great Library (Osgoode Hall)", or even "Great Library (Law Society of Upper Canada)", as I think disambiguation is better than a mouthful of a name. Possibly "Great Library, Toronto" (keeping in mind the dictum of Foroa that comma disambiguation is for where, brackets for what and who).

Let's not let this discussion linger as some CFDs do. I can move the content to the consensus rename once there is agreement. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I originally renamed this to "Category:Great Library of the Law Society of Upper Canada" because when I looked up the website of the Library on Google the description was "Home page of the Great Library of the Law Society of Upper Canada ..." However, I note that this name does not actually appear on the home page of the website, so I have no objection if the category is renamed "Category:Great Library (Osgoode Hall)" as suggested by Skeezix1000. In any case, I feel that category needs renaming because "Great Library" is not sufficiently specific. For instance, "en:Great Library" redirects to the Library of Alexandria in Egypt. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved to a subcategory and changed to a dissambiguation. --ŠJů (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oy vey. Did you read the discussion? You moved it to the wrong name. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Ignore me. Spent my morning yelling with opposing parties on the phone at work, and it's made me unnecessarily combative. Thank you for trying to resolve this discussion. If anyone was at fault, it was me for so rudely forgetting about the discussion and not responding to Jacklee. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Child's picture book[edit]

Should be Category:Child's Picture Book, as its contents of a specific book. nevermind that wikisource didnt properly capitalize it either. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gertie's sun flower[edit]

Should be Gertie's Sun Flower, as its the name of a children's book Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:O'Higgins Region (Chile)[edit]

Controversial rename without a previous discussion. Jespinos (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

How is it even controversial. A region with the exact same English name exists in Venezuela. --Pitke (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC) --Pitke (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Please could you provide links to articles about this supposed Venezuelan region. Jespinos (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, I'll retract what I said previously. I trusted what the category page said (last version before rename), but could find nothing on a quick search now. --Pitke (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:The adventures of Akbar[edit]

Book title, should be Category:The Adventures of Akbar Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ten little Niggers[edit]

book title, should be Category:Ten Little Niggers (i made sure it was in a category for racist caricatures) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If you think that's better feel free to start a rename (Commons:Rename a category). -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, of course, I think I knew that this was a manual operation, and thus bringing it here is sort of pointless. for this essentially trivial change, i will get around to it myself and not expect someone else to do this. sorry about the bother.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Out of an abundance of caution, might it be better to move it to Category:Ten Little Niggers (book) - it might be a little less shocking when one comes across it in a parent category such as Children's books, as adding the disambiguation simply clarifies that it's a book title, not merely a category with a racial epithet as a name. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:EuskoTran (Bilbao)[edit]

Creo que esta categoría debería cambiar su nombre a "Euskotren Tranbia (Bilbao)". ¿Sería posible? Laukatu (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

En todo caso, y siguiendo las políticas de Commons, debería renombrarse como Category:Euskotren tram, Bilbao o Category:Euskotren Tranbia tram, Bilbao si el nombre completo fuera «Euskotren Tranbia». --DPC (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) «Euskotren Tranbia» es el nombre del servicio de trasporte, por tanto no hace falta añadir tranvía (tram) a la categoría Category:Euskotren Tranbia, Bilbao. Lo que sí es preferible, por concordancia con las políticas de lengua en Commons, es poner «, Bilbao» en lugar de «(Bilbao)». --DPC (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:EuskoTran Vitoria-Gasteiz[edit]

Creo que esta categoría debería pasar a llamarse "Euskotren Tranbia (Vitoria-Gasteiz)" ¿Sería posible? Laukatu (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:HC, have a smile;[edit]

What is the point of this category? The files in it do not appear to have anything to do with Heinz-Christian Strache. darkweasel94 09:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Picture books[edit]

This is too broad and too undefinable, and our current category structure allows for Category:Children's literature, which is adequate to contain baby books, childrens books, young adult books, etc. the two subcategories are not childrens picture books, which is presumably what this category is for. all the files and subcategories have adequate categorization aside from this category. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral – If you are bothered by the mix of ages, maybe you can simply create a subcategories like Category:Children's picture books? – Editør (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:National flag of Palestine[edit]

Originally at Commons:Village pump#Palestinian flag: A flag-issue, it's been suggested to handle that matter on this venue. I support the existence of this category, as a just, equal self-standing flag-category among the nations, while my opponent is being insistent on turning it to redirect to a "Flags of the Palestinian National Authority", which can only be interpreted as a denial of the right of existence of National flag of Palestine as own cat on Commons altogether. The Flags of the Palestinian National Authority is, however, a somewhat-strange and slim "Flags of governments" category, that, if kept, belongs as a subset of National flag of Palestine or redirect to it, in my opinion. Orrlingtalk 02:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree I am not keen on describing others as "opponents". This is not a competition or a battle. Even in disagreement, everyone is working in good faith to achieve a solution that is best for the project.

