Commons talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archiving this page

This page is starting to get long, and it is getting hard to keep an eye on which discussions have closed already. Should we start an archive of finished discussions? --rimshottalk 11:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think archiving this page is agood idea. / 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've created an archive page, which should be enough for June and July, and maybe even August. Now we need a way of determining when to archive a thread. For those that I put in the archive, it was obvious that the discussion was closed, but that isn't always the case. --rimshottalk 12:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Another thing: if someone should want to archive a finished discussion, please take care to add it in the original, chronological order. This can be easily done by looking at the date stamp in the signature of the starter of a thread. --rimshottalk 12:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


I have boldly restructured the entire process more like COM:DEL, such a restructure was not necessary right away but I think there is no reason for us to wait for this process to end up broken like com:del -- Cat chi? 10:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not work, magic words cannot be used like that in the input box. Is it really necessary to include "Current request" or "Archive", and date in each subpage name? Would it not be easier to just use "Commons:Categories for discussion/Category:X"? Then when archiving, the subpage only has to be removed from current requests and added to the archive. With the current structure archived pages also needs to be moved to "Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/date/Category:X", adding a redirect for each archived discussion. /Ö 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have left markers on the main page warning that the documentation is currently under revision, lest it confuse more people like me :-).
There are a number of problems following the instructions
1) The {{cfd}} template needs to be 'subst'ed, so instruction (1) should say so
2) If you give {{cfd}} a single argument (the reason) it seems to think it is 'part of a discussion of several related categories' and I would have expected the 'reason from cfd to have been substituted after the 'text=' part of the suggested 'cfd2' entry.

eg {{subst:cfd|Because it duplicates xyz2}} put on page xyz gives

3) At instruction (2) the 'create the subpage' box simply does not work. I'll try and add my entries manually instead --Tony Wills 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The Current requests/Archive beter identifies the status of the cfd and places it on the right tree. I bet the magic words can be made to work better. -- Cat chi? 11:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Create the subpage box

As noted in the documentation, input boxes do not support variables, templates, or anything like that. That means that the input box as it is now will never work. I see the following options:

  1. Instruct the user to fill in the box with a certain text (i.e., something like "please copy this text into the box and add the name of the nominated category: Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2018/05/Category:")
  2. Don't use a Year/Month structure for the nominations. If all nominations are in the same place, there is no need to do {{CURRENTMONTH}} magic.
  3. Remove the input box and only describe manual page creation

I personally prefer the first option, but the second seems OK as well. I would rather not have to resort to the third option. What do you think? --rimshottalk 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer your second option, removing year and month, and keeping the instructions similar to the Deletion request procedure. I can not really see that it would be useful to have months in the page title. When a user starts a discussion he usually signs it with name and date, so the month of the discussion can easily be seen. And discussions from a specific month can be found by looking in the archive for that month. / 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing bugzilla fix on this. Please give it a little more time. -- Cat ちぃ? 09:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The bug report, for those interested. Seeing that we don't know how long the bugfix will take, what shall we do in the meantime? --rimshottalk 11:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The bug report was introduced 15 months ago. --Foroa 18:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Who is doing maintenance on this page and which criteria apply? Cheers! Siebrand 14:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Subpages not the most ideal format?

