Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09

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


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: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: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)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Two distinct concepts should have different categories. --Jonund (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2014 (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 that. i changed the format of the gallery to it being grouped by the 2 major regions, africa, the american diaspora, then the rest of the african diaspora, and finally the nonafrican "negritos" and other austroasian peoples.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Reading this I do not yet know in close certainty whether it's a support for the proposal to delete the category (galleries are irrelated and play no role in our navigation database, which my comment concerned) or a voice of support for rather keeping it. To whichever category a gallery page redirects, that category needs to be reassured with pillars of need, helpfulness and accuracy. Thus my seggestion was that categories sorting people by skin tone get dismantled as opposed to categories of Ethnic groups (i.e Black Africans and its current elaborate descent/diaspora subsets) which can self-stand under "Races" and don't require the colour parent, the latter optionally being reserved to galleries. Orrlingtalk 14:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • We have categories like Category:Blond hair, Category:White horses or other categories of people or animals grouped by color. Grouping people by color might be simplistic and old-fashioned, but it's useful unless a better alternative is provided. How would you name a category of all people who look African?--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Blonde is blonde, and white is white. The people in this category do not have "black skin". FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
How would you name what they have in common? White horses and white people aren't white, and black panthers or black people aren't black, but it's useful to group their images. How would you name this category or an equivalent category?--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
But horses ARE white
a white horse and a white person
and black panthers ARE black. hair can have very distinct colors (and can be dyed easily). see this handy chart, which i dont think we can use for skin: Template:Navigation Horses by color skin tone is much less discernable. I really dont think we can have categories for black, white, or "colored" people. the words are just too vague. who is included? remember, if we have a category, we have to essentially decide for EACH file here, is it in or out, and put it in the category if it belongs. we cannot choose a subset of images of white or black people and stop there. thats editorializing. we probably have at least 50,000 images of white people, of black people, and of others. we already have ethnic heritage and country, which are well used. this is a lot of work for a small payoff. its almost like having a category for "pretty" people. everyone knows who they think is pretty, but no one can agree. its a judgement call, like "unusual people" or "different people", or "big nosed people".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In my comment starting this whole chapter there was only one - decissive yet maybe not enough clear - proposal: Eliminate the "Black skin people" category and - given that blacks are overwhelmingly of African descent - remain with the well-established and indisputably accurate Category:Black Africans and its sub-entries. Any oppositions? Orrlingtalk 12:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's now, as it seems, two and a half months without objection to the proposed resolution to this CfD; I'll thus soon start moving the entries from each black-skin category to the respective Black Africans cat, as far, of course, as a file is determinable as portraying an African figure and not a Pacific Black etc. As a result, "black skin" categories will become empty and consequently be deleted. Cheerz. Orrlingtalk 02:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The appropriate resolution of this CfD is deleting this disputed category for all the reasons listed above, as well as in similar discussions (1,2). There are thousands of distinct ethnic groups in Africa, expressing varying shades and tones of skin color, and there's nothing accurate about calling them "black". If you choose to disregard opinions with which you disagree, I will ask to have you blocked here again, as per previous warnings you received. ליאור (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hoover Dam, Colorado River[edit]

Move to Category:Hoover Dam. User:Foroa moved it to this bizarre title last May without any reason that I can find. What other Hoover Dams are there? If everything at en:Hoover Dam (disambiguation) had its own category, none of them would be at "Hoover Dam" even if they were the only thing by that name, except for the one in Ohio. That's already at Category:Hoover Dam (Ohio), which is where it belongs: it's obscure (I grew up not far away, and I don't remember hearing of it until recently), so it should be disambiguated and leave the main "Hoover Dam" category for the world-famous dam. As it is, disambiguation actively causes confusion — File:Hoover Dam 2003.jpg accidentally got put in the Ohio category, and this likely wouldn't have happened if there had been a simple Hoover Dam category into which it could go. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Move to Category:Hoover Dam. One of the most famous dams in the world; certainly the most famous in the United States. I've never even heard of Category:Hoover Dam (Ohio); from looking at a few websites, I'd guess that the name "Hoover Reservoir" is actually more common for that general location. (Also, even if it were to be disambiguated, I don't recall "Feature Name, River Name" being common or standard naming convention on Commons: Disambiguation would usually be "Hoover Dam (Colorado River)".) --Closeapple (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Move per all above for this world class dam. Royalbroil 13:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kwatera Naczelnego Dowództwa Wojsk Lądowych (OKH) w Mamerkach[edit]