    Having said that, I see no reason why we would not call this category Category:National flag of Palestine and categorizing it in Category:National flags of countries. I appreciate the problems this causes, but as a project we cannot start taking sides in the Middle East debate. For almost a year now, Palestine has had "non-member observer state" at the UN (a status it gives non-member sovereign states) and the majority of UN members recognize the state of Palestine. For me, that's enough for the flag category to be treated the same as other national flags, in the name of category consistency on the Commons rather than in the name of any particular national cause. It does not mean that we, as a project, accept or deny any claims or positions of the Palestinian National Authority (or of any country for that matter). It simply recognizes, as stated in the en.wp article State of Palestine, that Palestine is a "a de jure sovereign state". We should take that at face value and move on. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, "Flags of the Palestinian National Authority" was the older category name, before Orrling started trying to unilaterally change things, without consulting with anybody or listening to anybody. Second, the "National flag of Palestine" seems to be conspicuously and gratuitously taking one side of a disputed issue, in an unnecessarily overtly blatant manner. There's no Category:National flag of the United States, and I really fail to see how Palestine is supposedly more of a nation than the United States is. In fact, less than a dozen countries have "National flag of X" categories, and until Orrling can explain what the basis is for these countries (but no others) having such a category, maybe it would be better if he would leave Palestine alone... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I think now that this CFD has been initiated, it's time to move on from who did what in the past.

Someone can just as easily say that not calling the category "National flag of Palestine" is conspicuously and gratuitously taking one side of a disputed issue. Therefore, we need an objective standard - I would have thought the UN and the majority of the countries in the world effectively recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state would be it.

As for the last point, I am not sure what would stop someone from creating Category:National flag of the United States today if they wanted to do so. The fact that we only have a dozen or so "National flag of X" categories has more to do with the fact that Commons is a work in progress than anything else. And I don't actually think that's particularly relevant - if someone has a problem with "National flag of X" categories, let them raise that as a CFD. There is no onus on Orrling to justify an existing, and seemingly non-controversial, category tree. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

However, Palestine is still not a full unqualified member of the United Nations, and lacks the full territorial control which is commonly considered to be one of necessary attributes of national sovereignty. So the insistence on creating a category of a type which doesn't exist for about 180 full members of the UN seems to smack of tendentiousness -- an impression which is reinforced by Orrling's past unilateralism and failure to consult with anybody or listen to anybody... AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The point of a CFD is to find consensus with the input of others. Let's please move past the old battles over this category. Personally, I don't care what you or Orrling did last year.

Membership in the United Nations is not a pre-requisite to being a country or nation (otherwise Switzerland wasn't a country until 2002) and a number of countries today do not have full territorial control over their territory. Making category decisions based on subjective and debatable considerations of what constitutes attributes of national sovereignty is a surefire way to drag Commons into a quagmire over various international disputes, which is what I am trying to avoid. A majority of the world's countries recognize the state of Palestine. That's an objective standard. It doesn't mean that we agree or disagree with it, merely that we our category reflects the reality.

In any event, given my political views and support of Israel, I am the last person to be advocating for the Palestinian Authority. Nonetheless, I am simply trying to ensure that this decision over category name is as non-political and objective as possible. I've said my piece, and never intended to be the advocate here for the current status quo. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's nice -- as I'm sure you're aware, UN membership doesn't do much for already solidly-established states, but it plays a definite (though limited) role in bolstering the recognition and legitimacy of disputed and weak states, and the UN has chosen to withhold the full degree of this from Palestine. Given this, I really fail to see the putative burning urgency of the need to establish a category for Palestine which doesn't exist for about 180 full members of the UN. Meanwhile, Orrling's past actions have done much to convince me that he seems to be motivated more by a political agenda than a desire to improve Commons categorizations -- and right now, he's repeating his unilateral actions again, apparently out of a desire to be as annoying as possible... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not that anything is pressing, but it has now seemingly been an unchanged kinda 2-vs-1 support status prevailing here since October. I see right? From what I know no further steps are needed for finding it sufficient. Orrlingtalk 06:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Since part of the issue all along has been your always high-handed and sometimes rather ugly way of doing things, the fact that you transparently started in on this new round of your endless revert war in order to get some kind of revenge for my comments on other separate matters at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems‎ again casts a somewhat unpleasant light on your working methods and personality characteristics. The fact that you got one (1) supporter, who did not really have cogent replies to certain relevant points, does not suggest an overwhelming consensus... AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
What you're doing is inappropriate, editors other than I have expressed both in this late CfD and earlier in the cat itself their understanding that excluding the Palestinian flag from the line isn't a logical option. You have the right to believe I'm being politicized but - 1. this is incorrect (for what it worths) and 2. that hasn't proved to affect categories in a manner that contrast Wiki. I'm done with it. Orrlingtalk 13:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
That's nice -- if you had just changed "Flags of the Palestinian National Authority" or "territories" to "Flags of Palestine" that would not have caused any controversy, but instead you had to gild the lily, or go beyond the merely good into the doubleplusgood, by pulling in the "national flags" junk... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you reference to any individual voice other than yours around here that maintains Palestine's recognized national flag shouldn't go in the National flags folder? Orrlingtalk 11:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Montrealais (ship, 1962) in Toronto[edit]