There is not really much participation on this page. This could be due to the fact that for every CFD you have to watch a seperate page. It may be a better idea to have a structure similar to COM:UDEL, where all the requests go onto one subpage and a bot archives closed discussions that are encloded by {{cfdh}} and {{cfdf}}. Opinions? -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is difficult to follow with Commons:Discussion index. Is that because this page is divided by month? Anyway, the page isn't very crowded, so maybe we could use the same simple structure as on Village pump. Samulili 13:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For setting a watch on a specific new month or CFD, you have to open it with edit before you can tag it for watching. If one forget to set a watch on a new month, you see nothing till the next month arrives. --Foroa 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The major issue is the management of the discussion, in particular announcement(s). Regarding to its location, I think it would be best to use the talk page of the category, when an unique category is concerned. --Juiced lemon 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good idea. But if the category is subsequently deleted then the talk page and rational for deletion are lost. I avoid using this page because frankly submitting entries is a pain. I am very inclined to revert it to a format that maximises useability. --Tony Wills 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that it works okay now? You have to type a heading and press one button to create a discussion on a separate subpage. This works quite well, I think. As for the problems with subpages and watchlists: I think we can do away with subpages for each month - there isn't a whole lot to be gained by using them for active discussions (they still have a use in archives). Subpages for discussions are a different matter, however. They have a couple of advantages: it makes archiving the threads a lot easier; it is a lot easier to follow the history of a thread that way; links to the discussion will continue to work when the discussion is closed and archived. Also, it is possible to watch a single thread, this isn't possible without subpages.
If technically possible, we should find a way of adding a "watch this thread" link to each heading. That way this hurdle, too, could be cleared. --rimshottalk 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Look guys. How did COM:DEL develop? It had taken WEEKS to sort COM:DEL which generally had copyright related discussions on individual images. This (CFD) is a more broad discussion.
This will get as crowded as COM:DEL eventually. No need to wait till it breaks. It is very difficult to switch later on. Also maintaining page histories (of individual discussions) is much easier on individual sub pages. So is archiving as mentioned above. So in sum individual subpages have benefits.
Talk pages of categories are not always dead and are there for general discussion.
Date is there on page title to provide uniqueness. The same category can be nominated multiple times.
-- Cat ちぃ? 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with adding the date to the title. It will only make it harder to find a previous CFD. If a category is nominated multiple times, you can just add a numerical index. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay... -- Cat ちぃ? 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unclear instructions

I consider myself a reasonably experienced user, but the instructions for listing a category for discussion have just managed to confuse me. Man vyi 11:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Books of vs. books by

Not really sure where to bring this up, as this isn't so much one category as a group of them that need renaming. See category:Books by author: Some categories are named 'books of ...', others 'books by ...'. I think they should all be named consistently, and propose they all be named 'books by ...' to agree with the English Wikipedia's example. Richard001 09:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely "Books by...". "Books of" usually means books about a subject not written by a subject. Rocket000 09:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And ✓  Done . In the future, User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands is usually a good place to request non-controversial moves like this. Rocket000 10:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have another non-controversial move request for Category:Carnivorous Plants to the correct name Category:Carnivorous plants. It's not obvious that there is a speedy renaming proceedure though. How would a newish user learn that they could use such a bot from looking at the content page here? I don't see any link to it. Richard001 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Have filed said request and added a mention of it to the content page. Richard001 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at the instructions?

I just cleaned up a mess (at least I think I did: maybe I made a worse one), but it seems to me that when you add the {{cfd}} tag to an article the instructions it gives you are just plain wrong. Could someone experienced with this pick some category, add the {{cfd}} tag, try the experiment of doing what you are told, and then fix the instructions in that tag accordingly? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the problem might have depended on there not yet having been a subpage for July 2008 when I started, but I don't think so. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This page has been a mess and to my mind unusable since shortly after it was modified to this sub-page form. Fortunately a few people tweeked the {{cfd}} code so it actually had a chance of working. I have now edited, proof read, and tested the instructions and removed as many confusing bits (and non working bits) as I can. I can just about follow the documented process myself now, so others might also have a fighting chance. So please test it and let me know where things are still confused. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know how to use this page

I would like to discuss why we have 2 categories Category:Comic strips and Category:comics. Is it not the same ? Teofilo (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How do new months get added?

I believe that I successfully created Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/02 and listed one proposal in it, but the February 2009 page does not appear on the CfD page, and I can't see what I need to do to get it transcluded there. --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing time?