Pictures from Mamerki, 01.jpg up to Mamerki, 07.jpg should be moved to Category:Wolfsschanze. They don't show Mamerki's objects. MOSZCZ (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Panorpa alpina[edit]

It seems that this taxon is now know as "Aulops alpina" so it seems fitting that the category be renamed to Category:Aulops alpina. There is more information on my talk page. Liamdavies (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


I'd like to nominate this category for deletion. I believe the Top category should be Category:Domino's Pizza, and Category:Domino's vehicles should be under Category:Domino's Pizza possibly renamed to Category:Domino's Pizza vehicles. Mjrmtg (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I'd say to move the files here to Category:Domino's; but if not, then Category:Domino's should at least be kept with a redirect to Category:Domino's Pizza if the files are moved to there. We usually use English Wikipedia for title guidance, and the title there "Domino's Pizza", but someone has already brought up changing the name at en:Talk:Domino's Pizza#Move Domino's Pizza → Domino's. I think Domino's is dominant now; I'll put my reasons on that talk page. I think maybe Commons is ahead of en.wp on this. --Closeapple (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    On a Commons-specific note: Using "Category:Domino's" (or at least a redirect from it) also means that any of those (somewhat rough) autocategorization things on Commons will guess this category even if the word "pizza" isn't in the description. --Closeapple (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support (well, it needs to be a redirect, not deleted) the company seems to still go by the name Domino's Pizza LLC, as indicated by its legal page, [1], with "Domino's" in quotes. I know they arent just pizza, but this seems to be their choice in names. website name is not a definitive indicator, as businesses will use shorter catchier names to get more traffic. franchise names, again, can be brief, but not the best guideline. The discussion at WP is still completely up for grabs, not clear what the result may be (of course, i commented there, but not enough people have commented to know what may happen)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ladybirds in art[edit]

Shouldn't it be Category:Coccinellidae in art? Don't we normally do the scientific name? Brainy J (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, as i call them ladybugs, and we do use scientific names usually (though dogs and cats i dont think use it). this should remain as a redirect.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, somewhat I would rename the category to Ladybugs in art. While we do use scientific names, I think having this as a subcategory of Coccinellidae is sufficent. But a redirect would also work. I know if I was looking for art with ladybugs, I would look for a Ladybugs in art category or seach under ladybugs (which does have a redirect).

Category:Number Shape System[edit]

This is original research, its a mnemonic system applied as a category. some are useful but need renaming: "shapes resembling number 0" could be Category:Objects resembling a torus, etc. delete all or rename if practical Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The category was discussed and kept in Villgae pump and a previous DR. Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Number_Shape_System To keep discussion focused, I will not answer on all numbers seperately, please keep discussion here on parent category.

First it is not neither new reasearch nor original research. Searching google returns more than 100.000 results. [Search]

This category tree is no different from hexagonal objects, flowers on black background, woman looking left, objects by color etc. Commons is a visual and educational catalog of images. Some categories may be usefull to a wider audience while some categories serve to a more limited but even small ones are time savers for users looking for an image with a particular usage at mind.

--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment I hadnt seen the previous discussion, as i usually dont look for a talk page here (unlike wikipedia, where there are always comments). i still think its not very useful, but i will of course support whatever decision is made here, including a snow keep based on the previous decision.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — I have a fairly large vocabulary, and would never think of looking for a zero under a torus. As for the other noms, I think they all should stay per the comments by Nevit. Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 05:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 0[edit]

mnemonic system, not notable, used as a category. should be renamed Category:Objects resembling a torus, or Category:Objects resembling the numeral 0 Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 1[edit]

a mnemonic device used as a category, not notable. this is way too broad a category to be useful. all elongaged objects? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 2[edit]

