Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/08

I created "Photographs by Ira D. Schwarz" without realizing this one existed. Since this is more specific - and also more accurate, as there are no photos *of* Mr Schwarz in the category, only *by* him - I moved all the photos from "Cat:IDS" to "Cat:Photos by IDS". In which case, I suggest that we do not need a separate "IDS" category. DS (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it as empty to get it deleted. For future reference, that can be a better way to handle cases like this that don't need discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Deleted as requested Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Botched name of Woodland Park District McGhiever (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Confirmed, moved without redirect. --Achim (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Duplicate of Category:Parrots in heraldry DiegoAma (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DiegoAma: Do you think there would be value in changing this page to a redirect? If so, go ahead and use the category redirect template. Otherwise, use the empty page template to request deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close: cat was redirected. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this category. Created by mistake. There is another category with an "S" instead of second "Z". Thank you. Flashdart2 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with the bad name template to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing -- category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in name, no need to keep this wrong version. Thanks. Eissink (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: deleted, author's request. --Achim (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this category was created incorrectly based on an actress Do Ji-won (Q12963430). However, the actress' family name is actually Do, not Ji-won. Stevenliuyi (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only member is one image of one isomer (which is currently at Commons:Deletion requests/File:4-hydroxybenzyl.svg) for which we have several images of this and other isomers in Category:Ethylphenols, so proposing merger. "Ethylphenols" matches the Wikidata and enwiki naming, as well as being the more-populated cat, despite being years newer. DMacks (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted. The category is currently empty and unneeded. Ed (Edgar181) 10:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for class discussions 49.151.184.174 09:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this category needs discussion. The categories for discussion process is for categories that might need some kind of change, or even deletion. If you have flagged this category so that it can be discussed as part of coursework, this process is not the way to do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx ^Re: 08:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{delete|reason=Endlosschleife im Kategorie Baum. War von mir als Unterkategorie in "Brick stamps in Germany " gedacht. Habe Seite selbs erstellt - Georgfotoart|subpage=Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Brick stamps in Parey-Elbe|year=2019|month=September|day=3}}

Einordnung der Neuen Unterkategorie Brick stamps in Elbe-Parey Georgfotoart (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Unterkategorie sollte in Category:Brick stamps in Germany einsortiert werden, hat aber scheinbar nicht geklappt. Bitte um Korrecktur --Georgfotoart (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe es mal gemacht. Vielleicht hilft fürs nächste Mal ein Blick in Commons:Erste Schritte/Sortierung. --Blech (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irgend wie klappt es aber noch nicht: Grund des Löschantrags: Endlosschleife im Kategorie Baum. War von mir als Unterkategorie in "Brick stamps in Germany " gedacht. Habe Seite selbs erstellt - Georgfotoart --Georgfotoart (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: fixed. --Achim (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No such place exists. The coordinates given refer to an area of empty moorland. Maps show a river called Abhainn Othagro, but no settlement. Searching Google only brings up results derived from Wikipedia and related sites. 94.196.196.84 10:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: There are articles on the English and Basque Wikipedias, and there is a Wikidata item. The Wikidata item was created in 2013. These will need to be addressed if this place doesn't exist. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete the category has been emptied by the nom and the English WP article has been proded by the nom, this is probably one of the cases where a river was added to the Lists of United Kingdom locations (similar to Alde) and an article was created based on it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP article has now been deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We are waiting for the deletion of the category only. Bencemac (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It is now empty, so I have tagged it for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Deleted as empty. --rimshot^talk 22:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erreur de rédaction ; pas d'image ni de page liées ==> à supprimer François GOGLINS (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Deleted as per nom., empty. --rimshot^talk 22:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ultimo modello 82.52.137.55 15:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx ^Re: 14:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No picture are in this category. TimChen _Talk 03:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it with {{Empty page}}.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 22:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, ich möchte die Löschung dieser Kategorie beantragen. Habe bei der Erstellung, in der Hitze des Gefechts, davor das Wort Landschaftsschutzgebiet vergessen. Sorry, tut mir leid, ist aber halt passiert. Die richtige Kategorie-Bezeichnung habe ich inzwischen erstellt, deshalb bitte diese Kategorie löschen. Vielen Dank und Gruß - Bärwinkel,Klaus Bärwinkel,Klaus (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Deleted, accidental creation as per nom. --rimshot^talk 22:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Advanced Research Projects Agency, this cat is just the initialism of the parent. Perhaps make this one a dab to account for the other uses of the initialism listed there. Josh (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Disambiguated after diffusion into appropriate categories. --rimshot^talk 22:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German language category contrary to Commons:Categories Ies (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ies: Which name of category, would you prefer? - but not it should be an adequate name not only approximately. -K@rl (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Gruber: An appropriate translation of "Weidezaun" is "pasture fence". (See https://www.linguee.de/deutsch-englisch/uebersetzung/Weidezaun.html) And there is a Category:Pasture fences -- Ies (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ies: - Vielleicht auch Farm fence siehe http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/08-035.htm#1 --K@rl (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Gruber: "Farm fence" ist aber vielleicht irreführend, da ein Weidezaun nicht zwangsläufig zu einer Farm gehört. Außerdem gibt es dazu keine Commons-Categorie, zu "Pasture fences" aber schon. Und diese passt. -- Ies (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry, da hätte ich nicht diskutiert, wenn es die Cat eh gibt. Farm ist auch nicht nur das Gebäude gemeint und alles Weideland gehört zu irgendeiner Farm. Aber dann verschiebe die Fotoso auf Pasture fences und wir beenden die Disk hier, denn ich nehme an die hat GT1976 nicht gekannt. --gruß K@rl (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo! Sorry, dass ich mich erst spät einschalte. Diese Kategorie habe ich offenbar nicht gefunden, sehr gerne verwenden wir die vorhandene. Ich danke euch für die Aufmerksamkeit und wünsche einen schönen Tag! Schönen Gruß vom Land: --GT1976 (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Merged to Category:Pasture fences, non-English name. --rimshot^talk 22:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