Time some effort was put into closing some of these?! --Tony Wills (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are non-admins allowed to close clearly decided debates and enter commands to CommonsDelinker? I know it's allowed on the English Wikipedia. --Spyder Monkey (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussions surrounding the heraldry category tree

Just wanted to drop a note about the ongoing discussion about sorting out the mess that is the heraldry category tree. It's still on a early stage but just wanted to give anyone interested the heads up. Especially since this was actually the first post on the Commons:Categories for discussion (never got resolved and seems to have disappeared from the archives. /Lokal_Profil 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Metallic towers in a landscape : are they TV, radio, communication towers or masts ?

Is it possible to write simple guidelines on whether a picture must be inserted into

What is the difference between a communications tower and a transmitter mast ? For example Paris' Eiffel tower : is it a communications tower, a TV tower, a radio tower or a transmitter mast ?

Teofilo (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You just about have to ask the creator of a category about what its purpose is. Personally I would think that Category:Transmitter masts is redundant, or perhaps should be a parent category to the others and only used for masts/towers where the purpose is unclear (ie is it TV, radio, or communications). But if its purpose is unclear, then how do you know it is even a transmitter mast and not a receiving antenna? I have previously assumed that Category:Communications towers is for microwave communications towers (eg for telephony, internet, or other point to point communications rather than wide area broadcast). I think mobile telephone/cell-phone towers would be a seperate category too. A tower can of course be used for more than one purpose and therefore be in multiple categories. Yes I think there is a bit of work needed here :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to tenatively suggest we create a supercategory "Metal towers" and place all unidentified media in there. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There is also the Category:Antennas to add to this bunch. Radio navigation aids too, are raised structure of a sort – here’s an example [1]. The Wikipedia article is worth a read -Communications tower. As the term ‘communications’ comes from a root word meaning 'to share', then it suggests (to me) that it should be restricted to two-way transmission installations only. More importantly though: I think that the categories should clearly keep separate, those categories which are for form (type of construction) and its main utilization ( ie., TV, Radio, Mobile telephone, police radio, relay station. etc.) This is a good case for having a few lines added to the top of each cat page (which survives this reorganization) to describe the scope of that category and to suggest other similar cats for those images that may fall outside each particular scope. --P.g.champion (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I think *every* cat page needs a description as usuage of language and local names often lead to different people using the same categpry for diferent purposes. As regarding the usuage of the word communication, "sharing" information often involves one way distribution of information, ie broadcasts, not necessarily two way. Perhaps if we start with descriptions of all the different types of aerial/dish/antenna/masts we can create a suitable structure into which the categories fit. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is useful at this stage to create a "Metal towers" category as it would cover a lot more than antenna towers, and but might not cover all antennas (eg a microwave dish on a wooden pole, or stone tower etc). You really seem to actually want somewhere to put unidentified towers. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Look at Wikipedia article en:Radio masts and towers : Radio masts and towers are, typically, tall structures designed to support antennas (also known as aerials in the UK) for telecommunications and broadcasting, including television. They are among the tallest man-made structures. Similar structures include electricity pylons and towers for wind turbines. Interestingly, for this article's writer, "radio" includes "television" (because both include the use or airwaves, I suppose). en:Montjuic Communications Tower's purpose is television, and it is marked as "European mast stubs". How about creating more simple categories named "Category:Communications, radio, television masts and towers in Australia", "Category:Communications, radio, television masts and towers in the United Kingdom" ? This would be easier to use for photographers without technical knowledge on the purpose of the tower. It is a bit similar with the "Cities towns and villages" categories avoiding controversy on whether some place is a big village or a small town. Teofilo (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Towers vis Masts
Because of the great number of these structures scattered all about, I think it would be helpful to separate the towers from the masts. An explanation at the top of both cat pages could make the notable difference clear, even to a WC contributor who’s mother tongue is not English.

Cost/performance and engineering considerations means that any tower’s aspect ratio between it hight and base is unlikely to exceed 6:1. A mast on the other hand, will for the same reasons of cost/performance, have a ratio of usually more than twice that. Two illustrate: A hybrid structure such as the CNN Tower in Toronto has a ratio for the tower part of about 6:1 whilst the mast bit on top is about 15:1.