Mnemonic device doubling as a category. this one is particularly useless for our project Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 3[edit]

mnemonic system of low notability, used to categorize images. original research, and this "shape" is of no use to the project, as the items listed show. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 4[edit]

the only objects resembling 4 are sailships, which is a stretch. doesnt help categorize in a meaningful way (nice mnemonic device, not notable) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 5[edit]

not a useful way to categorize images. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 6[edit]

not a useful way to categorize images. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 7[edit]

not very useful way to categorize images: a bent stick is too common a shape Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 8[edit]

these dont really resemble an 8 enough for our purposes Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Shapes resembling number 9[edit]

this collectin of images dont resemble 9 enough for our purposes. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cook cheese[edit]

Delete, as i think this is pretty much a duplicate of Category:Cheese-based food. if kept, it needs to be renamed Category:Cooked cheese, and have an explanation that its not about whether the milk is raw or cooked. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ivana Đorović[edit]

As per commons language policy all cats must be in ENGLISH. Her name in English is Ivana Jororvic. Also considering that she doesn't exist on any Wikipedia site it is surely premature to be creating categories such as this and the images are perfectly housed in tennis players from Serbia. Flickrworker (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons policy, from Commons:Categories#Category names:
Category names should generally be in English, (see Commons:Language policy). However, there are exceptions, such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English-language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version)." (my emphasis in bold)
So, the policy isn't that all cats must be in English, as you put it. What do you want? To delete the category? Or delete the correct spelling of her proper name and all other instances of diacritics? There are plenty of categories on Commons where there are no direct equivalents on Wikipedia... Jared Preston (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What does the second premise lean towards? Yep deletion. But back to the first point she's a junior non notable player who does not have any sources on her at the moment and the most common source at the moment is the ITF which user Jorovic as that is her name in English. Nice try though. Flickrworker (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. other players in Category:Tennis players from Serbia all have diacritics (i can see its harder to search for them, though), and proper names are the exception. also, we absolutely dont need to have an article on someone to have a category here. many images here are of nonnotable subjects, which get a category if we have enough of them, as this project is not just to support the wikipedias, but to provide images for any educational/artistic project.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What! Wait a minute! Do you even review what you write? "Proper names are the exception" But you vote to keep? One read the policies which do not support this keep. And the fact that you say proper names are an exception is a statement of support for the move then. Flickrworker (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:2013 in water transport in Toronto[edit]

There were several dozen categories like Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2013, which were replaced, without discussion, with categories like Category:2013 in water transport in Toronto. I think I can anticipate that if proponents of this undiscussed change voice an explanation here they will say (1) consistency is important; (2) being consistent with other categories requires this change. But consistency with other categories did not require this change. If we are trying to have category names generally list the most important property of the category first we need to recognize that determining which property is the most important is a judgmental call. I think we need to recognize that, when there are disagreements as to which property is the most important, we should always have a discussion.

Consider the hierarchy under Category:Yonge Street, Toronto. We have subcategories like Category:Yonge Street, Toronto in the 2010s.