Administrator User:High Contrast (1) created this category, earlier today; (2) replaced all instances of Category:Montrealais (ship, 1962), moored in Toronto with the new category; (3) then deleted the old category -- on the grounds it was empty. I asked administrator High Contrast to guide me to the discussion where the recategorizing was discussed. As I feared High Contrast acknowledged that he or she had both emptied the category on his or her sole judgment -- and then deleted the category as empty on his or her sole judgment. The way I see it, there are several questions here:

  1. Are administrators really authorized to remove all the elements from a category whose name triggers their concern -- and then to delete that now empty category on the ground it is no empty?
  2. Administrators aren't expected to act like their judgment is infallible, are they? Shouldn't they initiate discussions when a category name triggers their concern -- the same as everyone else?
  3. Aren't administrators supposed to change categories to redirections, when we decide there is a more optimal alternate name -- because simple deletion of a long-standing name can break URLs?
  4. In his or her response to my questions on their talk page High Contrast gave a vague hand-wave in the direction of COM:CAT, writing "categories should be assessed on the basis of their scope, not what happens to be in them at any given moment." Toronto is not a busy port. It has no container cranes. It is only visited by a couple of freighters per year. I have a good view of the port from my roof, and I try to capture some images of every new freighter to visit the port. Several times a year I happen to catch a vessel arriving or leaving the port. So, that is several dozen different vessels, with multiple images each, with well over one hundred images. I thought the most useful subcategories would be Category:Lake freighters in Toronto and Category:Seagoing freighters in Toronto. Within those two categories I thought the most useful criteria would be whether the vessels were or weren't moored.
  5. Even if, for the sake of argument, High Contrast had an argument for their concern that would convince everyone, if only they had articulated it, they did not articulate their reasoning. None of us are mind-readers. When we have a concern, when we think some good-faith contributor is making a mistake, we have an obligation to tell them, and to try to explain our concern to them. Neglecting to do so causes chaos. Good faith contributors, who are making some kind of mistake, will continue to make that mistake, unless those who think they recognize the mistake inform them.
  6. I found High Constrast's vague hand-waving in the general direction of COM:CAT unconvincing. If there is someone who thinks they understands and agrees with High Constrast's reasoning, cold they please explain it here? Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep nonsense nomination - this is a valid category, no reason for (re)moval --High Contrast (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this thing here can be closed. --High Contrast (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Doctor's offices[edit]

This should be plural: "Doctors' offices", since "Doctor's offices" is the offices of one doctor. It's like if we had a category for "Category:Child's museums" instead of "Category:Children's museums". The category concept is great, and there's no way that it should be deleted; the name is the only problem whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  • If the problem is slightly wrong name, then use {{move|Better name|Better name|2013-11-17}}. Pozdrawiam. --Starscream (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Emptying a garbage bin in 2013[edit]

The category is total nonsense: there might be no difference between empinening trash bins in 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2015. Out of scope - away with it 15:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree! I created the category to match the names of the pictures being categorized, which seems the appropriate way to name a subcategory. There was no point in dumping them into a parent category. That would have overloaded that category with a series of 14 picures when only one of them would have been sufficient. That is what is nonsense. What do you propose? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Secondarywaltz's solution, which was to hive these images off into their own category, was probably the best option given the circumstances. The real problem is that with all the new upload tools, too many people are uploading multiple images regardless of image quality, considerations or scope, or (as is the issue here) repetitiveness. Arguably, the collection of images shows the multiple stages of a garbage truck emptying a bin, but using that faulty logic I could upload more than a dozen photos of me, showing all the stages of me drinking a glass of water (reaching for the glass, first touching the glass, grabbing the glass, starting to lift the glass, moving the glass closer to my mouth, moving the glass even closer to my mouth, etc. etc.) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I uploaded these images. I strongly disagree with the nominator about "nonsense". I strongly disagree with Skeezix1000's analogy.
Dumpsters, and the trucks that use them, are a relatively recent phenomenon. Their operation seems obvious now, but won't be at some point in the not to distant future, when dumpsters are no longer in use.
Skeezix1000, we may never need a sequence showing the steps in drinking a glass of water. I suggest a sequence of images illustrating the use of a straight razor would fill a gap in our collection, and would be a fairer comparison to this sequence. We have 6 dozen images of straight razors, and only four showing them being used. There may be lots of historical movies that show straight razors being used -- but none of those images are "free". There are lots of images of dumpsters -- that aren't "free". With the exception of this sequence, is there a sequence showing one being emptied, that is "free"?
"Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose." is what COM:SCOPE requires. It is pretty common to find quality contorl volunteers on WMF projects asserting that they can't imagine how something contributed by someone else could ever possibly be useful. In my experience this often merely reflects the limited imagination of the challenger, and not the innate utility of the contribution. I'd like to suggest, in the nicest way possible, that this sequence is educationally useful. Geo Swan (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to communicate in the "nicest way possible", or convince others of your views, I would recommend avoiding character attacks like "reflects the limited imagination of the challenger". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Because George sincerely believes his contributions are all valid, and will fiercely defend them, I generally support his quality pictures and ignore the others. But these kind of personal attacks are inexcusable. Secondarywaltz (talk)