This will cover just about everything. Even at the most extreme end, where we have the example of the Burji Dubai Tower, it is still only about 7:1. [2]

The only human structure that might come close to crossing this boundary are some of the more slender Minarets, but these are built for other purposes.

An good example of each type to serve as an index image would then make it very easy for anyone to decide what cat to use. --P.g.champion (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To review the comments so far:
I think there has been enough points put forward to have an attempt at a coherent structure that would encapsulate every image I have seen so far.

It is just for verbal conveyance that frequency modulated audio radio and amplitude modulated audio radio etc., is referred to as simply radio. Internationally, a radio tower/mast etc., would be understood to be a generic term to cover for the whole range of radio services.

The easiest parent categories would be by geographical region (as even the daftest photographer usually knows were s/he is).

Then dived into tower or mast or dish or low antenna array (and maybe a collective term for an aerial farm complex such as the military and gov. agencies have) These are fairly easy to categorise if the cat already has some examples uploaded.

Eg., Category:Radio towers by country
Category:Radio towers in Australia
Category:Radio towers in New South Wales
Category:Radio towers in Wagga Wagga

Category:Radio masts by country
Category:Radio masts in Australia
Category:Radio masts in New South Wales
Category:Radio masts in Wagga Wagga

Category:Radio dishes by country
Category:Radio dishes in Australia
Category:Radio dishes in New South Wales
Category:Radio dishes in Wagga Wagga

The new cat Category:Radio towers could be included in the existing WC Category:Towers by function with the existing Category:Communications towers (8 C, 1 P, 72 F) that is already there being made a sub cat.
The new cat Category:Radio masts could be included in the existing WC Category:Masts, with the existing Category:Transmitter masts (14 C, 1 P, 202 F) that is already there, becoming a sub cat.

As it is not easy to ascertain from the physical shape of the structure, what radio service it is involved with AND because many sites support more than one radio service, it would be better not to categorise down to this level. Instead, the image could be given an additional category to denote the mode and/or modes.

These modes could be simple, so as to suitable for use with images of associated equipment as well. This would make searching by radio services easier. e.g.,
Category:Very High Frequency Suggested Cat page comment: For all equipment involving Very High Frequencies (VHF), and not necessarily radio. Can include electric induction heating/furnaces.
Category:Ultra high frequency ditto.
Category:Radio navigation
Category:Instrument landing systems
Category:Satellite uplink or downlink station
Category:Frequency modulated radio (This cat page need to point out that this is not just to be used for audio but any FM radio equipment.
Category:Amplitude modulated radio Ditto.

Category:Broadcast antenna Suggested Cat page comment: For antenna that broad-casts its signal to all. Information flows from one to all but not nothing back the other way. For one-to-a-few see Multicast.
Category:Multicast antenna Suggested Cat page comment: For antenna that transmits its signal to a few recipients out of many. However, information does not get transmitted back.
Category:Telecommunication antenna Suggested Cat page comment: For antenna that transmits information point-to-point. Information flows both ways. (Where one station transmits to a few and those few transmit back, this is a radio network).

This may clash with some of the existing cats that were created without thought of if the vulgar (or common) usage was the best nomenclature term to use. If so then it might be better if they are brought into line. Also, If there are any esoteric aerials berried deep within in these galleries of antenna (such as those used for radio direction finding etc.,) then they should surface as this area comes into some sort of order. However, So far this only makes sense to me -so back to you all.--P.g.champion (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that they should be called "radio transmission towers" with radio meaning radio-frequency, not broadcast radio, and used for telecomms, radio boadcast, TV, UHF/VHF radio, cellular phone, ... Most of the time, such towers carry receivers and emitters. "Transmission towers" could be a shorter compromise, "Radio towers" is misleading. I think that it is rare to find towers that serve only for one single purpose, such as TV broadcast, AM radio, ... --Foroa (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed: I also would prefer Radio transmission towers, and it would help avoid confusion in peoples minds with high tension transmission towers (e.g. Category:Pylons). There are however, so many cats in the Radio Tower range, that a change would require the assistance of someone who has the skills to program a bot to do it. Maybe, if these and other changes get enough support and sufficient agreement, this could get done.--P.g.champion (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that we can accept a bad worldwide naming just because of a little bit of annoying work. I think that I can move all those "radio towers by country" in less than an hour (with bot assistance of course). But before moving we should dig a bit further, and especially address the category:Communications towers by country which seems to be simular and moreover, the word communications hurts my eyes. --Foroa (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