Now maybe there is a policy somewhere, that explicitly says "year always goes first", I think we should ignore proponents who advocated changing all categories to this form -- except in those instances where they initiate a discussion and make a really convincing argument that the particular categories should be renamed. Geo Swan (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  • In this particular instance redirects were left, rather than deleting the previous categories, and I am grateful for that. The other categories are:
  1. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1803 was replaced with Category:1803 in water transport in Toronto
  2. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1907 was replaced with Category:1907 in water transport in Toronto
  3. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1918 was replaced with Category:1918 in water transport in Toronto
  4. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1920 was replaced with Category:1920 in water transport in Toronto
  5. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2006 was replaced with Category:2006 in water transport in Toronto
  6. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2008 was replaced with Category:2008 in water transport in Toronto
  7. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2010 was replaced with Category:2010 in water transport in Toronto
  8. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1813 was replaced with Category:1813 in water transport in Toronto
  9. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1840 was replaced with Category:1840 in water transport in Toronto
  10. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1857 was replaced with Category:1857 in water transport in Toronto
  11. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1879 was replaced with Category:1879 in water transport in Toronto
  12. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1880 was replaced with Category:1880 in water transport in Toronto
  13. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1894 was replaced with Category:1894 in water transport in Toronto
  14. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1898 was replaced with Category:1898 in water transport in Toronto
  15. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1901 was replaced with Category:1901 in water transport in Toronto
  16. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1905 was replaced with Category:1905 in water transport in Toronto
  17. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1910 was replaced with Category:1910 in water transport in Toronto
  18. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1912 was replaced with Category:1912 in water transport in Toronto
  19. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1914 was replaced with Category:1914 in water transport in Toronto
  20. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1915 was replaced with Category:1915 in water transport in Toronto
  21. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1917 was replaced with Category:1917 in water transport in Toronto
  22. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1919 was replaced with Category:1919 in water transport in Toronto
  23. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1924 was replaced with Category:1924 in water transport in Toronto
  24. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1925 was replaced with Category:1925 in water transport in Toronto
  25. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1927 was replaced with Category:1927 in water transport in Toronto
  26. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1928 was replaced with Category:1928 in water transport in Toronto
  27. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1930 was replaced with Category:1930 in water transport in Toronto
  28. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1931 was replaced with Category:1931 in water transport in Toronto
  29. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1932 was replaced with Category:1932 in water transport in Toronto
  30. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1939 was replaced with Category:1939 in water transport in Toronto
  31. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1942 was replaced with Category:1942 in water transport in Toronto
  32. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1943 was replaced with Category:1943 in water transport in Toronto
  33. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1944 was replaced with Category:1944 in water transport in Toronto
  34. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1972 was replaced with Category:1972 in water transport in Toronto
  35. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1976 was replaced with Category:1976 in water transport in Toronto
  36. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1977 was replaced with Category:1977 in water transport in Toronto
  37. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 1984 was replaced with Category:1984 in water transport in Toronto
  38. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2005 was replaced with Category:2005 in water transport in Toronto
  39. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2007 was replaced with Category:2007 in water transport in Toronto
  40. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2009 was replaced with Category:2009 in water transport in Toronto
  41. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2011 was replaced with Category:2011 in water transport in Toronto
  42. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2012 was replaced with Category:2012 in water transport in Toronto
  43. Category:Water transport in Toronto in 2013 was replaced with Category:2013 in water transport in Toronto
Geo, the categories you created were completed inconsistent with the form of the parent categories: [year] in water transport and [year] in Toronto (not to mention the overall [year] in transport and [year] by location trees). Nothing was lost - everything remains categorized, except now the subcat names match the names of the immediate two parent category trees. You can't create inconsistently named categories and then be surprised when someone else comes behind you and cleans it up. Your comment about which property is most important completely misses the point -- what is most important is that the 4,000,000+ new images we get every year are properly categorized, not to mention the immense backlog, and when people are categorizing images (usually using hotat) they can't be expected to try and guess what judgment call some other person made in making a subjective assessment of what property thought at the time is more important. What they want and need is consistent category naming so they can easily find the right subcategory. It's hard enough finding the right categories, and there is sufficient inconsistency between the various year category branches, without every editor putting his or her own spin on each small set of subcategories in the same branch. As for discussions and convincing arguments, the onus is on you if you think we should rename these category trees, not on others who are making sure they all follow the same naming form. As for the Yonge Street categories, that's apples and oranges. The decade categories follow a different form. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Subscription to the literature[edit]

2 images are now categorized by author. this categories name doesnt make sense, and the subject is i believe too narrow (book subscription labels) to be of use Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

trivial redirect to Category:Book businessMercurywoodrose (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Book business, by nominator. --rimshottalk 21:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mercer County Route 546 (New Jersey)[edit]

Too much redundancy due to the fact that these roads run entirely in Mercer County.

Category:Mercer County Route 546 (New Jersey)Category:County Route 546 (New Jersey)
Category:Mercer County Route 569 (New Jersey)Category:County Route 569 (New Jersey)
Category:Mercer County Route 583 (New Jersey)Category:County Route 583 (New Jersey)
--——Mr. Matté'pedia talk 02:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Upmerge per nom. –Fredddie 02:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Priests of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (Leon Dehon)[edit]

The name may lead to confusion. There are several others with the same denomination. A Category:Congregation of the priests of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (Léon Dehon) eliminates doubts. Jwh (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


moved entries in this category to avoid confusion between the Garita and the neighborhood Thelmadatter (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


