Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2014/08
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive August 2014
Apparantly, this means "roof insulation" in Greek. Wrong language, uncategorized, created for promotional reasons, no target for a redirect available Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 06:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Replaced by "Mernbanen" Beethoven9 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name, replaced by Category:Mernbanen. --rimshottalk 06:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Category to be deleted. The right name is Category:Eiffel tower from École Militaire Tangopaso (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, obvious misspelling. --rimshottalk 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested by creator and sole author (missing space in category name). Nimbus227 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Cat has been deleted following adding a {{Badname}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Category to be deleted (speedy deletion). The right name is Category:World War I memorials in France by department. I apologize for my error. Tangopaso (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom.: bad name. --rimshottalk 21:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Category to be deleted (speedy deletion). The right category is Category:World War I memorials in Somme Tangopaso (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Category has been deleted following adding a {{Badname}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
typo...now fixed. New cat is at Category:Swedish_Social_Democratic_Youth_League's_general_election_camp_2014 Josve05a (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Category has been deleted following adding a {{Badname}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 20:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
this category is also emplty, it has no files about the person, because they were deleted, it must be deleted this category too!! Duque Santiago (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted empty category. --JuTa 18:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
There are at least 3 jain temples in Ranakpur: Adinath Temple, Neminath Temple and Parshvanath Temple. "Ranakpur Jain Temple" is too vague. The same holds for its subcategory "Interior of Ranakpur Jain Temple". BrightRaven (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. I nominated the wrong cat. BrightRaven (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done, withdrawn. --rimshottalk 21:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. --50.5.70.5 11:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion consolidated to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Mexican-American War. --rimshottalk 21:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. --50.5.70.5 11:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion consolidated to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Mexican-American War. --rimshottalk 21:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. --50.5.70.5 11:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion consolidated to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Mexican-American War. --rimshottalk 21:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. --50.5.70.5 11:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion consolidated to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Mexican-American War. --rimshottalk 21:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Empty category. Leyo 00:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently, there are two places with this name, so this would normally be a case for disambiguation. We have only one image, though, and they share one article at enWP. Therefore I propose adding a description text and keeping the category. --rimshottalk 08:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept, with a single file and a slightly better description. --rimshottalk 17:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Empty, uncategorized, wrong language, non-latin characters (I would have suggested speedy deletion, but perhaps somebody understands what this is about and can set a redirect) Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support deleting. Is there a particular reason you didn't use {{Emptypage}} to request speedy deletion as an empty category? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedied, as a mulitilingual project, its okay to keep categories in other languages as redirects to the correct category in English, in this case, after resorting to google and google translate, this category is for a specific Iranian TV show, with no equivalent category to redirect to.--KTo288 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Identical to its child category, Category:Biserica Sfântul Nicolae (Rusă), Bucharest. They're just two different names for the same building. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- So, per policy, the English name should be favored; move images into the parent category & delete the child category. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
remont san blok 94.20.224.53 23:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- What do you want to discuss? Preferably in English ... --rimshottalk 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No reply -–moogsi (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Victoria Bay, VictoriaBaai is merely the afrikaans name Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There are at least 3 jain temples in Ranakpur: Adinath Temple, Neminath Temple and Parshvanath Temple. "Ranakpur Jain Temple" is too vague. The same holds for its subcategory "Interior of Ranakpur Jain Temple". BrightRaven (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
deleted: INeverCry 16:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There are at least 3 jain temples in Ranakpur: Adinath Temple, Neminath Temple and Parshvanath Temple. "Ranakpur Jain Temple" is too vague. The same holds for its subcategory "Interior of Ranakpur Jain Temple". BrightRaven (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
deleted: INeverCry 16:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Finanzamt is a general term not restricted to Germany. Move to Category:Tax offices in Germany Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, but keep as {{disambiguation}} to Category:Tax offices in Germany, Category:Tax offices in Austria and Category:Tax offices in Switzerland.--Karsten11 (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also agreed, although category localization is really long overdue. But hey, we got a media viewer now ... --Sebari (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Please delete also Category:Former Finanzamt (has been replaced by Category:Former tax offices in Germany).--Karsten11 (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
no objections, renamed --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Superfluous because inaccessible tracks are incorporated in the main category Beethoven9 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
deleted: INeverCry 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
cat is empty, should be deleted Gerd Leibrock (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the original intention was to create "Squares in Ravenna" that already exists. AlessioMela (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Too much subcat; buildings' function are already subdivided in Buildings in Ravenna AlessioMela (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I considered to be divided into various categories relating to buildings according to the functional characteristics as already present for example in other similar subdivisions (see Category:Buildings in Milan by function) in order to insert some images that were likely to remain in the mother category as "minor" religious buildings that the English language does not have a corresponding and precise term of identification. (in italiano un nostro capitello (che non possiamo tradurre in capital perché in inglese in architettura è solo il capitello parte di una colonna è popolarmente tradotto come Madonnas al pari di edicole votive, crocifissi di montagna ed ogni edificio sorto a scopo religioso più piccolo di un oratorio (che per loro è già difficile distinguere lessicalmente da una cappella). Now, since I do not consider myself to be so obtuse to pretend that it is the only solution to the problem, I refer to the decisions of the community who has always wanted to make his contribution. Otherwise I do not see the need to retrace my steps and reminding you to everyone that a category is not born to be a gallery of images. Thank you for your attention.--Threecharlie (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see two different topic in your reply:
- 1) buildings' subdivision;
- 2) categorization of some minor archit. images.
- For the first problem I think we can use just Category:Buildings in Ravenna and it's for this reason that I want to remove "your" cat. It's just because I used a similar subdivisions like Category:Buildings in Rome. We have choosed two different reference points ;-).
- For the second problem the solution could be Category:Architectural elements in Ravenna? --AlessioMela (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- 1) The use of a category named Buildings in "various geographical context" is to be traced at the origins of en.wiki and all wikimedia projects that have been developed from that context. IMO The original requirement was to have a container for any generic accommodation or working facility and, to this day, is still needed to better manage the bots that hunt in the various sites as Flikcr & Co., but with a human intervention can be more effectively. If I find or take a picture of a rectory is much more interesting to correlate it with various religious buildings (although in this case is much more similar to a simple home)
but also because the barracks are also residential buildings a sub-categorization for military buildings does not seem a useless categorization.