create wrong page 2401:4900:1728:D80E:C517:55DA:4B96:108 09:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss,. --jdx ^Re: 10:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole structure should be renamed with open mouths, just like everything under Category:Open_objects. Pinging @Infrogmation: as well. Roy17 (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and Infrogmation: . OK. I agree with your proposal. Jmarchn (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Common language phrases are generally preferable to Wikimedia specific parenthetical neologisms. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Open mouths. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for a commune in the Indre department of France. I propose renaming it to Category:Lacs (Indre), as with some other Indre communes. The reason is that this category is getting images for lakes (lakes that are not in the commune), because "lacs" means "lakes" in French. Auntof6 (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oui ça me parait une bonne idée je valide.--Floppy36 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not controversial, just do it since even ENWP disambiguates it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:University and college life or Category:University and college culture to match parent category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Moved to Category:University and college culture. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the line between these and plain 'boomboxes' (aka portable stereo cassette recorders), other than social/racial stigma? Which isn't valid for categorization. Retired electrician (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention that many upper-range models that may be now perceived as ghetto blasters, were quite pricey and too heavy for taking to the street (although technically portable). Retired electrician (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems either redundant or an arbitrary division ("large") to me. I'd agree to redirect to Category:Boomboxes. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Redirected to Category:Boomboxes. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This name does not obey the structure, but I want to use this CfD to ask, shouldnt it be flags of organisations of (instead of in) a country? Roy17 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved per nominatin to Category:Flags of organisations in Spain. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category name is not very meaningful. Contents of the category have been moved to other categories, so it can be deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category name is not very meaningful. The contents of the category have been moved to other categories, so it can be deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting this category, and merging contents to Category:Paintings of the Joseon Dynasty. Reason: We don't need this type of miscellany/other category -- parent categories can hold this type of content. Auntof6 (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This goes against standard commons style. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Moved content to Category:Paintings of the Joseon Dynasty and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this redundant with its parent category, Category:Populated places in KwaZulu-Natal ? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not completely redundant, but should be merged to the parent cat. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved content to Category:Populated places in KwaZulu-Natal and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no content...has never had anything except a single unlicensed image and/or derivatives thereof. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a multilingual project, but per our language policy, category names should generally be in English. I see no reason for this subcategory in Luxembourgish with arbitrary content that should normally be in Category:Road signs in Luxembourg. I suggest we upmerge the files and redirect the category. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support GilPe (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Road signs in Luxembourg. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this redundant with Category:Art of Polynesia? Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks that way to me. Redirect to Category:Art of Polynesia - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Art of Polynesia. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person, likely to be self promotion. Ahmad^talk 10:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems to be empty, can't we just delete it? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much do think we can. Let me mark it with C3, it's very, very unlikely "to be ever meaningfully used"; and it's created by a ring of paid-editors we've recently discovered in fawiki. Ahmad^talk 19:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

catégorie vide ( doublon avec autre catégorie) Faqscl (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Circumcision with Fra Jacopo Lampugnani as a Donor - Bernardo Zenale - Louvre MI 568 ? A direct might be appropriate here. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, why not..--Faqscl (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Circumcision with Fra Jacopo Lampugnani as a Donor - Bernardo Zenale - Louvre MI 568. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it seems this meta cat should be by country rather than by nationality. Roy17 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Newspaper people by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

an ad hoc category. Now empty, unsystematic name (should be "uncategorized" not "uncategorised"). Can be recreated if mass of Nagaoka images without categories will be uploaded Estopedist1 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted. If more files are uploaded, they can go in the parent category: there's no need for this kind of category. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

should be joined into its parent Category:Created with; apparently there is no difference between both Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it is redundant and obsolete. Can now be speedy deleted -- sarang♥사랑 10:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: deleted. --ƏXPLICIT 05:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no difference between these and Roundabouts, and the en:WP link is a redirect to Roundabouts. A traffic circle may be a locally equivalent name but it is about time this category had some stability. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: No comment either way in a month. Merged and redirected. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Female names by languages.

Yes. I don't think a discussion is even needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Female names by language. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between a drink and a beverage? See Category:Tomato-based beverages 2A02:908:184:C3E0:849F:F249:44E3:6804 13:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the creator intended the drinks category to be for alcoholic drinks, since it's in the alcoholic beverages category. However, if that was the intent, the category name should reflect that. In general, there should be no difference here between the terms drinks and beverages.

I just removed two files from the drinks category that didn't show beverages. There's nothing in the remaining two files that indicates that they're alcoholic, so I say merge the drinks category to the beverages category. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there's the same issue with rice drinks and rice beverages. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to "beverages" in both cases. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are this category and Category:Sankta Elisabet av Ungern duplicates of Category:Elisabeth of Hungary, Landgravine of Thuringia. If not, what does it mean that they are subcats of the one with the English name? Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted in favour of Category:Elisabeth of Hungary, Landgravine of Thuringia. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear purpose. Examples of what? Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content upmerged, category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose and scope of this category? Göteborg isn't located in Stockholm. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a train trip from Stockholms södra (Stockholm South Station) to Göteborg. It should definitely be deleted, but the images should really be properly categorized first, which might be tricky. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved content to Category:Views from trains in Sweden and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this redundant with Category:People of Aberdeen? Auntof6 (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Merge with a redirect. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of India. Should be merged into it. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 21:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category can be deleted: was duplicate of Greek A factory. I moved the content to the category that existed longest Ecritures (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ecritures: You must transform Category:The "Greek A" Factory into a redirect to the prefered category (which you should have stated here), and make sure categorization and Wikidata links are properly transferred. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I had to look for it in your contributions. It’s Category:Greek A Factory (which is arguably a poorer title). I’ll make the necessary changes. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