During the last few months I tried to organize the media and categories under Category:Radio. Until now I have organized receivers, transmitters etc in more specific categories under Category:Radios. I moved all files related to radio broacasting, including stations, personnalities etc to Category:Radio broadcasting, which needs further categorization. BTW I did not attempt to reorganize Category:Radio towers, as there is separate discussion about masts and towers.

The idea is to have a structure like the following (partial) list:

However I believe that I should not go any further, as there is a risk for friction with other editors and possible edit wars. If you are interested in this subject, could you please visit this category and its subcategories and comment about it? Sv1xv (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a nice progress. Considering the technical complexity, you better carry on improving, we will see what happens. Don't hesitate to call me if there is a problem. --Foroa (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be better to move Category:Marine Telegraph to Category:Marine radiotelegraphy, directly under Category:Radio. Sv1xv (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It all depends on what you mean. The initial Marine telegraphs where optical (without fibres), as can be seen in Category:semaphore, there were optical marine telegraphs in en:Telegraph Hill, San Francisco as well. Life is complicated ... --Foroa (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
All images in the category are related to ship-shore radio communications. Nothing to do with semaphores. Sv1xv (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed: and Category:Marine radiotelegraphy will help to avoid confusion with those images that belong in Category:Undersea telecommunications (which in itself, really should be renamed to the more internationally recognised term Category:Submarine telecommunications cables as it is on WP). As you may know there is a guideline Commons:Naming categories which suggests we use WP cats and article names on WC – providing that they are right in the first place. Rather disappointingly they have an article called “Wireless telegraphy” which I think is less encyclopaedic that Radio-telegraphy. IMO we should ignore the term “wireless” where ever possible or at least redirect categories that use that vernacular term to the preferred technical term (one would haver never heard a Marconi radio operator referring to his electrical apparatus as his “wireless”!!!).
You appear to have a better grasp than most people of the proper nomenclature to use in this subject area. With so much to do in this area, it looks like a case of just plodding through as much as you feel competent to do. Also, as mentioned on the proceeding discussion about towers: It is really very helpful to add explanatory text at the top of the pages, so as to unambiguously define the meaning of the category and what it should be used for and anything else that will help to understand its purpose. Having now spent a little time looking through this subject area, I have given up thinking this was going to be a quick job that can be done in one go. I think we will just have to do bit by bit.--P.g.champion (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Well, the more you document categories clearly, the less chance that someone invents another category scheme behind your back. When you start, often one sees only the top of the iceberg. I think that you should first try to get the basic names right. In this case: telegraphy and/or telecommunication (radio seems quite complete to me). The en:wikipedia can be a help, but there too, proper categorisation is only really developing since a couple of years and in full evolution. Most people don't care or don't know if the telegraphy is transmitted by optic (sight of view as in semphores), radio waves, dedicated, telecomm, undersee or telephone cables, satellites, fiber optics, ... So there you have potential categorisation domains: by function: equipement, machines, ..., by application area: Marine, army, planes, ... by transmission media: radio, cable, ... Although one should not prepare all possible cases, it is useful to draw some sort of scheme as above to make sure one can get started from the root. I'll might have a closer look within a couple of days, but at least already some food for thoughts.