It needs to be pluralized to "Martyrdoms" or perhaps "Individual martyrdoms", since it's about individual cases, not the general subject. Cgingold (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment it appears that "Martyrdom" refers both to specific christian martyrdoms of people ("martyrdom of john smith"), espeially artworks of the act, and also the general topic of persecution unto death, including outside christianity. I would propose Category:Martyrdom be kept as the main cat for all articles related to the concept (including images not related to specific christian martyrs), Category:Martyrs as a subcat of that for the specific people referred to as christian martyrs, and new cat Category:Martyrdoms (categorized both under Martyrdom and Martyrs) for the paintings called "Martyrdom of john smith" etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:African American martyrs[edit]

Not an appropriate category: Yes, in common parlance, these people are often referred to as "martyrs". But the parent cat is for religious martyrs, i.e. people who have been designated as such by a religion. I understand the sentiment with respect to people who were killed for their role in the Civil Rights struggle, but they should be categorized as "Murdered civil rights activists", or something along those lines. Cgingold (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree I agree that the category needs renaming, but some people became civil rights symbols in death but not in life. For example, what category would Trayvon Martin fit in? Was he a murdered civil rights activist? Was Emmett Till? And yet there is definitely a reason to group these two people together with, say, Medgar Evers and MLK. --Kenmayer (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Neither Till nor Martin would be martyrs in the plain meaning of that word. We might need a category for race-related murders or victims of racially-motivated violence.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although i just argued above to allow Category:Martyrdom to include images related to any form of martyrdom, in this case, individuals not identified by the catholic church as martyrs should not be called martyrs here, as thats not neutral. a file of a newspaper front page (copyright free of course), with the headline "King martyred" would be acceptable under my idea for martyrdom, but not much else, unless the file specifically calls attention to it. race related murders (under some such name) would be good.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Salto Angel[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:Angel Falls, as this is the common name in English, per naming policy: names should generally be in English, (see Commons:Language policy). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Salto Sapo[edit]

rename to Category:Sapo Falls as it is commonly known by the English name, per our naming policy. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tamara Čurović[edit]

Do we really need a category to store one image of a person who was a junior player at the time? Since this was taken in 2009 it's plain that she ain't making it anytime soon. Flickrworker (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tropical glasshouses[edit]

This appears to have been an error for "Tropical greenhouses". Nothing wrong with the content or the concept of the category; it's purely a naming issue. Also see Category:Tropical glasshouses by country. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I have uploaded some pics of Aarhus Botanical Garden and their new hothouse. It is technically speaking a Tropical greenhouse and not a glasshouse. The "windows" are made of plastic and inflated with air. I had put them in the category of 'Greenhouses', but it would suit this category better, if it wasn't for the 'glass' thing. RhinoMind (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Glass Towers[edit]

This appears to be a category for towers made out of glass, rather than a place called "Glass Towers". As such, there's no need to capitalise "Towers"; we should have Category:Glass towers. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Glass towers, as per nom. --rimshottalk 21:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Young men in art[edit]

What does it means Young Mens? Do We need such a kind of Category? Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Personally, I'd delete the category. However, if there is desire to keep it, then it should be renamed "Adolescent boys in art" to match its parent category Category:Adolescent boys. "Young men" is an ambiguous term, and means different things depending on perspective and context. Last week, my grandmother (100 years old) mentioned to me that her former neighbour had died, even though he was still a "young man". He was in his 80s. A category with an ambiguous and relative term like "young" is inevitably going to be used inconsistently, and will thus be of little value. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree, and also agree w/skeezix, that Category:Adolescent boys in art (oh, look, its just been created) fits an existing category tree, and is definable enough to use. still the problem with which images are truly of adolescent boys, but theres almost always a little judgement involved in categorizing anyway.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