really needed category? There is already category:User categories Estopedist1 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need it under this name. If the creator meant it to be a personal user category, then the category name should include the creator's user name and we can rename it. Otherwise, remove the user page and files, and either remove the subcats or move them to Category:User categories as appropriate. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK now empty. Ready to delete or redirect--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: That was quick. Did you get the creator's input? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PJDespa: no comment by the creator. Assumed that obvious mistake by the creator and other who actually wanted to categorise to the category named "User categories" (see e.g. [1])--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We usually wait longer than a day to get comments. A week is a good rule of thumb. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Navy as a redundant of the parent. This appears to just be a Spanish-language title of the parent 'Navy'. Josh (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support and turn into a DAB to disambiguate from Category:Armada (ship, 2006). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to dab page. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Relations of Germany and the Netherlands? Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - sorry, I did not know that other category. Ziko (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted in favour of Category:Relations of Germany and the Netherlands. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lev Balashov for consistencty with other subcats of Category:Philosophers from Russia. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No reason to use cyrillic here. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Category:Educational posters (subcategory of Category:Educational materials) and Category:Health education posters (subcategory of Category:Educational posters and Category:Health education). Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like a great idea!--Kenmayer (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Sandwell (neighbourhood) or Category:Sandwell, Warley to avoid confusion with Category:Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell (commonly referred to as Sandwell, and linked to en:Sandwell) Themightyquill (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support but use Category:Sandwell (suburb) per w:Anfield (suburb). This was probably for the district until the settlement category was added and Category:Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell was created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Sandwell (suburb) and Category:Sandwell converted into disambig page. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliefs are types of Sculptures. Rename to Category:Sculptures at the group of monuments at Mahabalipuram and place in Category:Sculptures in Tamil Nadu. Themightyquill (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organizing weapons by time should be done by century/decade/year as appropriate. Grouping all weapons (made/developed/used?) after or before a particular event is not useful. Josh (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion originates from Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Post-World War II firearms of Armenia. But untill recently we didn't had at all any time related firearm category.--Sanandros (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've added that and the other related discussions above for quick reference. Josh (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition, Joshbaumgartner, if you want to make this change. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill, Sanandros, and E4024: Closed (no opposition; delete) Josh (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category is empty and has no function. Asanas are categorised in a hierarchy already. Suggest we delete category. Sorry if this is the wrong forum for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the right forum for your question. I agree that the category is empty and various asanas are already categorized by types (Category:Backbending asana‎, Category:Forward bending asana, Category:Supine Asana‎, etc). This category could be used to categorize all the named asanas (Category:Matsyasana‎, Category:Bhujangasana‎, Category:Anantasana‎, etc) in a single category, sorted only alphabetically. For something similar, see Category:People by name. I assume that's why Fleur-de-farine created it. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest to rename to (e.g.) "Images by Pflatau", in order to distinguish from a user page - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with this. There are many other categories with similar names. Is there a rule about naming user categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not really a problem. No relevant policy is mentioned e.g. at Commons:User-specific_galleries,_templates_and_categories#Categories. - It was just a suggestion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: no reason for rename. --ƏXPLICIT 12:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is "squatting" a common name. I cannot even seacch Commons for word "Troika" because of this.

Category "Troika" should be used as a top-access category. The current one must be renamed to category:Troika, Vena Cava and be a subcategory of Category:Troika .

Another subcategories are Category:Troikas (horse driving) and Category:Troika (ride).

There quite a few other places named "Troika" as well. Also there are several famous painting titled Troika, I cannot find them in Commons without google. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A move to Category:Troika, Vena Cava makes sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 13:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Photographs of flags of the United Kingdom in England.

Subcategories using the names "Union flag" or "national flag of the United Kingdom" should be renamed to use "Union Jack" to match the parent category name. Josh (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The Union flag is only a jack when flown on a jackstaff. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to en:Union Jack that assertion is subject to debate. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: Indeed it is a matter of debate, as stated by Themightyquill (talk · contribs). However, either way all categories should use the same wording to refer to the flag. We can debate what that name should be, but that is not good grounds for keeping a mish-mash of different names in effect. Josh (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu and Themightyquill: Closed (make category names consistent with parent; if name for parent is changed later, subs to follow suit) Josh (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong and should be deleted Category:Robin Hood (ship, 1995) is IMO 9087477, Category:Nils Dacke (ship, 1995) is IMO 9087465. The Nils Dacke, is a different ship, sometimes photographed with its sister ship the Robin Hood. On marinetraffic.com there are images of Nils Dacke IMO 9087465, also loads of pictures of the Robin Hood IMO 9087465. One or two actually show both vessels together. Cat Robin Hood (ship, 1995-2014) proclaims Robin Hood to be IMO 9087465, which it's not; as does Cat Robin Hood (ship, 1995-2016), also in error. There are only six images in Category:Robin Hood (ship, 1995), it doesn't need three categories. Broichmore (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO 9087465 was built as Robin Hood and it had this name until 2013/2014, sources for examlpe [2] [3], [4]. Now we have a Category:Robin Hood (ship, 1995), part of Category:IMO 9087477 and showing pictures of a ship called "Robin Hood" from 2010, 2012 or earlier and 2016. If the ships changed names in December 2014 those pictures made berfore and after 2014 can't show the same ship, so the Category:IMO 9087477 can't be used for whole of the pictures of Robin Hood, because some of the pictures are showing the ship Category:IMO 9087465. 2003:E7:B731:1670:88F:4338:81DB:7D89 07:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the past the Roobin Hood category [5] was part of the IMO 9087477-category, takee a look on earlier version in the revision history, now it's 9087465. 2003:E7:B731:1670:88F:4338:81DB:7D89 07:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The categories of today are hard to understand. Both ships are in one category, but these are part of both IMO-categories. It would be better to separate both categories, between both ships. They changed names in December 2014, you can see at the picture and in the sources of the IP. HenSti (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