Category:Former schoolhouses[edit]

duplicate of Category:Former schools; merge both categories; move content to Category:Former schools --Anika (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC) duplicate of Category:Former schools in the United States; merge both categories; move content to Category:Former schools in the United States --Anika (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

duplicate of Category:Former schools in Germany; merge both categories; move content to Category:Former schools in Germany --Anika (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Abbellimenti Libri[edit]

unnecessary layer, upmerge to Category:Typographic ornaments Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. ++Raoli ✉ (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I beg to differ. As a user of these typographic ornaments categories each time I do a book or magazine layer, to have classified by books is very useful, to know the source, the kind of works and the general tone of the ornaments.
It also helps to document the evolution of typographic ornaments in the centuries and the specificities by countries.
By book categories are so useful. --Dereckson (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I get that this is a useful sub cat for some, but what is it? are these typographic ornaments specific to books? it seems the other typographic ornaments are also used in books. the name is in italian (crude english translation "embellishments books"), but i cannot find a corresponding article on italy-specific book ornament forms with this name, or any other name. if someone can explain what these are, as distinctly separate from the other categories here, and give an appropriate english language name for them (unless they are a uniquely italian form, which they dont appear to be), then im ok with keep. Perhaps they can be under Category:Typographic elements of Italy, or Category:Typographic elements from books. we have Category:Embellishments of Books, which could be renamed IF its distinct from other "embellishments". Also, i am completely confused as to the categories its in (besides typgraphic ornaments): Category:Books on Dante Alighieri, Category:Del Vaglio d'Eratostene, Category:Le avventure di Pinocchio, Category:Editors from Italy, Category:It.Wikisource. how are these accurate categories for these elements? are they ALL used in the 3 books listed, and are they all found in various books about Dante? I know they are not images of italian editors, and It.Wikisource doesnt make sense to me either. it looks like this is a category designed specifically for the use of italian graphic designers, to source elements for their work as they have chosen to organize them, and not to organized images in an encyclopedic manner.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


this category type is now Category:Italian Wikisource, but this particular category holds a category that itself serves no purpose Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. ++Raoli ✉ (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Embellishments of Books[edit]

category name implies its another version of Category:Typographic ornaments, and its use is as a holding category for another unsual category, which itself holds a redundant cat. deletion is appropriate. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. ++Raoli ✉ (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Books from Junín[edit]

"books from junin" is a misnomer. its a book about junin. already in other adequate categories, this layer will never develop. alternately, rename to "books about junin", still very unlikely Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it is not clear. They can be books published in Junín (regardless of the subject) and also books about Junín (regardless of place of publication). Both types of categories exist in Commons: by place of publication: "Books published in Lisbon" or "Books from Verona", both included in "Books by city" category. And by subject, for example "Books about Rennes" included in "Culture of Rennes" category. The only image in the "Books from Junín" category is a book titled "History of Junín" so the topic is about that city and the book was also published in Junín, therefore I do not know which of the two criteria could be used. I would prefer to changed to "Books about Junín" regardless of the place of publication, as the example of Rennes. Thank you very much. --Germanramos (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, ive seen this problem. I am now in favor of much more specificity on what a book is about, so i would be happy to see "Books about Junín". (this has changed in the weeks since i proposed this, i now feel we dont categories books by subject well enough).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Brigham Young Cougars football players[edit]

Should reflect the common use of the "BYU" abbreviation for Brigham Young University athletics, as wikipedia articles about university athletics use the BYU abbreviation. Another category on Commons is category:BYU Cougars men's basketball players‎ Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Old books[edit]

subjective category. all categories are in other reasonably narrow categories. the contents should then be upmerged to Category:Books Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it seems useful to be able to find pictures of books that looks old; for example for illustration purpose. This category could be a subcategory of Category:Books by condition if it seems more logical. But putting everything back into Category:Books would make things worse because it is already crowded. And what would append to the subcategories ? Lionel Allorge (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that our category tree system sometimes makes it hard to find collections of images with a similar (if subjective) theme all on one page. i dont like that, but its sort of inevitable given how many images we have. I can help in 3 ways: i have additionally categorized each of these images into other categories, such as 15th century books, and i have started a gallery, (renamed an earlier minor gallery), called Early books, and add some choice images to it from this category. Books by condition can also have a category added, Category:Worn-out books, for books with obvious signs of use.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree with nomination. "Old" is subjective. We have a fairly well-developed category tree in which media related to books is categorized by century and (where numbers warrant) decade and year (for example, Category:1998 books). That is a far preferable approach. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Printed books[edit]

Unnecessary layer, as all books not labelled as manuscripts are printed. upmerge to books Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Early printed books[edit]

imprecise layer, as early is not defined, and all books not described as manuscripts are printed. upmerge to books or sort as appropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please rename Category:Four-color into Four colors[edit]

I have moved this nomination from the mover-bot request list where I initinally posted it:

Rename Category:Four-color (talk) to Category:Four colors (0 entries moved, 169 to go) Orrlingtalk 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Four-color is consistent with sister cats Bicolor and Tricolor. --Pitke (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a very odd way to name categories honestly. Please see Category:Four people, Category:Three matching outfits, Category:Multiple flags. This category is simply meant to host files that consist of four colours, just as its current content manifests. It's not a case of Six-wheeled vehicles... I propose the rename of "Bicolor" and "Tricolor" to Two colors and Three colors; futhermore, if it was meant to be consistent with Bicolor and Tricolor then this cat would have needed to be Category:Quadricolor. Orrlingtalk 22:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's take this to a proper CfD. Changing Bicolor and Tricolor would affect a whole bunch of subcats. --Pitke (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