- 2) An architectural element is, always IMO, is only a part of a building or/and a street furniture (although at times appear to be little artistic). A simply plaque plaque inserted into a church facade I believe can be an architectural element, as well as a monument, statue, bust, village pump, relief, etc. etc. For extension a palace, villa, theater, church, is a building, not an architectural element. The ultimate solution would be to use a specific source of architecture where to find certain and conclusive definitions; I fear, however, that at the international level is very difficult, because for exempol, some architectural features typical of Italy are not found in other states, such as cantoria, sagrato, and others who do not remember at this time. I hope that sooner or later you will be able to find a text that can regroup and clarify all kinds of world architecture, and from that extract more precise conventions, but remember discussions about the need for definitions popular for not making more and more inaccessible casual user contribution and without a specific instruction. As you surely have noticed, to try an articulate response in English I must resort several times a vocabulary or on line translators, with results, I presume, sometimes ridiculous. ;-)--Threecharlie (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, and empty. INeverCry 16:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete as redundant: there is only one "castle" in Ioannina, the Ioannina Castle Constantine ✍ 18:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Nominated by User:Vantey for speedy under bad name, I don't consider that rationale to be valid, and this category qualifies now for speedy empty only because User:Vantey emptied it prior to nomination. It may be considered that this category is not needed, however it does not detract from classification by operating company, which is the primary means of differentiation for the parent category, i.e. its an additional category not a substitute one. Perhaps why it is not seen as useful is that its it categorises vertically into the Japan trains category, but not horizontally by interiors worldwide, this is being rectified. KTo288 (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- To begin with, in Japan, the format name of the rolling stock is not called the "class" in English. It is a "series" or "type" are terms used to it. The category name "by class" is inappropriate decisively.
- Next, the series and types of the rolling stock in Japan are very large number, the category across the operator is not practical. In fact, to be a parent category: it does not exist "Category:Trains in Japan by class".
- In addition, after it was made on a whim, category members are added little, this category has not been used practically at all.
- Therefore, it should be deleted as a "bad name" category. --Vantey (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep. I think Vantey misunderstands the purpose of the category. "Class" here refers to the class of accommodation (i.e. first or second class - or standard/Green class in Japan), not the individual train types. Even if it is not currently used (because it has been emptied by one user), it appears to be a valid and useful category. --DAJF (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)- Delete. It looks like it was me that misunderstood the purpose of the category, as a look at the comparable category for the UK, Category:Train interiors in the United Kingdom by class, should have revealed. In this case, the absolutely huge number of different train types in Japan will make this rather unwieldy, not to mention that Vantey is right in pointing out that "class" is not really a term normally used to describe Japanese train types, which are mostly classified as "series". --DAJF (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per DAJF. INeverCry 16:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't need this category any more Josve05a (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
minimalist garden 202.89.170.131 21:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- What do you want to discuss? --rimshottalk 06:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done, no reason for discussion. --rimshottalk 20:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Not used. I'll use Category:Photographs taken by Josve05a instead. Josve05a (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
this category is empty, it has no files about the person, it will be deleted!!! Duque Santiago (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
empty category that will be deleted!!! Duque Santiago (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What's the difference between this category and Category:French journalists ? Sammyday (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
What's the difference between this category and Category:Journalists from France ? Sammyday (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- No difference — Mouh2jijel [Talk] 07:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Category:French journalists contains less pictures than Category:Journalists from France. Maybe we could transfer all of the pictures from "French journalists" to "Journalists from France".--Sammyday (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest Category:Hermann Philippsberg as a category name. Leyo 01:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support, there's no reason to add a disambiguation in the first place, and even if there were, this one is unsuitable: it's German instead of English and fur trader would be preferable to Rauchwarenhändler. --rimshottalk 08:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, and if there should be a disambiguation, English fur trader or fur wholesale dealer is also good (by the way, they call themselves Rauchwarenhändler). The uploader --Kürschner (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I honestly believed Rauchwarenhändler meant en:tobacconist. This doesn't change the points about the language and the lack of a need for disambiguation, however. --rimshottalk 19:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, and if there should be a disambiguation, English fur trader or fur wholesale dealer is also good (by the way, they call themselves Rauchwarenhändler). The uploader --Kürschner (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hermann Philippsberg, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 20:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Empty category, unclear if needed; error on page. Leyo 12:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted as empty. From w:Aetna_(city)#Location, no one currently knows where the city was located, and therefore it is impossible at the moment to populate this category. No prejudice against recreating this category if the actual, or even a possible, site is found, and we have the files to populate this cat.--KTo288 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone applied a speedy deletion tag to this category, saying only "Also known as Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 for Eruope. This is not a speedy deletion criteria. If the two model number actually do describe identical cameras this does not explain why the DMC-TZ20 should have pride of place. Why shouldn't Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 redirect to Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10? Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, someone, possibly the same contributor, recently emptied the existing category. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ10 and TZ20 are not identical cameras. TZ20 and ZS10 are because latter is an American version of TZ20. Allo002 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2014
- If, for the sake of argument, two models are identical this is not only not grounds for speedy deletion, I suggest it is not grounds for regular deletion either. If, for the sake of argument, the two models are identical one name should be a redirect to the other.
- You haven't explained why Category:Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 should have pride of place.
- I repeat the request I placed on User talk:Allo002. Could you pleas comply with Commons:Renaming a category? If you had done so, and the decision had been made that Category:Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 should have pride of place, a robot would have taken care of moving the images into the new category.
- As I wrote on your talk page, deletion of existing categories is disruptive and causes chaos. Geo Swan (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. I changed TZ10 to ZS10 above.