 Done: empty now. --JuTa 07:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no category tree for "xyz, to categorize". Also affected:

• Category:People related to health care, to categorize‎
• Category:People related to health sciences, to categorize‎
• Category:People related to medicine, to categorize‎ Ies (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ies: I created these categories to clear the parent categories of photographs of people. The ideal way is that each of these photos were correctly categorized, but the reality is not the case; usually when users upload photos they do not take it into account. I have categorized many photos, but other ones are difficult to categorize. To do it represents a little-useful cost of my time and an uninteresting work (since they are about people who do not have an article in any Wikipedia). I don't have a problem to change the denomination of these categories, but I think they are necessary to facilitate the visualization and categorization of the other files. Jmarchn (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jmarchn, I see the problem which is a frequent one also in other parts of Commons. I only doubt that categories like "xyz, to categorize" are a good way to solve the problem. Instead of making category contents better accessible for helpful users, they even hide them in dead-end subcategories. You know the {{categorize}} tag for categories? It atomatically lists them here for helpful users: Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion. -- Ies (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no need for these miscellanea categories. There is nothing wrong with having this content in parent categories. If there is a lot of content that needs categorizing, then the {{Catdiffuse}} template can be used on the parent categories. I considered suggesting renaming instead, but "People related to" is too vague. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not delete. @Ies and Auntof6: I am physician and I have categorized thousands of files related to medicine. Lately I have implemented {{DiseasesNav}} in almost eight thousand pages in order to consolidate the categorization system.

1. Obviously, {{Categorize}} or {{Catdiffuse}} do nothing. I use the first template but, in my experience, people do not care.
   1. I think it would be a good thing: When someone upload a file, and choose any category and this category has any of the previous templates: a warning message appears.
2. Look at Category:Medicine: there is no files (if no one/s has been uploaded today). For some years and once or more times a week I categorize the files that someone uploaded there. If the 85 files from Category:People related to medicine, to categorize are moved to Medicine it will make it hard for me (or someone else who wants to do this job) to see the new files in order to categorize them.
   1. Also, often, I send a message to users (who have categorized the files in Category:Medicine) the need to categorize them correctly before (on another occasion). I indicate to these users where their files have been categorized.
3. I have no problem changing the name of these categories, while not losing the current functionality.

Jmarchn (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarchn, Auntof6, and Ies: it is obvious that in Commons we do not tolerate personal logic related to categories' names. However, it is very welcome if someone as the real specialist in its area help to categorize files. So I suggest this solution for user:Jmarchn:

• Category:People related to health, to categorize (to be deleted) --> category:Unidentified people
  • Category:People related to health care, to categorize (to be deleted) --> category:Unidentified people
  • Category:People related to medicine, to categorize (to be deleted) --> category:Unidentified people
  • Category:People related to health sciences, to categorize (to be deleted) --> category:Unidentified people

The info that someone is related to health/medicine can be found via Google search if not presented in the files' description. In addition, there is also possible to create hidden and personal category (like "Category:User Jmarchn category about health people") --Estopedist1 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: If you say "it is obvious that in Commons we do not tolerate personal logic related to categories' names" means that there is a non-personal logic that I do not know and you say you know. Which is?.

I do not agree with your proposal to remove the categories that you have indicated. I have no problem, as I said, to rename them. For example it could be changed "People related to health, to categorize" for "Unidentified people related to health". Then this "Unidentified ..." category could be a subcategory of Category:Unidentified people by occupation, but there are files that are identified but incomplete (for example: File:Dr Gilberto Solorza.jpg). I'm very sure I don't want to create a hidden and personal category as you suggest (I have other priorities in my life).

There is a serious problem of not deleting (once uploaded) many files that are completely unnecessary or not well documented. And not just human faces (I think, for example, in the human penis category). I understand the difficulty of carrying it out.

In the last two weeks I have been categorizing hundreds of files from Category:Health and Category:Health care (an example: File:I morgon skall jag skära. Doctor Minton. Fritz von Dardel - Nordiska Museet - NMA.0037326.jpg, is a doctor, but where categorize him?. ... I have found many health related products or businesses!.

If you look, for example Category:People related to medicine, to categorize, you will find pictures of doctors who have not been categorized, some of the files have been used in some articles. Maybe they could all be moved to Category:Physicians, but not others. In the meantime, I think they don't bother anyone. Moving this files, you hide the apparent difference set from whoever uploaded the files, because they are most likely "really" people related to a health field (identifieds by the clothing they wear and/or the file name).

Moving these people files into a large category (Category:Unidentified people with more 25,000 files) does not solve this problem, it just hides it.

There are other solutions, for example:

1. That a file cannot be uploaded in a category with the known tag "This is a main category requiring frequent diffusion and maybe maintenance. As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into appropriate subcategories.", giving the option to user to open a new web-browser tab with the "inappropriate" category page (to be able to see, search and find a more appropriate subcategory).
2. Use warnings, for files of a person (or group of people), that the file will be deleted as it is self-promotion. This warnings are rarely used, but yesterday has been used correctly in File:Kevin Oswaldo Hernandez Vallejo.jpg.