</End of copying> Orrlingtalk 18:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Day of the Dead celebrations at the cemetery[edit]

merged with Category:Decorated graves for Day of the Dead Thelmadatter (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


I dont think a category of determiners should be used in this manner, with pictures of people pointing to objects, with the image title using the determinative word for the object indicated. this seems highly abstract and confusing Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If the pictures are supported with an explanation, I don't see why they should be confusing. They were made to be used in wikibooks. Contrasting number and distance can be easily done with pictures. Much easier that explaining it with definitions. --Javier Carro (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Im sorry, i didnt realize they were being used in this fashion. i withdraw my nomination. they might need to be better categorized, so that its obvious what their use is, but that can be done w/o discussion here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


Should this category be Micmac, Mi'kmaq (or Micmac people/Mi'kmaq people)? Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd propose that it be the same as the title of the En Wikipedia article, Mi'kmaq people. Yworo (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree with renaming this category to Category:Mi'kmaq. Fungus Guy (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Collaborative work[edit]

how is "collaborative work" a subset of "magic squares"? if that phrase is used in this context, it surely needs a modifier, such as Category:Collaborative work (magic squares) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Collaborative work (magic squares) is fine for me. Since a few weeks I am involved at Wikidata. I got a notification about this discussion. d:user:לערי ריינהארט 01:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Poetry recitals[edit]

this, and Category:poetry reading, appear to be exactly the same thing Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Poetry reading[edit]

this, and Category:Poetry recitals, appear to be exactly the same. not sure which name is better, I am more familiar with the phrase "poetry readings". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, should be merged. Man vyi (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eric Koch[edit]

IMHO, this should move to Category:Photos by Eric Koch. Am I right? PanchoS (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Eric Koch was a photographer. The only images we will upload here are photographs, so don't you think it is unnecessary? We can adjust it when time comes. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


It seems unclear how to exactly differentiate this relatively new category from its superior Category:Topics on the one hand, resulting in several subcategories being double categorized, and from Category:Objects on the other hand; the latter part of the problem has become manifest in a conflict upon the question, if organisms should be categorized as objects. The category description, although given in four languages, is not really instructive either. --Abderitestatos (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I oppose any implied proposal to move this category anywhere, it's superfine. Regards Orrlingtalk 12:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not fine at all: If no comprehensible definition can be given, this category is not sustainable. I do agree, though, that renaming it would not do any good. --Abderitestatos (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose Orrling wants us to guess the meaning of the category. The category names Subjects and Topics don't give much clue: they are synonyms as far as I know. I'd say that since Category:Things has been redirected there, that it's supposed to refer to the subset of Topics that somehow relate to "things". He also wants objects restricted to inanimate objects, so "things" includes organisms and objects and certain concepts, but not concepts which are left in the parent category of Category:Topics. But comparing Category:Categories by topic and Category:Categories by subject, it's hard to see a pattern in it. ghouston (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with the nominator and ghouston -- the distinction attempting to be drawn is not helpful for Commons. JesseW (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not quite wanting us to guess the meaning of anything, we have long had the scheme of "topics" that yielded "Categories by topic", and "Subjects" in turn assembles the sub-topics that are at the head of our very-elaborate and well-established "Categories by subject", so if you thoughtfully insight that the current "Categories by topic" and those "by subject" are not distinct from one another this is a different matter than the agenda of the user in creating this CFD and obviously trying to mix the "Objects" issue in here is a dash odd and unwelcome; try to tell whether you simply propose the merger of Categories by subject and Categories by topic (though I wouldn't do it on this page but in a forum that can be taken more seriously) and my support will then be garanteed. Orrlingtalk 06:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, so Categories by topic and subject is indeed a usage where topic and subject are synonyms. Perhaps it would be convenient to combine them into a Category:Categories by subject/topic so that they are all in one place, even if there's no good reason to rename half of them. But why use the name "Subjects" for this category instead of "Things"? And I still don't understand how you distinguish what belongs in this "Things" category vs what remains in "Topics". It doesn't help that some categories like Objects and Belief appear in both. ghouston (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an environment where things are constantly in progress and construction. So "Why I haven't completed arranging just ALL the right topics that may fit in the Subjects category" is maybe not the most constructive question. In the past 6 months I was doing lots of various edits away from my inherent contriblist, so now that I was back in the account I can address any topic in need, and everyone other than I can equally set the entries in or out from the Topic-father. –not surprisingly, more than half of the current residents in Subjects, which I'm happy with, were categorized in there by other editors, which could be you too. Generally speaking, "topics" being a WikiCommons root container may be understood as higher in scope than "subjects", and I welcome any argument that suggests it need to be vice-versa. In the same way I'd be more than OK if "Categories by topic" merge down with "Categories by subject" and this will allow to observe Subjects as a redirect to Topics and save the branching from it. Orrlingtalk 08:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that Category:Categories by subject (flat list) already contains topic and subject entries, it'd be consistent to move the contents of Category:Categories by topic into Category:Categories by subject. There's a mix of names, and we also have large categories like Category:Topics by year‎, but it's not a big deal if topic and subject are recognised as synonyms, and Category:Subjects can redirect to Category:Topics. ghouston (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree Orrlingtalk 08:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Category:Topics as a nearly exact synonym in this case. We seem to tend to use "by topic" a little more than "by subject", not sure why, but it seems like a fine decision. not every English word needs to be used as a category name. we have to make choices here, we definitely dont need both. I cant quite follow the discussion of "categories by topic", "categories by subject", and the flat list category. im not sure what value they serve, but more importantly, im not sure if they are relevant to this specific discussion. new top level categories should really be discussed first, before being created.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it would be possible to rename the flat list category from subject to topic simply by creating the new category and editing Template:ByCat to populate it. That would mean "topic" could be used throughout. ghouston (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the "Topics" will migrate to "Category:Subjects", the same way as "Categories by topic" merge down to "Categories by subject" with no opposition on the village pump topic we've now had for a week run. You may still send forth your objections on that discussion, as pointed above, this page here is of no meaning Orrlingtalk 12:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this discussion going any further, or does everybody agree now with making Category:Subjects a redirect to Category:Topics? --Abderitestatos (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone wants them merged, but Orrling wants Topics to be redirected to Subjects. The village pump discussions are here and here. --ghouston (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Demonstrations and protests relating to animal welfare[edit]