Only I have to modify slightly my proposal and create Category:Marine radio communications, so that it covers radio telephony etc. Category:Marine radiotelegraphy can be a subcategory. Sv1xv (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I can report that reorganization of Category:Marine radio communications is finished. There are issues with individual images but most categories are now in place. I added a redirect in Category:Marine Telegraph. Sv1xv (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Radio Wikipedia

IMHO Category:Radio Wikipedia does not belong to Category:Radio. What can I do about it? Sv1xv (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Have removed “Category:Radio” in this cat; as it is so clear cut. Hopefully, this will be the end of it.--P.g.champion (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:IMO 9175262

Someone added this category to this Categories for discussion, see project space. It is a wrong category for this page. But I cannot delete the category here. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It comes from User:Hebster/IMOcat transcluded into Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/04/Category:Ships by IMO number -- User:Docu at 06:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The discussion about IMO numbers is closed. --Stunteltje (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"current requests" subpage

Shall we phase out this intermediate level? As pages don't get moved after the discussion is closed, subpages could be directly at, e.g.

instead of

{{cfd}} would need to be changed accordingly. -- User:Docu at 06:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg  Info It's done. There is no need to move old pages. New one will be created without the subpage while the old ones can still be used. One thing that still needs to be done is a protected edit by an admin as requested on Commons talk:Categories for discussion/editintro. -- User:Docu at 17:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
And now that's done too. Rocket000 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I tested the three steps. Everything should work as before. One of the templates isn't localized as I would expect it, but this was a pre-existing problem. I left a note at Commons_talk:Localization#Localization_of_Template:Cdw. -- User:Docu at 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Top or bottom of log

The current log page is a mess, as some discussions are added to the top of the list [3] and others to the bottom of the list [4]. The instructions on the Commons:Categories for discussion page say they should be added to the bottom, but there are no instructions given when you follow the link to create a subpage, and there are none visible when you edit the log page. Adding discussions to the top of list is what is done at the English Wikipedia and so in the absence of instructions to the contrary users from there will naturally assume the same is done here.

I suggest that the best way to sort this is:

  • Add instructions to add discussions to the bottom of the list are added to the instructions given when creating the sub page
  • Add an html comment at the top of the log page "Add new discussions to the bottom of this list"
  • Add an html comment at the bottom of the log page "Add new discussions to the bottom of the list, immediately above this line"

It would also probably be a good idea for someone to resort the current log so that it is in correct chronological order. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple category discussion

The short note Commons:Categories for discussion#Listing multiple categories on this "Categories for discussion" page supposes that the discussion page should have a name of the first discussed category. But this is a suitable way only in the case that the "first category" is a parent category of all others discussed categories. But in the case that the group of categories is defined by some other aspect (an used word, language construction or category type), it is more suitable to use some better discussion name which isn't identical with one of the discussed categories. As weel {{Cdw}} should be adjusted for such possibilty. --ŠJů (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No more backlog? CfDiscussion or CfDeletion? (was: revert docu)

  1. First praxis shows, that deletion request for categories are discussed at the other page. If these should only be discussed here, why is it that nobody bothered to even include the deletion requestes here?
  2. Backlog autocatogrizes thus it does not make sense to add the template to pages unless you want to state that the page is backloged even if it is empty.