--Jmarchn (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarchn: . Some of your ideas needs general discussion (I don't know where). But, so I suggest new solution:

• Category:People related to health, to categorize (to be deleted) --> category:Unidentified people related to health
  • Category:People related to health care, to categorize (to be deleted) --> category:Unidentified people related to health
  • Category:People related to medicine, to categorize (to be deleted) --> category:Unidentified people related to health
  • Category:People related to health sciences, to categorize (to be deleted) --> category:Unidentified people related to health

It is not problem if in some cases we actually know the name of the human. There are many files in category:Unidentified people where we actually know the name, occupation and so on --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: . OK. But I prefer Category:Unidentified people related to health care (since Category:Unidentified and insufficiently identified people related to health or health care -still it would be better- perhaps would be too long). A warning banner should be put in this new category, explaining that it also includes identified people, but not enough. Jmarchn (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarchn: the name Category:Unidentified people related to health care sounds very good. I created this category for you so you can add suitable info to this header--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted. Category:Unidentified people related to health care is created. Closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary categorization. Themightyquill (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

now in Category:Sant'Antonio (Calcinaia) LigaDue (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted. @LigaDue: . CFD closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Women's sports? Themightyquill (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I did redirect to Category:Women's sports. CFD can be closed. I just mention that category:Men in sport is absent--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Women's sports. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unsystematic name (should be "uncategorized" not "uncategorised") Estopedist1 (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for discussion ... This category is under Category:Rectangular road signs by country. Are all regulatory signs in the United States really rectangular? Category:Yield signs in the United States is under this category. Mjrmtg (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yield signs (and Stop signs) are under their own separate categories, so I suppose this issue simply doesn't apply to them. ----DanTD (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The category should be removed from Category:Rectangular road signs by country as not all regulatory road signs are rectangular. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your input. I've removed this category from Category:Rectangular road signs by country. This discussion can be closed. --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parent category removed by Mjrmtg. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"East Bengal was a province formerly part of India, later it became part of Pakistan after the 1947 Independence. Today it encompasses as the new country of Bangladesh since 1972." It's unhelpful to categorize plant and animal life according to a historic entity. Merge content into Category:Organisms in Bangladesh appropriately, and delete. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cat deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct, please, Wikipedia, change these. 94.73.37.84 15:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more specific. What isn't correct? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this request as stale. Evrik (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary and unhelpful categorization. Themightyquill (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Concur with Themightyquill. - Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per above. In pretty much none of these images is the location apparent or important, it's just a meaningless intersection. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Kattakurgan, Uzbekistan ? Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, same city. See en:Kattakurgan. To be merged--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Category:Kattakurgan, Uzbekistan. -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we eliminate this category? It now contains only two subcats (each for an individual country) and we don't have any other pyramids-by-continent categories. Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think it makes much sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: per discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any purpose of use of this category. Leyo 20:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support as Leo, should be deleted--Oursana (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep. Part of the larger Category:User categories scheme, where other similar categories exist. Having a large, clear, and easily accessible view of a particular user's file transfers is beneficial to the project. ƏXPLICIT 05:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Per Explicit. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  if user:FastilyClone don't want it, I think deletion should be valid. Uploadings by any user are easily trackable--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that the category was not created by FastilyClone. --Leyo 22:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Kept, no consensus to delete Estopedist1 (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear purpose. Upmerge content to Category:Animals of Korenskie rodniki? Or is this a user category? Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the category where the album of cropped and signed photos of animals is presented. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signed by whom? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The environmental organization Rodniki Belogorye. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest creating Category:Images from Rodniki Belogorye under Category:Images by source, and potentially creating a gallery. There's no reason to have a subcategory here. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support @Themightyquill and Лобачев Владими: to be renamed per user:Themightyquill, but under Category:Images of animals by source--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Images of animals from Rodniki Belogorye. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Nature of Mývatn and sort animals and flora images appropriately into Category:Animals of Iceland and Category:Flora of North-Iceland Themightyquill (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Nature of Mývatn. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is redundant to Category:Election campaigns. Redirect it. Roy17 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: enwiki en:Electioneering is redirected to "political campaign". We have also Category:Political campaigns. Redirect to there instead of "election campaings"?--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that enwiki en:election campaign is redirected to "political campaign". This means that user:Roy17's nominations may be better solution than my suggested one--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

redirected.--Roy17 (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the actual scope of this category? Individual aircraft that shot down MiGs? Types of aircraft? Why are there photographs of MiGs being shot down in here? This category feels somewhat arbitrary and out of scope for us, and difficult to prove membership into. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:Mikoyan military aircraft shootdowns as a subcategory of Category:Aircraft shootdowns and Category:Mikoyan military aircraft. Leave only images of aircraft being shot down. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: you are free to execute your proposal--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Mikoyan military aircraft shootdowns. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The replacement for the eastern span of this bridge has been open for some time now, so I think we should rename this category to something that indicates "former", and rename the replacement category to this name. Is there a convention for naming former bridges or spans? Auntof6 (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Auntof6: I found two categories: Category:Former Chugunny bridge and Category:Former Vroenhoven bridge. But I am not sure it helps--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've sorted everything out with the subcategories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kategoria jest pusta i tematycznie dubluje zawartość kategorii Category:Sculptures of mermaids in Poland Mariochom (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly empty at the moment, but some currently classified as Sculptures of mermaids in Poland are statues and could go here. There are lots of cats than make the distinction between sculptures and statues. My view is that it should remain and (with reliefs) be a subcat of the sculpture cat Icarusgeek (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer empty. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambig page, as per en:Krasnogorsk. Move content to new Category:Krasnogorsk, Moscow Oblast as per en:Krasnogorsk, Moscow Oblast. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. It is quite massive re-organizing because our category:Krasnogorsk is big--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moved/converted to disambiguation. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/02/Category:Animals of Central America.