Author requested deletion of unused and empty category. No restrictions placed on recreation. -FASTILY 04:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
error when uploading the files, should be deleted XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty, author request. --rimshottalk 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the existence of Category:Springs of Kentucky, there's really no point in having this category. We could get rid of the other one instead, but the parent is Springs of the United States and most other state-level categories are "of", e.g. Category:Springs of Texas. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Empty, files have been deleted due to missing permissions (see User talk:Jananast1994). Category can be re-created when properly licensed files are available. Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
"Old Trams" is a very ambiguous term, therefore, I suggest renaming to Historical rolling stock of Badner Bahn. (Not Historical local railway rolling stock of the metropolitan area of Vienna.) FDMS 4 08:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Moved. FDMS 4 17:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Grave of Émile Rousseaux. I have merged the Wikidata entries to Q15896226. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thx. I've deleted a category. ~Pyb (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Closed, the other category has been deleted. --rimshottalk 15:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This category has been nominated for deletion as a more relevant category "Merchants' marks (Tibet)" exists. Uray1130 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Subject contacted me and asked for its removal Thelmadatter (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
empty category Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Question Where did all the files go? I think I made this category; it had a substantial number of files in it. There was this premiere in Los Angeles and then Category:The Hunger Games premiere in Sydney (which is still populated). The Google cache shows this category empty by the time it was last cached, 2014-07-10. --Closeapple (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- They are probably removed from Commons. Maybe you can take a look at the discussion pages for more information? Dinosaur918 (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Emptied and blanked a few days ago, but existing for three years - so usually rather a category redirect instead of a deletion. On the other hand, the category name is less than good and I´m not even sure if the target of the redirect is right. So I lay this before the court of additional opinions :-) Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Empty category. No apparent notabilty of the person. Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This category contains no media. Dozens of ships have been called "Orion". This category serves no clear purpose. Motacilla (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
emptied, files now at Category:Manu Chopra the inventor. may be crackpot, not for us to say, he got into the news Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, the category was just a makeshift, because the stuff was messing up other categories. mate2code 10:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Got it. ive created categories which were not up to my best standards, to help collate images, expecting (hoping?) someone else would come along and fine tune. not really an excuse, but, hey, im not being paid for this, so i dont have to finish what i start every time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect name, all files are moved to Category:Taken with Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM. Maksim Sidorov 17:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, moved to Category:Taken with Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM. --rimshottalk 15:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect name, all files moved to Taken with Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM Maksim Sidorov 18:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, moved to Category:Taken with Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM. --rimshottalk 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
This category appears to be a drive-by category created by a user who uploaded a majority of the images here and mirrors something on Flickr. Nevermind that the category should probably be renamed to "Women who are barefoot and pregnant," but it is very demeaning towards women and comes across as a fetish category that does not belong on this site. I would even support deletion of the images within this category because they add nothing particular in value to the category as a whole. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's been two months here without a response, and I would like to clarify that I would like this category deleted and should have written that from the beginning. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like it to be deleted, the category and the images. "Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" as a category and phrase is intended to demean women. I shudder at the memes and captions to follow. In addition, do we have the agreement by the women shown here to have their images uploaded?
- Short answer, no. In the first two images, it seems obvious that the subjects knew they were being photographed, and thus consented to the shots. As for the other two images, it does not seem like they knew they were being photographed, although one is unidentifiable. Either way, the last two should be removed per consent violations (creepiness factor not withstanding). Regardless, none of them likely consented (there are no records of an OTRS ticket), but it will be harder removing the first two images compared to the last two. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Wodurch Notwendigkeit / Relevanz? (Vgl https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/4._August_2014#Alpnach_K.C3.BCchen_AG_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29 und https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/21._August_2014#Alpnach_Norm-Schrankelemente_AG_.28SLA.29 und https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alpnachnorm Martin Sg. (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep, cat makes sense as long as the images exist here. Some kind of intended spam turning out to be potentially useful (here). –Be..anyone (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept as per Be..anyone. --rimshottalk 22:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Then English WP page is w:Reformation Wall. We should rename the category to match. Otherwise it should be Reformer's Wall. Jfhutson (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Reformation wall, which seems to be how it's usually referred to. --rimshottalk 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Reformation wall as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Its nice of these people to share their personal holiday-memories with us, but all pictures in this gallery are way out of scope, since I can see no realistic educational use for them. Weissbier (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Support.
- If the pictures are being kept, the user category needs being renamed to e.g. Category:Photographs by User:Michelle von Bärlin/Thailand or alike. --Leyo 21:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
* - I mistakenly thought that I was supporting the deletion of all the images in the category, and not only the category itself which I had made to keep all the out-of-scope holiday portraits of themselves in one easy overview. - Takeaway (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment, Weissbier meant to nominate the images inside the category for deletion but instead nominated the categorisation of these images. Be..anyone, for the deletion request of the images, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Michelle von Bärlin in Thailand. - Takeaway (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - now an empty category after the files have been deleted. - Takeaway (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty after Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Michelle von Bärlin in Thailand. --rimshottalk 21:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal holiday-memories. See Commons:Project_scope#Examples. Weissbier (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{Vk}},you need the cat to find the deletion candidates. Once the cat is empty, e.g., all files deleted or recycled for other purposes, it can go. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Now ready for
* sorry, you're right Be..anyone. I mistakenly thought I was voting for all the images to be deleted, not only the category itself which I had created to at least have all these out-of-scope holiday portraits of themselves put in one easy overview (see also Category:Michelle von Bärlin in Thailand). - Takeaway (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment, Weissbier meant to nominate the images inside the category for deletion but instead nominated the categorisation of these images. Be..anyone, for the deletion request of the images, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hartmann Linge in Thailand. - Takeaway (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, empty after Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hartmann Linge in Thailand. --rimshottalk 21:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No Relevance for Wikipedia (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschprüfung/Archiv/2014/Woche_33#Albert_Weber_.28K.C3.BCnstler.29_.28erl..29 Martin Sg. (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Yann. BMacZero (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Should be renamed/merged to Category:Human rights in Tibet, per the standard of the other categories in Category:Human rights by country GRuban (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- ACK. [w.] 21:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- That would be delete rights, followed by move Rights to rights, followed by adding {{Category redirect}} in the resulting Rights redirect, and a cleanup for the 41 files in Rights. Too bad that MediWiki permitted to create the dupe without some kind of confirmation or elevated user rights, merging is more work than renaming. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirected by 37.201.170.132. BMacZero (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Should be merged with the existing Category:Abat voix. However the spelling should be changed into Abat-voix as in (en:Abat-voix) . Jwh (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Tackle the rename before the merge, otherwise you have to update all files twice. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good point, will keep me busy, thanks --Jwh (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done! --Jwh (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good point, will keep me busy, thanks --Jwh (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