I think this should move to Category:Demonstrations and protests in support of animal welfare, as there won't probably ever be demonstrations against animal welfare. PanchoS (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I can’t imagine protests against animal welfare per se, but there are certainly some that occur in reaction to regulations that purport to promote animal welfare, or as counter-demonstrations to advocacy efforts. For recent examples there have been public protests in Canada against other countries’ anti-sealing measures (trade restrictions, boycotts, &c.), and IIANM in the UK against their own anti-fox-hunting laws (which weren‘t just about AW, but also property rights and so on). But I don’t know whether we have any relevant media, and the more specific name is probably better—assuming it suits all the category’s present contents.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Certainly there are lots of people with different views and even counter-demonstrators. However they would object to this being about animal welfare per se. They would rather be against the "chaotes" or for bull fights, hunting, cheap meat, animal testing etc. If a bit more philosophical, then they might argue with either of technological progress, cultural heritage or homocentrism, depending on the topic. But certainly not against animal welfare. :) --PanchoS (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, "related to animal welfare" (objective) instead of "relating to animal welfare" (subjective) would cover these counterprotests as well, as it is slightly less specific and gets away from how the protesters decide to word their protest. It might even be a good improvement for the whole category tree. How do you think about it? --PanchoS (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that would be an improvement.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I struggle a little to see the difference between related and relating and am not sure one necessarily indicates objectivity while the other subjectivity, but have no problem if someone wishes to undertake the task of renaming all the relevant categories. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
See the difference between related and relating:
Slightly simplified, the former simply means be connected, while the latter tends to mean: identify with. In many other fields we usually use related, and in fact it seems to be the better choice. --PanchoS (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Category:List of rail yards in the United States[edit]

This appears to duplicate Category:Rail yards in the United States. I don't see the need for this confusing parallel structure. Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)  

  • As the creator, the purpose is to be less confusing. The the intent is to have one, the original, morphed into a METACATEGORY listing rail yards by states (Category:Rail yards in the United States ↔ by creating appropriate sub-categories by similar entities and moving content as I've started: category:Rail yards in Pennsylvania‎, category:Rail yards in Florida‎, category:Rail yards in Massachusetts‎), since for such powers, the by Country category is the work-around equivalent of Category:Rail yards by country category and its associations with its subcategories. (Railroads having grown up in the industrial revolution in different parts of the industrialized world demonstrate a fari amount of difference in terms meaning the same things.)

    The current system tries to equate the needs of a highly developed or a large territorial state such as Mexico or South Africa with many local political subdivisions with a Monaco, Luxembourg, or Lebanon. Highly developed states like France, Germany, the UK, or Romania might well benefit from a similar organization. For some categories... things are over-cluttered, and disorganized, especially to someone visiting the commons as a customer —such people are stuck with default skins and the parent categories are buried at page bottom— way down below any media page links and thumbnails. (That has always been a weakness in this website, as I pointed out at least six years ago when we organized the maps categories.) The matter is further clouded by past and present names. Rail yards in particular are somewhat prized assets and if corporations acquire one another (Common in rail history) then rail yard names often change with the restructuring of a new corporate milieu and Rail operations company.