consensus seems to be animals of XX (e.g. Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/02/Category:Animals of Central America). if so, rename all the cats. @Bidgee and Gnangarra: who commented on Category talk:Fauna of Tasmania. Roy17 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Category:Fauna of Bhutan. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I support renaming. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the correct term is fauna, the use of animals as explained previously for Tasmania puts a significant portion of the existing categories and images in the wrong classification because animals is lower order than fauna and an inappropriate change. By all means create a sub category of animals and move the appropriate categories to there, but they remain part of the Fauna category tree Gnangarra 07:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you thinking that animals = animalia? That's not how the term animals is being used here. The top category is Category:Animals, and that has a hatnote pointing to Category:Animalia for the taxonomic classification. Furthermore, Category:Fauna redirects to Category:Animals. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • no I'm not comparing animal to animalia, I'm saying fauna encompasses more than animals, animals being use inappropriately should be fixed rather than changing those category structures that are correct. Gnangarra 08:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does fauna include besides animals? Wiktionary defines it as "Animals considered as a group; especially those of a particular country, region, time". That says animals to me, and we subdivide by location. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Australia is a sub-category of Category:Animals by country so it doesn't fit with the tree. To be clear, Gnangarra, you are not proposing that Category:Fauna of Australia is exceptional, but that the whole tree, starting from at least Category:Animals by country, is incorrectly named and should be moved to Category:Fauna by country. That's a big change and would require discussion at Commons:Village Pump. Would you like to initiate that discussion and try to secure consensus to move the tree to "Fauna by country" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support renaming "Fauna of" (Australia and Bhutan) to "Animals of", following the current standard. The argument raised (and later abandoned) by Gnangarra will probably generate a lengthy discussion; we should close this discussion first. —capmo (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not abandoned this, the simple fact the term is Fauna, and compliments the term Flora we categorise by the scientific terms for each species animal doesnt fit that format. Gnangarra 07:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gnangarra, you said "nothing to respond to" in the edit summary, ignoring that both Auntof6 and Themightyquill made you questions that went unanswered. —capmo (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh and I dont care about trying to argue that every category should be x or y I just sit with what is scientifically accurate and commonly used in Australia. Gnangarra 07:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The terms Fauna and Flora are used by the whole Western world, not only Australia. What we're trying to determine here is whether there is or not a difference between "Fauna" and "Animals". Can you help with that? —capmo (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest w:en:Fauna you'll notice that there are 15 subclassifications all called xxxfauna with the bonus description of Zoologists and paleontologists use fauna to refer to a typical collection of animals found in a specific time or place Gnangarra 23:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given for an exception here. Moved to Category:Animals of Australia. I left a redirect from Category:Fauna of Australia so that Zoologists and paleontologists don't get confused. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i think its subcats should be renamed in the format of XX of the United Nations, XX of <agency name spelled out>. see https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/biography for example. Roy17 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: I agree. Would be much easier to read and navigate. en.wikipedia takes the same approach. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and B2Belgium: enwiki uses the system a la "United Nations General Assembly officials". We have same system. Can we close this discussion?--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no. their system is en:Category:Deputy Secretaries-General of the United Nations en:Category:Secretaries-General of the United Nations en:Category:Special Representatives of the Secretary-General of the United Nations... which is what i suggest changing to. Roy17 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done In principle I support the renaming but this CfD was for the parent cat. Closing discussion - can re-open for the subcats or just rename Gbawden (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the images in this category, and all its subcategories, show authors at book signing events. Only a few of the images record authors in the act of book signing. So I suggest that we set bots to work, renaming this category, and all its subcategories, to Category:Book signings - plural, to reflect the actual contents. Geo Swan (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. This category isn't really about the act of signing books, but events at which books are signed. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan and BMacZero: Some images actually feature the act of book singing though. Perhaps a split into Category:Book signings/Category:Book signing events and Category:Book signing/Category:People signing books? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan and BMacZero: I agree with Themightyquill: split this category into two: one for the events and another one (as a subcategory) for the actual signing of books. JopkeB (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That works for me. Geo Swan (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @JopkeB and Geo Swan: Sure, though to split hairs I think maybe they should be parallel/sibling categories because people may sign books even if they aren't at a book signing. For naming, I favor Category:Book signings (commonly-used term) and Category:People signing books (clearer). – BMacZero (🗩) 16:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, on closer inspection, you are right about parallel/sibling categories.

  1. For the event I prefer Category:Book signing events.
  2. For the signing itself Category:People signing books is indeed clearer when you split the category.

  JopkeB (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would accept the suggestions of either BMacZero or JopkeB. Geo Swan (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • JopkeB's suggestion works for me. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Create two subcategories as discussed above  Done
Participants	Geo Swan (talk · contribs) BMacZero (talk · contribs) Themightyquill (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems:

1. there is only one famous Baoan District, so we could omit ", Shenzhen"
2. technically it should be Bao'an (a pinyin rule, a vowel followed by a vowel be separated by an apostrophe). official English website https://web.archive.org/web/20190118130928/http://english.baoan.gov.cn/ . but then, Bao'an is not ambiguous like Xi'an (vs Xian), so it's quite common to neglect the apostrophe. I prefer Bao'an District. Roy17 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Roy17: moving to Category:Baoan District sounds logical. But I prefer Baoan District, because enwiki en:Baoan District--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only move the main category to Category:Baoan District. Subcategories can stay at "... Baoan District, Shenzhen", because it's a rather trivial matter.

The apostrophe version is not chosen because it's commonly omitted. People commonly write Baoan.--Roy17 (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

should there be a standard format of its subcats? some of these are <source> videos, which I find OK, but between videos by XX and .. from XX, which is better? (I'd prefer from <agencies> but by <cameraman>.) (I need to create a subcat for China News Service.) Roy17 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: I suggest "Videos from" or "Videos by". I see you have already created category:Videos from China News Service. But also note, that in many cases better solution would be "category:Files from SOURCENAME", so it comprises audios, videos, images, animations--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to close this by recommending (but not actively enforcing) the format "Videos from XX".