finished and cleaned up, some remaining cat redirects could be deleted. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Also
- Category:Art of the Mexican-American War
- Category:Battles of the Mexican-American War
- Category:Maps of the Mexican-American War
- Category:People of the Mexican-American War
The name of this category is hyphenated when it should contain an En dash, as in Mexican–American War like in the WP mainspace. --50.5.70.5 10:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- There's a huge discussion on the enWP talk page on this topic. It doesn't look at all obvious which version is correct. In light of this, I would prefer keeping the status quo. --rimshottalk 21:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Considering it’s been some months since, is it time to fix this now? —174.141.182.82 23:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Closed without moving, no consensus to move. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a duplicate of Category:Reunification Palace. Keith D (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely a duplicate. Both names are in fairly common use, but apparently the official Vietnamese name translates to "Independence Palace", so technically this one is correct. It's a bit of a toss-up whether to merge Category:Reunification Palace into this one or vice-versa. Dunno if it matters, but Category:Reunification Palace has more media, whereas Category:Independence Palace only seems to contain media from the person who created the category. Also, not sure what "Photographic essay" means, but maybe he thought it was a regular page rather than a category page. --Dragfyre (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Independence Palace was redirected to Category:Reunification Palace in October 2014. According to en:Independence Palace the palace is known by both names, both in English and in Vienamese (Dinh Độc Lập vs. Dinh Thống Nhất). Keith D and Dragfyre: Are we okay to close this discussion, or is there more to talk about? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Happy for you to close. Keith D (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Independence Palace was redirected to Category:Reunification Palace in October 2014. According to en:Independence Palace the palace is known by both names, both in English and in Vienamese (Dinh Độc Lập vs. Dinh Thống Nhất). Keith D and Dragfyre: Are we okay to close this discussion, or is there more to talk about? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Category redirected to Category:Reunification Palace in October 2014. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This category is an identical description to Category:Blocked shot (basketball). It should be titled the latter, to avoid confusion with a blocking foul. Hoops gza (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you, Hoops gza. I'd say you can just go ahead and merge Category:Basketball block into Category:Blocked shot (basketball) with {{Category redirect}}. Thanks for taking the initiative on this! Michael Barera (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Done: Category:Basketball block has been redirected into Category:Blocked shot (basketball) with {{Category redirect}}. Michael Barera (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirected in October 2014. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Category was emptied by User:Vantey in order to populate the new Category:Interior of Odakyu 3000 series (I) category he created, but the use of the singular form "interior" sounds odd to me (since there are many 3000 series trains), and jars with the parent category Category:Train interiors of Odakyu Electric Railway. I suggest deleting the new category and moving all the files back to the original category. DAJF (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Info. For comparison/reference, the sub-categories of the following French and British categories also use the "Train interiors of ..." format. --DAJF (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No opposition. Category:Interior of Odakyu 3000 series (I) was deleted in favour of Category:Interiors of Odakyu 3000 series (I) in September 2014, and Category:Interior of Odakyu 3000 series (II) was deleted in favour of Category:Interiors of Odakyu 3000 series (II) in April 2015. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Category was emptied by User:Vantey in order to populate the new Category:Interior of Odakyu 3000 series (I) category he created, but the use of the singular form "interior" sounds odd to me (since there were many 3000 series trains), and jars with the parent category Category:Train interiors of Odakyu Electric Railway. I suggest deleting the new category and moving all the files back to the original category. DAJF (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No opposition. Category:Interior of Odakyu 3000 series (I) was deleted in favour of Category:Interiors of Odakyu 3000 series (I) in September 2014, and Category:Interior of Odakyu 3000 series (II) was deleted in favour of Category:Interiors of Odakyu 3000 series (II) in April 2015. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Category was emptied by User:Vantey in order to populate the new Category:Interior of Odakyu 3100 series category he created, but the use of the singular form "interior" sounds odd to me (since there were many 3100 series trains), and jars with the parent category Category:Train interiors of Odakyu Electric Railway. I suggest deleting the new category and moving all the files back to the original category. DAJF (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No opposition. Category:Interior of Odakyu 3100 series was deleted in favour of Category:Interiors of Odakyu 3100 series in April 2015. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This category is the same to Category:Psychotherapy. "Психотерапия" is russian for psychotherapy. I propose moving all items from Category:Психотерапия to Category:Psychotherapy.--195.50.31.213 19:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- There was no objection since almost 2 years, so I followed the above proposition. However, I don't know how to formally close this discussion; please help. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Done by Jochen, thanks! --Achim (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
All images superseded by pngs at Category:Forth Bridge (1890) Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to delete these images, please nominate them for deletion. This section (COM:CFD) is for discussing category names. Thanks, –moogsi (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I thought it would reduce administrative burden just to nominate the category and add them to the category as they became redundant - nothing controversial, just that they've been replaced with pngs touched up by a different method. Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The term is "octagon house"; see the en:wp article for an example, or the child categories and files such as File:Octagon House, July 2012, Westfield MA.jpg or Category:David Cummins Octagon House. It was previously at the proper title, but Foroa moved it along with many other correctly named titles, and we've had to be cleaning these up for a long time; this discussion is a comparable example. This nomination also includes the child Category:Octagonal houses in the United States and all its state-level subcategories. INeverCry 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well no, I think "octagonal houses" is the more general category of which "octagon houses" is the specific example as referred to in the en:WP article. There are octagonal houses in the UK, but they are not referred to a "octagon houses". Keep Category:Octagonal houses and make Category:Octagon houses a subcategory of it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- INeverCry created this CFD for me due to a weird userrights issue (I wrote the rationale), so it would help if he'd come back and offer an opinion on the nomination, or say that he's neutral. All of these images, as far as I can tell, are indeed octagon houses; it would be silly to have an extra layer of categories for images that don't exist, especially since they can easily go into the octagonal buildings parent category. As far as I know, there haven't even been any images in Octagonal houses, except for File:Octagon-v-square-2.png, which I just removed because it's simply geometric drawings, not a drawing of a house. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just fulfilled this AN request to help get around the full protection on the cat creating bot's talk. I'm not knowledgable about the topic, so will remain neutral. Thanks. INeverCry 20:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me; thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just fulfilled this AN request to help get around the full protection on the cat creating bot's talk. I'm not knowledgable about the topic, so will remain neutral. Thanks. INeverCry 20:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- INeverCry created this CFD for me due to a weird userrights issue (I wrote the rationale), so it would help if he'd come back and offer an opinion on the nomination, or say that he's neutral. All of these images, as far as I can tell, are indeed octagon houses; it would be silly to have an extra layer of categories for images that don't exist, especially since they can easily go into the octagonal buildings parent category. As far as I know, there haven't even been any images in Octagonal houses, except for File:Octagon-v-square-2.png, which I just removed because it's simply geometric drawings, not a drawing of a house. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- INeverCry & Nyttend: I'm a little confused but perhaps the category tree has changed drastically since 2014. Is there still a desire to rename this category and its subs to Category:Octagon house(s) or possibly create a sub-category by that name for buildings called "Octagon house" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be renamed to "Octagon houses", and the subcategories too, because that's the standard term for this kind of house. There's no need for a separate category for places with "Octagon House" in the name, as far as I can tell, because (1) there's no fundamental difference between them and other octagon houses, and (2) the design is different enough that almost all such houses have the "Octagon House" in the name, whether formally or informally, so having a separate tree for them wouldn't particularly help navigation. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- It does seem to be the standard term for these houses, even if it sounds weird to me. There has been no strong opposition since you explained things. I imagine you are clear to make the change. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be renamed to "Octagon houses", and the subcategories too, because that's the standard term for this kind of house. There's no need for a separate category for places with "Octagon House" in the name, as far as I can tell, because (1) there's no fundamental difference between them and other octagon houses, and (2) the design is different enough that almost all such houses have the "Octagon House" in the name, whether formally or informally, so having a separate tree for them wouldn't particularly help navigation. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Moving to Category:Octagon houses as per consensus. I'm leaving the redirect in place - hopefully that's okay. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is a useful category, given that it may have quite a wide scope, and that the term is somewhat outdated. If it includes any microprocessor-based computer, then all modern computers would be included, which makes Category:Computers by type less useful. --ghouston (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Although no longer commonly used the term is well understood, by us oldsters at least, to mean a a small computer from before the time computers of the x86 instruction set/IBM PC compatiable/Microsoft OS type became the default standard for personal computing. Although technically you're correct that all computers use microprocessors, the term has as much to do with marketing and the positioning of these systems in the marketplace computers were mainframe, mini and micro; with micro alluding to the fact that they were small and cheap as much as to the fact that they used microprocessers. Also there are multiple articles using the same name in each of the language wikipedias, with this category having also an equivalently named category at Wikipedia, renaming breaks the direct link between how the files are categorised in Commons and how they relate to articles and categories in other projects, this is something we're going to have to think more about as Wikidata "In other projects links" will go active for Commons later this month.--KTo288 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember the days when computers where classified as mainframe/mini/micro. Wikipedia now says microcomputers should be small and inexpensive, in addition to containing microprocessors. Then in the history we've got no action from 1979 until the introduction of the Raspberry Pi in 2012. "Small and inexpensive" isn't a very clear distinction to base a category on. If it's only supposed to contain pre IBM PC compatibles then could the name be changed to something more specific? I can't think of much offhand. Maybe something like "6502-based personal computers" and "Z-80-based personal computers"? Or maybe use Category:1970s personal computers, etc., which already exist? --ghouston (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the lack of a category for an article that exists in Wikipedia is a problem, if it's simply organised differently in Commons. It could be retained anyway as a disambiguation category or redirection. --ghouston (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been dead for a long time so may as well be closed. I'll leave the category in place to link with Wikipedias, and add a description. --ghouston (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
In 2009 Category:Peggy's Cove was deleted, on the grounds it was redundant due to this category. Wrong choice.
An early US Postmaster General decided no place names in the USA should include an apostrophe. However, Peggy's Cove is in Canada, not the USA and as the following two google searches show, the Government of Nova Scotia used the apostrophe version more than five times as often as the Americanized no apostrophe version. [1] [2] Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article was renamed to Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia, and nobody in this long-dead discussion disagreed with renaming, so let's do it. --ghouston (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Incorrectly titled; should be Category:Players of Shanghai Dongya FC. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No opposition in years. Moved to Category:Players of Shanghai Dongya FC. "People of team x" could exist (to include coaches) but the hierarchy isn't set up for that. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This nomination also includes Category:Demolished bridges; if it's possible to nominate multiple categories at once (without manual editing), I'm unaware of it. The nomination is based on Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings. The distinction between the two categories isn't at all helpful to many reusers; if you're looking for a no-longer-there bridge, you probably don't care why it's no longer there. Morever, it's confusing to us uploaders, because sometimes you don't know why a bridge is no longer standing; the subject of Category:KY49 Rolling Fork River Bridge clearly isn't standing (Kentucky Route 49 spans the Rolling Fork River on an ugly concrete bridge, with no truss bridges visible at the location), but I have no clue why it's gone. Why should I need to know why it's gone in order to categorise it properly? I'm going to request a merger of demolished into destroyed, but based on the CFD for the demolished buildings, I'll not object if people want to convert the demolished bridges into something parallel to Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, merge this moving everything from A to B, maybe redirect A to B with a {{Category redirect}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's also Category:Former bridges... — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 04:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- There's also Category:Ruins of bridges. Is it possible for a bridge to be destroyed and also remain as ruins? File:Restand Marnelijn.JPG for example. --ghouston (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- The "Former buildings" categories were intended for buildings that had changed usage, instead of being destroyed. I don't think it's needed for bridges. Category:Destroyed bridges works regardless of the method of destruction. Categorising by method of destruction could be done, e.g., bridges destroyed by accidents, or the existing category for bridges destroyed by demolition, but perhaps this kind of additional information is excessive for Commons and is better recorded in Wikidata. --ghouston (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's also Category:Former bridges... — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 04:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely support merging this into one category, preferably under Category:Former bridges because it's useful to have a catch-all that also includes bridges which are disused but extant. Subcategory structure should handle fate (abandoned but standing versus damaged versus destroyed, possibly method of destruction, and ruins), location (country level, and probably state level in the US with all the HAER listings and so on), and type. I'm willing to perform the merger if that's preferred; admin tools might be useful here since there will probably be deletions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Defunct? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- As in "defunct bridges"? That's much better for organisations, not for objects that are still standing or aren't still standing. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Former bridges or Defunct bridges sound like a really good parent category for all the others. We should all be careful not to mix any of them up though. A bridge like the Chain of Rocks Bridge isn't like your average rickety old bridge in New England, and the Harlem River Railroad Bridge and I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis are nothing like the 1953 Col des Nuages derailment or the Mostar bridge. ----DanTD (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- As in "defunct bridges"? That's much better for organisations, not for objects that are still standing or aren't still standing. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Defunct? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I, too, support the idea of merging these categories into one, and the creation of subcategories as needed. --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is there any point in merging Category:Destroyed bridges and Category:Demolished bridges if we are just going to recreate Category:Demolished bridges as a subcategory? We may as well make it a subcategory now. I don't like Category:Former bridges, I suggest moving any destroyed buildings in that category into Category:Destroyed bridges and creating a new Category:Disused bridges for bridges that are still standing. I think a disused bridge is still a bridge, not a former bridge. --ghouston (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Disused bridges probably isn't needed given that Category:Abandoned bridges and Category:Derelict bridges exist. I think the two things that can be done here are 1) make Category:Demolished bridges a subcategory of Category:Destroyed bridges, possibly renaming it to Category:Bridges destroyed by demolition, and 2) get rid of Category:Former bridges by merging its contents into categories I've already mentioned. --ghouston (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is there any point in merging Category:Destroyed bridges and Category:Demolished bridges if we are just going to recreate Category:Demolished bridges as a subcategory? We may as well make it a subcategory now. I don't like Category:Former bridges, I suggest moving any destroyed buildings in that category into Category:Destroyed bridges and creating a new Category:Disused bridges for bridges that are still standing. I think a disused bridge is still a bridge, not a former bridge. --ghouston (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
In the meantime, I've had some fun dismantling Category:Former buildings by country, as decided at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/06/Category:Former buildings by country. Firstly, it would be silly to recommend having a "Former bridges" category, when it was decided to get rid of it for buildings. A "former" bridge is almost always a "destroyed" bridge. Secondly, the distinction between "Destroyed" and "Demolished" really isn't helpful at all. They are basically synonyms. Even if you want to count "demolished" as only those structures that are intentionally rather than accidentally destroyed, it's usually the case that a building that's basically destroyed by fire or whatever will exist in some form, and will still end up getting demolished. I'd say it doesn't matter much whether any particular category is called "demolished" or "destroyed", and it would be a waste of time mass renaming them, but we shouldn't have duplicates for the same structure / location. If both exist, I'd merge the "demolished" version into the "destroyed" version, keeping "destroyed" as the name at the top of the tree. It's also fine to keep specific categories for interesting events like bridges destroyed by fire, floods, tornadoes, war damage etc. --ghouston (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually it would be perfectly feasible to rename all the "demolished" bridge categories to "destroyed": there aren't many of them, compared to buildings. --ghouston (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion is based in part on a lack of understanding of the terms "former", "demolished", "destroyed", "damaged", etc.