this is a neologism, based on the one file in this category, which is an ironic/snarky shirt slogan (apparently a small shop doing it). There doesnt seem to be any serious political intent behind this slogan. external link: [2] Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's in use in serious literature. Reinhard von Neck, for instance, uses it in the title of his book.[3] It has also been used in the European parliament.[4] The debate following Volker Zotz's Geschichte der buddhistischen Philosophie is known as the euromasochism-debate.[5]. Besides, neologisms are sometimes useful for naming categories. --Jonund (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
well, yes, its in the book title, which translates as "From Austrokeynesianismus to "Euromasochismus"? : The economic model of Austria in the EU", so its in quotes. the other website mentions it briefly, "I would say that we must avoid the overdose of Euro Masochism as we often hear when we talk about these issues", and is not a notable site. Volker Zotz appears to be using the phrase in relation to a discussion of buddhism and europe, and no one else seems to use the phrase in that context. and all of these are very high level abstract usages, and trivial mentions, not at all related to the t shirt. I dont think we need a category like this if we only have one somewhat tangential image for it. overall, we have may be no more than 60 ghits for this term,, as either one word or two. however, i have now said my piece, and dont really need to say more. if others feel its worth keeping, thats fine with me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Other titles use it without quotation marks.[6] In my opinion, the website of the European Parliament is notable. Zotz didn't use the term himself, it was used by Süddeutsche Zeitung to describe his attitude toward the European tradition, and later the debate became known under that term. I don't agree that the term has a very high level of abstraction compared to other uses of masochism, and least of all are the references trivial. Here are a few examples.[7][8][9][10] A google-search for Euromasochismus returns 1400 results. --Jonund (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
You've presented good arguments, and as i still have a little more experience with categories on Wikipedia than here, i am not adamant about this going. at the English WP, categories with one article are frowned on, but thats not always the case here. hopefully someone else can join in and add to the discussion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Mercurywoodrose: Actually, categories on Commons are used to illustrate concepts, and are closer in design to English Wikipedia articles than comparable English Wikipedia categories. (Although we actually roll both systems into one — Commons:Categories policies can explain more, and explains the five main category types for content on Commons.) Basically speaking, since Commons is made almost entirely of media files, we must use them to illustrate concepts, and utilize MediaWiki's category system for doing so. Think of each file as a "sentence" in an article on English Wikipedia; an article might be a stub, or a category might have only one file, but if it's a notable enough topic we can even have one-file categories on Commons. I haven't checked to see whether this particular neologism is notable enough to have its own category, however, so I have not decided yet. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tapestry by century[edit]

Wrong singular spelling. Should be moved to accurate plural Category:Tapestries by country Bohème (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:10th-century tapestry[edit]

Wrong singular spelling. Should be moved to accurate plural Category:10th-century tapestries Bohème (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. See also:

Category:Locomotive connecting rods[edit]

Delete - these are coupling rods, not connecting rods. It's also far from clear that we need such a category. Steam locomotive and diesel/electric loco practice is so different that such a supercat makes little sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Products of California[edit]

unnecessary subcat for Category:Products of the United States Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The US are so vast that having subcats for each (or at least some) states doesn't seem over the top to me. And California is very important economically (more than some countries) and agriculturally as well. I must say I am quite interested in knowing the particular products of California. - Olybrius (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
well, not to be to proud, but its true we have a huge and unique variety of products. I just think that its hard to have a category for images of products of our state. If others feel its a good subdivision, we need more of them then.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Treasure Island, California[edit]

This should be renamed Category:Treasure Island, San Francisco as its a neighborhood of san francisco now Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fairy chimneys[edit]

S'il est vrai que "Fair chimneys" et "Hoodoos" sont synonymes, les deux catégories portant ces noms devraient n'en faire qu'une. En tous cas, en Français, les deux correspondent à "Cheminée de fée". C'est gênant. Fr.Latreille (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, both seem to be the same. I'm undecided which category to keep: fairy chimney is less ambiguous, but hoodoo appears to be the more common name. --rimshottalk 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I also do not understand the difference between Fairy Chimneys and Earth pyramids - is there any ? Should we merge all that to Earth Pyramids ? -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like they're the same, too, and should be merged as well. I still think hoodoos would be the best merge target. --rimshottalk 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia shows for the word en:Hoodoo a disambiguation page with multiple meanings. So I think that Earth pyramids are easier to understand and easier to translate. - But are they really identical ? German Wikipedia shows de:Hoodoo made of solid rock and de:Erdpyramide of softer matter. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
German Wikipedia has de:Feenkamin as well. Maybe all of these should be upmerged to Category:Tent rocks if the distinction really isn't very well defined. --rimshottalk 21:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