I think, "by" signifies authorship but "from" merely indicates source. There could be platforms/agencies that publish commissioned works authored by other people, like not all videos from NASA are videos by NASA, so I suggest using "from" is better so that such titles can cover a broader range of scenarios. Roy17 (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion summarised into notes on the category page.--Roy17 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of the subcats are in fact Category:School gymnasiums. recat and then delete all the wrong cats. Roy17 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: Really, many non-European countries have a problem to understand this terminology. Several wrongly named and categorized subcategories are from Asia: Japan, China (with a duplicate), Malaysia, India... but also Canada, Guinea and even the United States as well. They confuse school gyms with schools named "gymnasium". And moreover, some of the depicted gyms are even not school gyms. They should be renamed and recategorized. However, can be the whole category tree renamed to some better name which would not seduce to such misunderstanding? I believed that the disambiguation "schools" is clear enough. Some problem is also with distinguishing of similar school types (gymnasium, lyceum and others secondary general schools), especially of such types which can be extra-European equivalents of classical European gymnasiums. --ŠJů (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of putting a notice at the top of this page to warn users not to create subcats for sports venues, but yeah your idea would be better. If the name could somehow be clearer it should help.--Roy17 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: I doubt we can find a better name.

I tried check the subcategories and removed what doesn't belong there. --ŠJů (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. It seems that this CFD is solved, and the nominated categories to be kept--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need to wait for a sysop to delete the wrong subcats like Gymnasiums (schools) in Japan‎, Nigeria‎... Roy17 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: I've deleted Japan and Nigeria. Are there others that require deletion? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, problem seems resolved. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrogmation: Category:Gymnasiums (schools) in Georgia still needs to be deleted, because the pic is probably about a gym (sports hall) at a school.--Roy17 (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Fish and seafood of the Netherlands.

The creator has acknowledged that the category should be in english, but didn't know the correct word for this metacategory of playground equipment that includes seesaws/teetertotters and swings. It's not a concept I'm familiar with. Anyone have any ideas? Themightyquill (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the topic to discussion (I am the creator). I have searched for quite long time to understand the differences between different types of this playground equipment and finally even polished it on Wikidata (befero, several similar but different types was mixed). I am not very familiar with Commons procedures, but I hope that we can stand od historical experience about category naming of concepts, which are not present in English (or find a suitable name in English :). --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KuboF Hromoslav. Do you know if this concept exists outside Czech and Polish? I don't fully understand how swings and seesaws are related, except that they both have pivot points. One is a lever, the other is a pendulum, so even at the level of "simple machines" they are quite different. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The concept definitely exists also in Slovak and Esperanto (the category name is in Esperanto now). In fact, in these 2 languages (and maybe also in the other 2, but I am not sure) it is even hard to find words for "seesaws/teetertotters" and "swings" - the usual word is the meta-therm "hojdačka" (sk) or "balancilo" (eo).

I would say that the commonness is that both of them are mostly playground instrument that are doing repetitive, bi-directional, partly circular movement.

Do you know about how such occasions (concept not present in English) was solved in past? --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not a problem I've run into before. Perhaps we could take this to the Commons:Village Pump? But I doubt people will be enthusiastic about using a concept that only exists in a few languages as an organizing principle at commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to rename the category to Category:Seesaws‎ and swings‎ (with proper explanation in its description / talk)? Artificial, indeed, but could work. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Delete unclear umbrella term. Commons doesn't loose anything if we just delete the nominated category. If any Wikipedia or Wikidata defines this term, we can re-evaluate the situation--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, translation possible. The fact that English has no word for this concept doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. Commons should be structured factually, not to copy the structure and limits of English thought. Btw., also the English word "swing" can mean all types of swinging motion, regardless of where the axis of rotary motion is located and whether the motion is made possible by the elasticity of the material or by the shaft etc. --ŠJů (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close as KEPT per ŠJů. Seems useful directing non-native English speakers to appropriate subcategories. Not a problem. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002.

Pointless subcategorisation. Please stop doing this. Mike Peel (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of year categories for people in Category:Wikimedians by name by year by country and it's very usefull. I don't understand why is there a problem with this category ? Mazuritz (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazuritz: That entire category tree is a waste of time from my point of view. Why do you find it useful? Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: It is very common and practical to categorize people's images by year (see : Category:People by name by year). It's clearer and the images are better organized, especially if there are a lot of images. --Mazuritz (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just makes it harder to find the good images, as you have to look through multiple subcategories rather than having them all in one category. Particularly in cases where there are fewer than 200 images (which would then show just on one page), it's a serious downside. Mike Peel (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs a lot of images to categorize by year. But this way you can find the most recent images... In any case, it is not this particular category that needs to be discussed, but all the categories that are in Category:People by name by year or even in Category:People by year. Mazuritz (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is a lot of bad practice does not justify making more of it. Arguably, we have thousands of pictures of Category:Barack Obama, which might justify organizing them by year − this is not the case for Liam Wyatt.

As for searching, you can just use Help:Category intersection. And now that Structured data is here, I’m confident we will get even fancier search function.

As for “There is a lot of year categories for people in Category:Wikimedians by name by year by country”, this is straight up misleading − I just checked a few dozen of those, and all but one had been created by you.

Jean-Fred (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of categories in Category:People by name by year and I didn't create any of them. As in other circumstances, it seems useful to categorize them. --Mazuritz (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re moving the goalposts: you made the claim that “There is a lot of year categories for people in Category:Wikimedians by name by year by country”, and I pointed out you created most of these ; I did not say anything about who created anything in Category:People by name by year.

As for these, again, bad practice elsewhere does not justify doing more of it (and personally I’d guess a lot of it is merely copycat categorisation). As I said, it might be justified for people with hundreds or thousands of pictures ; that does not make it valid for everything.

As for your claim of "seeming usefulness", it’s unsubstantiated. I pointed out other ways to achieve the same result (Category intersection & SDoC), which you did not answer either.