- former: the entity changed state, it was formerly in a different state - used in a compound term we usually get to know something about the previous state, but nothing about the new state (which may be a repurposed, damaged, destroyed, legally disused, etc. one).
- demolished: the entity received heavy damage, to the point that it cannot be used anymore for its original purpose.
- destroyed: this is to some degree synonymous to demolished, but more often used in war context, i.e. if the demolition occured by military equipment rather than civil one
- dismantled: the entity was taken down in a way that it may be re-assembled at another site. (destroyed in an orderly fashion).
- damaged: the entity is often still usable, but the structure is impaired to a certain degree
- repurposed: the main use of the entity changed
- While former tells us something about the previous state of a thing, the rest interludes to statements about the new state. --84.133.89.229 23:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- This discussion is based in part on a lack of understanding of the terms "former", "demolished", "destroyed", "damaged", etc.
- It's not so much a lack of understanding of terminology, but terminology that's vaguely defined and used in different ways in different places and different times. If you have a link to an external source that backs up your definitions, it would help. --ghouston (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- We should also try to be in synch with other Wikimedia projects, especially Wikidata. Enwiki describes en:Demolition as intentional destruction, but we still have the situation that buildings "destroyed by fire" are subsequently demolished. --ghouston (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, three and a half years later, I'm going to boldly close this damn thing. I'm merging Category:Demolished bridges into Category:Destroyed bridges; separation of the two is meaningless for our purposes. Commons is to store media so that it can be found and used, not to make as many trivial distinctions as we can. For that reason, I'm also merging several other parallel categories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Rename in roof drainage. Drainage of soil is more in Category:Drainage. thx vanGore (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if these kinds of drainage pipes might connect to things other than roofs. Any building structure that isn't totally verticle might have a drain pipe, no? Maybe we could just add a description at the top, and a link to Category:Drainage for drainage unrelated to architecture? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ Themightyquill. That sounds like a good solution to add that text description and link. I might be wrong but I can't think of other instances of drain pipes (ie drainage down pipes) being associated to anything other than roofs or vertical-ish walls, and all users who added files to this cat, added pics of water or waste down pipes from roofs or springing from walls, so it appears reasonably descriptive and generally understandable. However, 'Drain pipes' appears under (therefore subservient to), the cat 'Gutters', which seems a bit odd. There might be a case for adding a major cat of 'Roof drainage' with sub-cat stuff such as Gutters, Drain pipes and Gargoyles etc., but I think this might be a bit overdoing it. Acabashi (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Acabashi: Actually, I think creating Category:Roof drainage as a new category (in Category:Drainage and Category:Roofs) with sub-categories might make sense. Category:Gutters is for road gutters, so it shouldn't be connected at all. I wouldn't know what hierarchy to use for "Category:Rain gutters" and "Category:Drain pipes" so having them as parallel makes sense, along with Category:Gargoyles which you mentioned, Category:Rain chains, and maybe Category:Green roofs (sustainability)? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I like the existing Category:Street gutters, which avoids the ambiguity of Gutters.
- @Acabashi: Actually, I think creating Category:Roof drainage as a new category (in Category:Drainage and Category:Roofs) with sub-categories might make sense. Category:Gutters is for road gutters, so it shouldn't be connected at all. I wouldn't know what hierarchy to use for "Category:Rain gutters" and "Category:Drain pipes" so having them as parallel makes sense, along with Category:Gargoyles which you mentioned, Category:Rain chains, and maybe Category:Green roofs (sustainability)? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- @ Themightyquill. That sounds like a good solution to add that text description and link. I might be wrong but I can't think of other instances of drain pipes (ie drainage down pipes) being associated to anything other than roofs or vertical-ish walls, and all users who added files to this cat, added pics of water or waste down pipes from roofs or springing from walls, so it appears reasonably descriptive and generally understandable. However, 'Drain pipes' appears under (therefore subservient to), the cat 'Gutters', which seems a bit odd. There might be a case for adding a major cat of 'Roof drainage' with sub-cat stuff such as Gutters, Drain pipes and Gargoyles etc., but I think this might be a bit overdoing it. Acabashi (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good eye, Jacquesverlaeken. I hadn't seen that. It seems that, despite the description in Category:Gutters, its content and sub-categories are used as an unnecessary tree of disambiguation between roof gutters and street cutters by country, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've created Category:Roof drainage as well as Category:Roof plumbing. I note, however, that Category:Drain pipes is redundant with Category:Downspouts. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirecting Category:Downspouts to Category:Drain pipes only because it's less work. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
El nombre del personaje es Jaime y no James. Ya se creó una categoría denominada Jaime de Borbón y Borbón-Parma, que es la que debería ser utilizada. Otro usuario trasladó la categoría a esta posteriormente. Supone una imposición injustificada de una lengua (el inglés) sobre otra (el español). Chamarasca (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Supongo que te refieres a la denominación como Jaime de Borbón y de Borbón-Parma. No estoy seguro. En España, la tradición durante un tiempo fue anteponer "de" al primer apellido e "y" al segundo; pero no creo que fuera incorrecto decir "y de". Los aristócratas siempre han sido muy amigos de usar esta corta preposición ante sus apellidos.--Chamarasca (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Commons:Language policy (política) Para el nombre de las categorías Commons no es un proyecto multilingüe. Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent. See Commons:Categories for the exact policy. Generalmente se prefiere la denominación en inglés. Propuesta de política: Proper names of individual people, places, buildings, organizations etc. and other specific names of local phenomena, should in general use the name most frequently used in English-language literature. Ahora bien digamos que parece que llamar James a don Jaime es raro incluso en inglés. Eso también lo atestigua el nombre del artículo en en.wiki. Por lo tanto a favor de devolver al estado inicial a la categoría. Por consenso he actuado mediante fuerza bruta, eliminando la "category redirect" de Category:Jaime de Borbón y Borbón-Parma y recategorizando las fotos.Totemkin (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Supongo que te refieres a la denominación como Jaime de Borbón y de Borbón-Parma. No estoy seguro. En España, la tradición durante un tiempo fue anteponer "de" al primer apellido e "y" al segundo; pero no creo que fuera incorrecto decir "y de". Los aristócratas siempre han sido muy amigos de usar esta corta preposición ante sus apellidos.