The official name of this aragonese municipality is the castilian/spanish toponym: Peñarroya de Tastavins. (see Local Entities Register The category should be renamed therefore to Peñarroya de Tastavins Asqueladd (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:M64 tanks[edit]

Plaque on Front Engine Door of Type 64 Light Tank 20130302.jpg

This category should be moved to "Type 64 tanks". There is no such tank as the M64. According to the Chinese text file description, this is a Type 64 light tank (六四式輕戰車). -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment:I Realize Most Chinese Text Description used Type 64 light tank (六四式輕戰車). But as Photo, The Tank Display at Armor School, ROCA, Descripti Plaque on Front Engine Door was Used "M64 Light Tank" (M64輕戰車). Armor School, ROCA Even used this name in Early time. --玄史生 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This might have been a misprint on behalf of the museum though. To date, no English-language or Chinese-language military publication uses the term M64 instead of "六四式" or "Type 64". The "M__" designation is an American method of naming their own domestic vehicles (for example M4 Sherman, M60 Patton), where the number represents the progression within a series; the ROC uses "__式" based on the year of design in the Minguo calendar (民國XX年), which is a similar method used by Imperial Japan and the PRC. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 09:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:David Tomasi[edit]

Uploaded by troll users to illustrate a multi-wiki fake article "David Tomasi", unreliable information throughout including description of all files. All files in the category should be deleted, too. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I just collected the images into a category, I did not do a check. Thus I do not insist on having this cat, it can be deleted (together with all the images) if it turns out that Tomasi is a fake. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete br --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Trash the whole cat inkluding alle files in it. This guy cost us enough time with his crap. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Weissbier (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Frescos of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ[edit]

Category:Frescos of Crucifixion of Christ‎ exists for the same goal. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  • oppose, or rather, keep "jesus christ" and delete/redirect "christ". Jesus Christ seems to be the more appropriate term, and "frescos of crucifixion of Christ" is bad english, despite it being the earlier category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of the Passion of Christ in Italy[edit]

Category:Paintings of the passion of Jesus Christ in Italy‎ has the same goal, and is more filled. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

support as perfectly reasonable convention for this category tree.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Great Depression[edit]

this the older of 2 categories, the other being Category:Great Depression in the United States. I think the other may be the better name, but im not sure. one must go, unless other countries have their own "great depressions". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Great Depression was a worldwide event. Category:Great Depression and Category:Great Depression in the United States are not the same thing, the latter dealing with only one country. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Skeezix1000, the country I live in, Australia, was also affected by the Great Depression, that clearly needs to be the top level cat. Liamdavies (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Withdraw sorry i didnt do more research on this. I saw this poorly populated category and thought it was a duplicate of the correctly named US cat. If others havent done this yet, i will add the other nations depressions to this one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologize. Your nomination has caused some attention to be drawn to a neglected category, which is ultimately a good thing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Kept as a parent category of the Great Depression worldwide. --rimshottalk 21:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Great Depression in the United States[edit]

this is the newer of two , the other being Category:Great Depression. I think this one may be better, but in any case, one has to go (or the other be redifined to include other great depressions) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Great Depression was not confined to the US. Category:Great Depression is the parent of Category:Great Depression by country which in turn includes Category:Great Depression in the United States. Some of the content of Category:Great Depression is US-specific and could be moved to Category:Great Depression in the United States. Dankarl (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, i hadnt checked on whether we had files for this in other countries. so we should add the country categories to "Great Depression", the us topics out, and keep it,.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
They are already in by virtue of inclusion in Category:Great Depression by country - unless you want to propose eliminating the by-country meta-category in the name of simplification. That intermediary layer is probably unnecessary at this time, but if it is eliminated it will probably be needed at some later time. Dankarl (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Igreja de Santa Maria do Castelo (Alcácer do Sal)[edit]

Unused Category, replaced by Category:Church of Santa Maria do Castelo (Alcácer do Sal)" Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Klášter nad Dědinou, evangelický kostel[edit]

delete - category already exists, see: Category:Evangelical church (Klášter nad Dědinou) RomanM82 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Klášter nad Dědinou, kostel sv. Jana Křtitele[edit]

delete, better cat. available, see> Category:Kostel svatého Jana Křtitele (Klášter nad Dědinou) RomanM82 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)