Jean-Fred (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Mike and JeanFred. Multichill (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Multichill, Mike Peel, and Mazuritz: rather well populated year categories, even some subcategories. Upmerging into the parent Category:Liam Wyatt seems not a right action--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Estopedist1: I'm still watching this, though, and I still think the best solution is to merge back to the parent category - why don't you think that is the right action? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mike Peel if we merge back, then the parent category has 200+ files. After merging probably too big category and needs some kind of dispersing. "By year" dispersing is probably the best option Estopedist1 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • • @Estopedist1: I count 144? That's easily under 1 page of category contents. I'm not including subcategories like Category:Liam Wyatt at Wikimania 2014, which are fine. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Per Wikimedia Commons pratices and this categories, if were deleted, would obviously be recreated in the future. Tm (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep as per my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002. Geo Swan (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, kept; in use, no consensus to delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to either rename this Category:Mesoamerican pyramids in Mexico / Category:Ancient pyramids in Mexico OR perhaps create a subcategory with one of those names. Category:Edmonton City Hall is in Category:Pyramids in Canada, but we would want to separate that kind of thing from the current contents of Category:Pyramids in Mexico. The same for Category:Pyramids in Guatemala. Thanks. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki has also Category:Pyramids in Mexico--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, kept. CFD header was removed from category in 2021. In appropriate category tree of pyramids by country. Not all pyramids in Mexico are pre-hispanic. Use and subcategories seem appropriate. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name of this category should be changed to Heathrow Airport (i.e. drop the London). This is the correct name of the airport, as seen on the airport website etc. and numerous other sources. This is also in line with the name of the Wikiepdia article. ElshadK (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article was moved from en:London Heathrow Airport in 2015 and there hasn't been any future discussion since. This category was created earlier, and never got moved. I don't see any problem with moving it. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The AIP uses the name "London Heathrow"[6]. I also think that it is more descriptive. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 18:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The OS uses "London Heathrow Airport" but also has an entry for "Heathrow Airport London" though one might be the company, presumably we should match WP but there is also a "Heathrow Airport" in Texas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a move to Heathrow Airport. This is the common name, along the lines of the enwiki move in 2015. The same reasoning applies here. Admiral Rolland (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Would anyone like to make any further comments on this. The "vote" seems to be 3 to 2 in favour of moving it so far. Elshad (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a move back to "Heathrow Airport", having just had difficulty finding the category. I'd have no objection to leaving a redirect, if that's possible, but the common name is surely Heathrow. Sionk (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Since there is a Heathrow Aiport in Texas, I won't think a move to Category:Heathrow Airport is appropriate, regardless of what is done at wikipedia. Category:Heathrow Airport, London might be an acceptable compromise? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's necessary per w:WP:NATURAL as the present title appears to be at least somewhat used, my A-Z Road Atlas calls it "London Heathrow Airport". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Moving it would make it the odd one out in Category:Airports of London, they are all called London X, Heathrow's baggage tag code is 'LHR'. All the sub categories would have to be moved. I prefer stability over 'correctness' of category names, as long as a redirect in place for search purposes (which there is at Category:Heathrow Airport). Nimbus227 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Heathrow is obviously not nearly as important as the UK airport, doesn't have 1/100th the history, nor the traffic, and when people hear Heathrow, very few will think of the Texan airport, ergo, the short name should be used for the UK airport, and a modifier added to the name for the Texan airport. NiD.29 (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NiD.29: I disagree. This is commons not wikipedia. It's too easy to miscategorize content when names are ambiguous. Texas Heathrow may not be as important to the world, but to the person who has pictures of Heathrow Airport in Texas, "Heathrow Airport" might logically be the first thing they would type in. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. The Texas airport isn't even remotely close in importance to the London airport, which is known WORLDWIDE, and anyone familiar with that airport is probably aware that it was named for the one in London, but NOT the other way around. Meanwhile, almost no-one outside of Texas has ever heard of the Texas one, so to be clear as possible, the modifier goes on the Texas airport, NOT the London one, which is how this normally works, regardless of your heavily biased opinion.NiD.29 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I'd consider moving the Wikipedia article(s) back as it seems like in these cases the "London" is actually in integral part of the names. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a borderline consensus to keep "London" in the name of this airport. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong and should be deleted

Category:Robin Hood (ship, 1995) is IMO 9087477, Category:Nils Dacke (ship, 1995) is IMO 9087465.

The Nils Dacke, is a different ship, sometimes photographed with its sister ship the Robin Hood. On marinetraffic.com there are images of Nils Dacke IMO 9087465, also loads of pictures of the Robin Hood IMO 9087465. One or two actually show both vessels together.

Cat Robin Hood (ship, 1995-2014) proclaims Robin Hood to be IMO 9087465, which it's not; as does Cat Robin Hood (ship, 1995-2016), also in error.

There are only six images in Category:Robin Hood (ship, 1995), it doesn't need three categories. Broichmore (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am tidying up the categories now. Apparently, Robin Hood (IMO 9087465) and Nis Dacke (IMO 9087477), both built at Rauma in 1995 with numbers 410 and 411, swapped names in 2014. Category:Robin Hood (ship, 1995-2014) is redundant. Blue Elf (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because I took a photo of that particular ship (now Nils Dacke) and needed a category. We now have Category:Nils Dacke (ship, 1995, Rauma, 410)‎ and Category:Robin Hood (ship, 1995, Rauma, 410)‎ for IMO 9087465 and Category:Nils Dacke (ship, 1995, Rauma, 411)‎ and Category:Robin Hood (ship, 1995, Rauma, 411)‎ for IMO 9087477. I think it's OK to differentiate the ships by their yard number, as that is the most concise difference. As for Category:Robin Hood (ship, 1995-2014), delete, I don't think we need it. --rimshot^talk 22:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we rename this Category:Leonard of Noblac, like the English Wikipedia article? I think we are getting some confusion with another saint, Category:Leonard of Port Maurice. Auntof6 (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Much less ambiguous. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if we do rename it (and the subcats), dare we assume that everything under it is for this saint? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close -- this cat has been changed to disambiguation. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]