--Chamarasca (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that neither Category:American children at the Guantanamo Naval Base or Category:Haitian children at the Guantanamo Naval Base are really Category:Children of Cuba. I'd like others opinions on how to deal with this. I would be satisfied if this category was renamed Category:Children in Cuba. Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: This should be discussed at another venue, all other Children by country (and especially People by country) subcategories use of despite the fact that not all of them were born in the respective country. See COM:PEOPLECAT. FDMS 4 04:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this category desperately needs some agreement as to what it should contain. I see another contributor removed Category:Water transport in New York from Category:Tugboats in New York, without any explanation, but presumably because they thought a tugboat is a boat. I suggest that what most people think of as a "boat" is a pleasure craft. I think including working vessels in this category is confusing and unhelpful. Alternately, we could have a specific subcategory, or subcategories for recreational vessels. Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like a fairly reasonable request, although there are cases where more than one type of boat can be in the same picture, such as in this one in Patchogue, where a local pleasure craft runs behind a ferry boat from Fire Island. ----DanTD (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
First, I'd like to add this cat - Suspension bridges - to Category:Tensile structures. On w:en:Tensile structure it's understood like this.
Secondly, I'd like to merge Category:Tensile structures with Category:Cable-stayed structures, removing or redirecting Cable-stayed structures
All right? --Sunspeanzler (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
alternative is to create a new cat, that covers all suspension bridges (not just cable-stayed suspension bridges) and all cable structures of buildings. What do you think?
maybe a helping catalog in english and german: http://pdf.archiexpo.com/pdf/pfeifer/pfeifer-zugglieder-pfeifer-tension-members/61063-163469.html --Sunspeanzler (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose to merge cable stayed bridges and suspension bridges. Both them have cables, but their structures behave in a very different way.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, Pere prlpz, Sunspeanzler wasn't suggesting merging the bridge categories, just the parent categories for structures.
Instead of our current situation:
We'd have:
Is that correct, Sunspeanzler? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe we've had a discussion before about categories for individual (modern) trains. Except in very exceptional circumstances, no single unit is different from any other and warranting of its own category. That is certainly not the case for these units - 2/3 of them don't even have any files and none has ever done anything noteworthy.
UK trains have systems for categorisation by class, operator, livery and line. While I don't doubt that having the number listed on the filepage is useful, having a category is not useful in my mind - it's unlikely that anyone will ever want a picture of a particular unit, and frankly there's enough category dispersion already (what with the four streams of categorisation). If someone does ever want a photo of 334035, the sensible thing would be to just search for it.
Furthermore, the category names, eg "British Rail Class 334035" are malformed. We use "British Rail" by convention, but it's a class 334, not a class 334035. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Personally I think these categories are useful though I would not create categories for which we have no content, On the contrary every unit is physically a different object to the others. whether any of the units has done anything noteworthy is entirely subjective and one cannot know what will happen in the future. The existing category structure for trains in the UK fails in so many ways and is the product of a few people who have not listened to any other users opinions and have railroaded (Forgive that pun) their particular scheme through to the detriment of all other users who wish to use the UK trains categories. Similar category schemes to this exist for aircraft, ships, buses and non UK trains, therefore it is a suitable scheme to have on Commons and is consistent with the ways things are usually done on commons, unlike the existing UK trains category structure which seems to have been designed by someone more at home at Wikipedia. personally I can see no use in having a category for the operator, that would be better placed in the description, the livery category is not of any use when all the units have only ever worn one livery and the line category is only of use if you are familiar with the exact names used here for the many individual lines. I'm afraid these categories are not useful to the majority of users here, they are only useful to a few people who are familiar with them. What should always have been done is a category scheme by number, it is to the majority of users detriment that this was not done and that the original category architects can't now recognise or admit this fact.
- I agree however that the names are malformed, but this is a minor problem, all you have to do is state the class name then the number so that Category:British Rail Class 334002 becomes Category:British Rail Class 334, 334002 this would be an easy task that would put the structure inline with those used for Diesel Locomotives etc Oxyman (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just get rid. Searching for a specific unit amongst the pictures if/when one becomes notable will be just that bit more difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencfen (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
- Why should everything in the UK trains categories be "just that bit more difficult", surely we should have a decent, logical and functional category structure like they do elsewhere in commons? Oxyman (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just get rid. Searching for a specific unit amongst the pictures if/when one becomes notable will be just that bit more difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencfen (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
- Well, the point of having a category for the class by operator is that the alternative is a flat category of "Trains of (Operator)", which would quickly become unmanageable. The point of the livery is that it's a major part of an operator's identity. The point of line is that if you want photos of a particular railway line, you likely want photos of trains on that line. I grant you the names of lines can be annoying, but I'm working on an index for that.
- If your thought is that all those categories should be replaced by categories for individual units, then frankly you're out of your mind. The chances of someone caring if their photo of a train is of 158881 or 158882 is miniscule, and pretty much relies on having a major crash, because barring incidents such as that no individual unit is ever going to be noteworthy (as in I want this particular unit, not that one) in of itself. Much more likely they will care if it's a photo of it being operated by British Rail or by South West Trains; or whether it's in a BR livery or a First livery. Maybe this does mean we, for a time, get "redundant" categories due to lack of different operators or liveries, but it is at best only temporary. Franchises change, even a single train operator occasionally comes up with a new livery (witness the Lycamobile 378s), and it fits into an overall structure that ensures consistency.
- Now, I will grant you, the category system leaves a lot to be desired, and a system of tagging and filtering would be a lot better; but we don't have that, we have categories. If and when the software is modified we can modify our categorisation system, until then we need to work with what we have.