--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. The page is backlogged. If I hadn't closed most discussions from the first semester of last year, they would still all be there. Please explain why you think there is no backlog.
  2. The deletion channel wasn't mentioned as CFD is the forum for discussing category renames and deletions. Please do not re-add it unless there is a consensus to do so. -- User:Docu at 10:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. You don't understand the template. Even if the page was empty the template would still say it is backlogged. It is _not_ meant for pages.
  2. Rules are descriptive. If you don't want people to post dels on another page you have to change that not me. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. It seems to work fine. It adds the page to the corresponding category. Besides that, it's still backlogged, so what's the problem? What do you mean with "backlog" that wouldn't apply here?
  2. There isn't really anything to change, mediawiki doesn't offer deletions on category, only on files. -- User:Docu at 10:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that you at least try to understand what I'm saying? Category:Propaganda cartoons --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it go into the wrong channel. Commons:Deletion requests mentions only files and pages. It seems to be right place for requests such as Category:Architecture of Royan 1950s (to delete all images in the category). -- User:Docu at 11:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: Commons:Deletion policy defines pages as including categories, but doesn't provide any specific reasons that could apply to categories except them being empty ;) -- User:Docu at 11:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/05/Category:Dictators could be formulated as a deletion request too.
Categories for discussion will be an eternal backlog, but technically speaking, it should use the backlog category, not the template. But before spending too much time on it, could someone define precisely what is meant/understood with backlog, and for whom ? --Foroa (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I would limit the use of backlog to cases where admins or a special user group is required or where action is urgent, e.g. flicker review; rename without target. I added {{Backlog}} to Category:Categories for discussion by month which makes more sense. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
When looking in the backlog, I would drop the word "urgent". --Foroa (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I was implying to remove the template from the other cats. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL. It seems like we are having even more of a backlog than I thought. I wouldn't mind if Cwbm, you would close the stale stuff from before 2009 directly.
The problem with Category:Categories for discussion is that it isn't as convenient to review as Commons:Categories for discussion. Category:Categories for discussion by month somewhere between the two. -- User:Docu at 13:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Than I will remove the backlog from this page. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd leave it here. There isn't really an advantage in putting it on Category:Categories for discussion by month instead. -- User:Docu at 08:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I give up. You are apparently invincible to rational arguments. I moved the thing down, so that normal users who are not the addressee of the template can read the instructions in one go. It obviously requires to much brain power to see from the length of the list that there is a backlog. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We could implement Foroa's suggestion. I agree that the category is more important than the actual tag. BTW thanks for your help in reducing the backlog. -- User:Docu at 09:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Are entries for new months created automatically?

I created a new discussion, probably the first one in February (Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/02/Category:Map categories showing history by period) and I wonder if I need to list start a new section for February? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely manual. I made the change to 2010 [5] and added a section header. Maybe you can convince "O" to add it to his VP section header bot. -- User:Docu at 14:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

closing request?

Just a random question? How are we supposed to close a request? Esby (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The steps I usually go through are:
  1. Generally wait at least two weeks since the discussion was started
  2. assess the discussion, write a conclusion on the subpage
  3. add {{cfdh}} and {{cfdf}} to the subpage
  4. if necessary, do the corresponding changes (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 synomys, add {{speedy}} to empty categories (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 pages, e.g.
    {{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. deal with the usual complaints that this doesn't match this or that convention at Wikipedia
  9. update Commons:Categories if needed
Not all steps are necessarily required nor need they be done on the same day. -- User:Docu at 15:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:King sculptures from Saint-Denis in the Musée national du Moyen Âge

We received this e-mail from OTRS ticket 2010052510036477:

[I'm an employee] of the National Museum of Middle Ages in Paris, France.

One of our curator found out that some informations on wikimedia about our collections are incorrect. Here's the page of concern:[..]

The king sculptures on those pictures don't come from Saint Denis abbey but from the western face of the cathedral Notre Dame in Paris. We can indicate the author of this page reliable sources for those works. How can we make sure that the informations will be corrected as soon as possible?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Seems like a simple request, but wanted to pass it along to someone who had the knowledge and time to make this change. Thanks. -Andrew c (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg  Info Already moved to Category:King sculptures from Notre-Dame de Paris in the Musée national du Moyen Âge. -- User:Docu at 11:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Human beings, by chronological age

I've just added this to CfD, carefully following the instructions given on this project page, and intend to add some related categories. My text is there but no section heading (category name). Why is that? I must say the instructions are not very clearly worded - they wouldn't win the Plain English Award! - but I followed them to the letter. Help please? Anatiomaros (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

✓  Done . Normally if you start with {{subst:cfd}} on the category page, it should more or less work by following the various links (or at least it used to). BTW, Rocket000 listed a series of similar categories a while ago. -- User:Docu at 00:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Docu. I don't know why it didn't work as I went through it step by step. How embarassing! Yes, some similar categories were listed and some deleted, including the rather wonderful *Category:Shaved female genitalia, by species and *Category:Shaved male genitalia, by species (!). It's difficult to track them all down as some of the cats just lead you round in circles, but I've added about 6-8 I think. Hope they show up here. Thanks again, Anatiomaros (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Strange that the category at the tagged pages is red: Category:CfD 2010-06. That was created automatically, not by myself of course. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

June section

Should the June section have the year (2010) included in the section title, like all the other months? (I didn't want to just change it in case it broke something). 01:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How do we close these discussions?