    Hence a list of 'category scheme' applied to territorial large or complex by 'country topic' categories for such states in certain cases seems warranted, and in this case would likely apply in other nation states like Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the Russian Federation, Mexico, and the USA. In the specific case, the purpose is to alphabetically index (list) only pertinent 'named yards' categories both within the 'by country >> USA >> By State' schema' and by name for such such yards as occur in the USA. A survey of the List of Rail yards article in en.Wikipedia shows there to be dozens of major yards in the USA, and that it's not currently listing most all typical yards, as are often categories here (e.g. see Massachusetts subcat link above--it's subcats are representative of by yard category contents, imho) in European settings. I suspect, linking and listing hard or soft-category-redirects pages in the list/index category will be quite useful to sometimes keep scarce entries under its' several names in one category, but flexible enough to allow 'by other yard name' categorization if there is ample content for a particular historical era, when the yard was known by some other name. Other large states such as China, India, and Russia with dozens of subcategories by geo-politcal subdivisions would likely benefit from such restructuring as as well. Smaller states might want a list schema as well if the numbers of rail yards are warranted so the main media categories can be organized under and by similar subdivisions, but in the larger states it is and has been needed to cut down clutter and confusion. // FrankB 15:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I thank you for providing a lengthy explanation but I'm afraid that I still don't understand the utility of having two top-level rail yard categorization schemes. I don't understand the distinction you're drawing and I suspect other editors won't either. It seems like this is better accomplished by the en.wp article List of rail yards? This seems unmaintainable. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure I'd consider them both as top level, the intent is to augment the other by having a list category, like a book index. The List of is an ALPHABETICAL list of ALL yards by name, irregardless of state. Similar to this very incomplete article section The extant category, once edited will lists STATES which have rail yards, not names of railyards. The first is an index, the second categorized by geopolitical classification. Fail to see how adding [[Category:List of Rail yards in the United States]] creates any maintenance headaches, it's a one time edit per railyard category, no images need apply. If both sister-categories cross-link as we did years ago on maps cats, the contents of each will be clear enough. // FrankB 13:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems the differentiation you're going for is maybe that of a flat category versus a hierarchy? For example, Category:Categories by type versus Category:Categories by type (flat list). Naming it "List of" seems very out of place for Commons. Flat categories themselves are "up for discussion" (since 2010). djr13 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Not having been regularly active here since 2009, I just ran into the (flat category) suffixing the other day, as it turns out. But that is essentially the idea, Blame the "List of" on tens of thousands of en.Wikipedia edits and that is far more descriptively MEANINGFUL in English. The heirarchy has it's place, but at times, especially for large federated Countries like the US, Russia, and Germany with subnational entities bigger than many nations, it adds an additional layer of path-ings when trying to find either categories or images. A Flat category is a work around to having some chance of finding things HALF-EFFICIENTLY. Hierarchies such at quick location. // FrankB 17:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, flat categories are usually only for administrative categories (at least on WP). the problem of flat vs heirarchical has been pretty much decided, in favor of heirarchy (and i guess we try to make it clear as best we can that the category someone is looking for is embedded further down). I agreed that any list of rail yards in the US needs to be an article at WP. we dont have lists here (at least not yet, or to my knowledge, and i would generally oppose such here)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Breads and religion[edit]

Proper name is Category:Bread and religion Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Purple question mark.svg Unsure/Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree: I don't have any strong objection, but would point out that the parent category is "Category:Breads" ("Category:Bread" redirects there). Since "Breads and religion" is not grammatically wrong, perhaps for consistency with the parent category we should not change it. — Cheers, JackLee talk 21:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I proposed changing Category:Breads to Category:Bread, as not all the subcategories are about particular breads, but are about the industry or topic as a whole. thats why i want this to become singular too. its not particular styles of bread that exclusively relate to religion, but bread in general.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment : in that case, this category should be renamed if the parent category is renamed. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — I'm not sure what to rename it, but this is not a good name as-is. Religious breads, perhaps? Bread and religion would be sort of okay, but I don't really care for any compound noun titles like that. Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 04:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Dough trough[edit]

I think the better name is Category:Bread troughs (which i just created prior to discovering this category) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — I've heard of dough troughs before, but never a bread trough. I believe it's something to do with the baking process where the dough rests and rises. I could be completely, wrong, too. However, if I am correct, then the "dough" is not yet "bread", because it hasn't been baked yet. It's in the baking that all the magical goodness enters the dough and changes it into bread. ;-) Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 04:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Bradley Manning[edit]

Category:Odakyū Odawara Line[edit]

Category names which involve non-English characters Hahifuheho (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

All other categories names related to Odakyu electric railway which involves letters ū or ō are also to be renamed to replace ū or ō with u or o because the firm, Odakyu does not use these characters in its official map ( Therefore the name of the company, names of stations and names of its lines are not considered names with these characters. --Hahifuheho (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)--Hahifuheho (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Body tattoos[edit]

Should be renamed to "Tattoos by body part", since that's how it's being used. Brainy J (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, but could also be called Category:Tattoos by body location. also, the main category for this could be Category:Tattoo (or Tattooing), with Category:Tattoos for images of tattoos. sorry, my ocd symptoms kicking in.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — "Tattoos by body location" probably is the better name. After all, there could be tats that run across the entire body or multiple parts. Those could all be categorized under groupings that "body parts" is not as flexible for. Perhaps "full-body tattoos" is reasonable as a subcategory, but not just Body tattoos. After all, aren't all real tattoos tattooed onto the body anyway? Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Animal tattoos[edit]

Propose move to "Animals with tattoos" or "Tattoos on animals" to help distinguish it from category:Tattoos of animals. Brainy J (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree I agree with the proposal "Animals with tattoos". --Smooth_O (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree (Animals with tattoos)--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree, but I'd prefer "Tattoos on animals", as this is for files showing the tattoos, not for any animal that has a tattoo, even if it might not be visible in the photograph. --rimshottalk 21:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree (Animals with tattoos), fits the category tree for "animals with".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree — As soon as I saw the title, I thought of tattoos of animals on people, not of tattoos on animals. I think the only way I would think that is if it were Animals' tattoos, and even then, I'm not so sure my brain wouldn't make the jump to the more familiar. I like the "Animals with tattoos" if the focus is mostly on pictures of animals that have a visible tattoo, but if the photos generally are close-ups of the tattoos, and the animal is secondary, than "Tattoos on animals" makes more sense. Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


This is 2 ideas: images related to the Indo-Iranian people, and images related to the idea of an "Aryan race". Images that have nothing to do with the discredited race idea should be removed from this category, which should be renamed Category:Aryan race and subcategorized appropriately as fiction. also, and NOT as "white skin". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:People with black skin[edit]

none of these people have black skin. its dark to light brown. this is impossible to define, as its really about ethnicity or race. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • This is a really weird category. At least call them "black people" or something like that, which is not descriptive and misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, thats my understanding, "black people" is a colloquialism, whereas "black skin" is not.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It's totally unnecessary. Other people are not categorized by their natural skin colour. There's no need to group people of African descent and people of Australian descent together. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete. As Themightyquill--Pierpao.lo (listening) 19:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think Pierpao means he agrees with deletion. Please, everyone, register your opinion at the beginning of your post with either Comment, Delete/support, keep/oppose, so at least that part can be clearly discerned. we dont "like" here, thats a facebook thing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ "people are not categorized by their natural skin colour" What about Category:African Americans? Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Mattes (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    African Americans are a social-historical group--Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    In addition, some african americans are much lighter skinned than many recent african immigrants. we have "octoroons", 1/8 black, who look as "white" as any person of single european ethnicity, who have been, and are sometimes now, classed, and self identified, as african american. as pierpao said, being african american is about culture, history, and an impossibly mixed ethnic background. if they were free immigrants, we would have groups with names like "bugandan american", "burundi american", "Oyo american" as long standing ethnic groups here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, existing title is not ideal and I advocate modifying it to Category:Black people. People that are known as Black people rarely have a  black skin colour. be it Africans or Austral aborigines. "Black people", however, is a universally-accepted term and is thus also a fair Wiki solution. This will of course apply to Category:Men with black skin and Category:Women with black skin. Orrlingtalk 00:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. Aulcie Perry, an American basketball player who used to play in Israel for some time.
  2. Black Hebrews, a religious group who resides in Israel. It is composed of Israeli permanent residents who originated from Chicago, and their Israeli-born children.
  3. Refugees from Africa in Israel.
  4. Hagit Yaso, an Israeli singer who was born in Israel.
The least common denominator for all these examples is them being human. Thus arbitrary categories of this sort should be deleted. ליאור (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Category is inherently subjective, with no clear cut-offs or analogues. However, it is preferable to the even less objective "Black people" cats, which flout WP:CATGRS' stipulation that "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." This is why there are no comparable "White people" cats. Recommend either deleting all of said categories, or keeping this one and creating its counterparts (viz. "People with brown skin", "People with white skin", etc.), as it's the least subjective of the lot. Middayexpress (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Starting a conclusion[edit]

This is a very important CfD, for a change. “People with black skin” is a badname for the racial concept of descendants of sub-Saharan Africa and the status of having them grouped at the same designation with Austral aborigines only because both are not white is unfortunate and I have my part in perpetrating it. To be clear Category:Balck Africans, with all of its sub-categories and current content, is fine – It's the “root” category, the one that was brought here to discuss, which needs reevaluation and actually be rid of in my opinion. The category “People with black skin” (=its current usage on Commons) is namely just factually incorrect, mistaken, wrong, and altogether avoidable if it's understood that Category:Balck Africans is a sufficient and adequate root-cat for the racial notion, being broad enough to exempt us from needing to base our navigation across ethnic groups upon skin-tone affiliation, and this is said by an editor enough well known for loathing political correctness. This messy category is simply needless.

I propose deleting “People with black skin” and allowing its content to self-stand under Races, freeing the Australian Aboriginals, Maoris and Black Africans categories from the invalid mutual dependency. Orrlingtalk 11:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment the gallery Black people, which just went through a deletion discussion, at Commons:Deletion requests/Black people, was closed as keep, with no argument given for deletion (I wanted it discussed as it seemed to have an odd structure to it, focusing on degrees of blackness, more subjective than necessary.) It was just turned into a redirect to this category, but the person redirecting it did not bring it up here as part of the discussion. I think its clear that while "Black people", along with "black Africans" and other such terms, like "black British" (even "black Irish") are commonly used phrases which can justify a gallery, even if the category concept is too vague in some cases (I will note that we DO have the category, Category:Black Africans). I am going to undo the redirect, but if people want to include this gallery in the discussion PRIOR to deleting it, i am fine with