I'm an admin. I'd expect to see some instructions on the page indicating what I do to close a discussion here and archive appropriately. Right now, I'm not sure what to do even to remove discussions where the category in question is already deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to outline it at Commons_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_1#closing_request.3F once.  Docu  at 05:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get that into the project page. - Jmabel ! talk 02:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think somehow you edited my text. I doubt I wrote that I shouldn't be closing these discussions.  Docu  at 03:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I edited it quite a bit. I just used yours as a basis. If I'm wrong that discussions have usually been closed by admins (I thought you were one), feel free to correct that.- Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I used to be the only one to close them .. would you remove or rephrase that part? It might be better if I don't change it myself.  Docu  at 04:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. As I said, I was under the mistaken impression that you were an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime, I revised it a bit.  Docu  at 06:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Any reason you removed "(though, as usual, there is the Snowball clause)"? - Jmabel ! talk 06:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Probably, because I have seen it being used to close discussion with perfectly valid arguments (not at Commons), even the proposal wasn't likely to go through. The best application would probably be to close a discussion about a category with a typo. To close that early and delete the page, we don't really need to mention it. "Generally" should take care of it. For most other discussions, there isn't really a point in rushing things.  Docu  at 06:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sort by ... by what?

Is there any way to organize some meaningful sort-by-time? Right now it's January 2011 - January 2010 - February 2010 - March 2010 ... ??? NVO (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

67 categories with spelling mistakes "Archeological" > "Archaeological" --ZH2010 (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That search includes legitimate category redirects but misses many others. Use the internal search function instead. LX (talk, contribs) 07:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rearranging this page

Since it took long to load and to render, I suggest to list the entries elsewhere. Only the policies and documentation should remain here. Suggestions, ojections? -- RE rillke questions? 15:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Updating months

It's Oct 15 and october's page has not been transcluded here yet. Perhaps, a bot to update? NVO (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


What do you do if a user keeps removing the categories for discussion noms and removes the notifications from the relevant pages? Please see here for more information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Requested moves

This is a mess. A lot of closed cases still show up. This template should only be used if there is consensus behind it. I can empty the backlog with my bot but I cannot do so if practically none of these have a serious discussion and/or consensus behind it. The entire procedure needs to be reworked. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/05/Category:Pittsburgh Steps

I think this one may have fallen under the radar, or was improperly listed. Should be a case of a simple rename. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed this one because there's really nothing controversial here --moogsi (blah) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Category Mordwangen/Mecklenburg DE

I don't fully understand the difference betwenn Mordwange and Stone cross.

Suggestion: Mordwangen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern‎ -> Stone crosses in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Drelm (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming categories for individual naval and fishing ships

So it is NOT a category, but the system of naming. Can I start a discussion under this heading? --Stunteltje (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Irene (2011)

I propose a new category, "Tropical Storm Irene (2011)", to pertain to the extratropical effects of Hurricane Irene (2011). I have tagged several photos with this, as yet unestablished category. Search on "File:Tropical Storm Irene". HopsonRoad (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please close and execute

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Sakura. I think we have a consensus. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

How long to remain the tag?

I saw that the Category:Men with glasses was discussed in May 2013. The tag {{Category for discussion|1=|month=05|year=2013}} was added. The discussion ended with someone's input, not being a conclusion. The tag remained. When do we know that a discussion is over enough to remove the tag? Apdency (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)