- Regarding your comment about diesel locomotives, the only ones I am aware of which have their individual categories are ones in preservation, and those are by definition the few survivors of a now-redundant class. While I'm not a fan of those having their own categories, I can understand it, as the average heritage unit probably gets an order of magnitude more attention than it ever did as a mainline loco, and thus there are enough photos to make it worthwhile from the standpoint of reducing the number of files in "diesel locomotives of the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway".
- -mattbuck (Talk) 00:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing you have said explains or excuses in any way, the mess that is the UK trains category structure. "Trains of (Operator)" apparently "quickly become unmanageable." so you increased and compounded the problem by spreading it over every class! "The point of the livery is that it's a major part of an operator's identity." That much is true However it not a major part of a classes identity, so there was never any need to spread this over all the classes. Also there have been 'discussions' about what is and is not a livery. When you can't even get a consensus on that it shows that a category system has failed. Not that in many cases you can even tell what livery a train is in and a fair bit of guesswork is often used. "The point of line is that if you want photos of a particular railway line, you likely want photos of trains on that line." Many lines are short and don't need to be split by class others are so lang that you may wish for a more local system.
- "If your thought is that all those categories should be replaced by categories for individual units, then frankly you're out of your mind." This comment goes to prove my above point that the existing scheme "is the product of a few people who have not listened to any other users opinions and have railroaded (Forgive that pun) their particular scheme through to the detriment of all other users who wish to use the UK trains categories" and if they happen not to agree with you they are somehow out of there mind! I'm afraid not. Arguments about whether something is "noteworthy" have absolutely no place on Commons, that nonsense if for Wikipedia and demonstrates my point that the existing category structure was "designed by someone more at home at Wikipedia". The sheer, basic and apparent fact is that at Commons arranging by numbers is found more useful for aircraft, ships, buses and non UK trains, it is inherently logical, unlike the UK train categories.
- There is nothing wrong with the Category system at commons if it is used logically and correctly, there really is no need for "a system of tagging and filtering" which would probably just get even more complex. All that is needed is to use what we have logically and consistently with how this project is used on a global scale. Nothing you can say changes the total failure of the current system. Where categories by number have been used it is always simpler and easier to use then the current UK trains only categories.
- While I would not object to you replacing the existing mess with logical categories by unit, I am not actually asking you to delete the existing Categories, all I'm asking is that where logical, by number categories have been created, is that they are allowed to remain as they are useful Oxyman (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This category's name is far broader than its contents. The name embraces federal senators and state senators, but the contents demonstrate that it's meant to include just federal senators. For these senators, we have an established name, United States Senator, and en:Senator of the United States doesn't even exist. The category originally had this name, Category:United States Senators, but for some reason it became a {{Category redirect}} several years ago. Both this parent category and its state-level subcategories ought to be moved to "United States Senators". Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- The edit history offers "some reason"; the cat was renamed eight years ago. Renaming it again does not really solve your problem. Maybe create a better intro explaining what should go into the main (this) cat, and what should go into existing sub-cats. But the idea is rather obvious already, more instruction creep won't help for folks who do not wish to get it. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
According to en:Colonial Revival architecture, this is just a different name for Colonial Revival. The parent ought to be merged into CAT:CR Architecture in the USA, and the same for the subcats, e.g. Category:Georgian Revival architecture in Illinois ought to be merged into Category:Colonial Revival architecture in Illinois. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- wikipedia is not a reliable source. why mess with an entire tree of categories, in order to sustain americanisms? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? On the name, this is purely a US subcategory, and we have US names for US subcategories, e.g. the US subcategory for Category:Petrol stations by country is Category:Gas stations in the United States, not "Petrol stations in the United States", just like how the UK subcategory for Category:Theaters is Category:Theatres in the United Kingdom, not "Theaters in the United Kingdom". And what's the difference between CR and GR in a US context? Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support, it seems they mean the same thing in the US, and whether a building is described as one or the other seems somewhat arbitrary. kennethaw88 • talk 01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Colonial Revival architecture in the United States some time ago... - Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
shouldn't this be a category redirect to "flora of japan", instead of its subcategory? Vera (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Tangopaso: Category:Plants in the United Kingdom and Category:Plants in France have since been redirected to flora categories. Category:Plants in Japan could easily be renamed Category:Garden plants in Japan. I'm not sure about the purpose of Category:Plants in Vietnam, but it could probably be renamed Category:Garden plants in Vietnam. I've nominated Category:Plants in the United States for its own discussion because it doesn't seem to refer to garden plants. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Garden plants in Japan. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
(tout est en français, je ne suis pas assez bon en anglais pour rédiger quelque chose de correct).
Suite à la suppression de fichiers de Oursmili, à une discussion sur fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/août 2014#Insignes militaires français, et à une réponse du ministère de la défense, il y a quelques précisions concernant le droit de Commons à conserver certaines images d'insignes.
- La réponse du ministère
Monsieur,
En réponse à la question, voici des éléments de réponse ci-dessous par la DICOD ; antenne chargée de la communication des armées.
L’insigne est considérée comme une œuvre de l’esprit, c'est-à-dire constitutive d’une création originale prenant corps dans une forme. Elle présente les deux caractéristiques d’être un travail artistique transcrit dans une forme et de présenter une originalité réelle. A ce titre, elle entre dans le champ de protection offerte par la législation relative au droit d’auteur et bénéficie des dispositions de l’article L.111-1 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI) qui dispose que « L’auteur d’une œuvre de l’esprit jouit sur cette œuvre, du seul fait de sa création, d’un droit de propriété incorporelle exclusif et opposable à tous ». Il est également possible que l’insigne du régiment ait fait l’objet d’un dépôt auprès de l’INPI au titre des dessins, modèles ou marques, ce qui renforcerait la protection de l’insigne. En conséquence, le ministère de la Défense (et plus spécifiquement le régiment, dépositaire de l’insigne), en tant qu’il bénéficie du droit d’auteur sur cet insigne, dispose d’un droit de représentation et de reproduction de l’œuvre qui oblige les éventuels utilisateurs tiers à demander et obtenir l’autorisation pour reproduire ces insignes, sous peine de s’exposer à des poursuites civiles ou pénales. En effet en l’absence d’autorisation de la part du régiment, l’utilisation de l’insigne par un tiers quelque soit le type de support est considéré comme une utilisation frauduleuse. Il y aura donc contrefaçon, le tiers risque donc 3 ans d’emprisonnement et 300 000 euros d’amende d’après l’article L.335-2 du CPI.
Nous restons à votre disposition si besoin.
Cordialement,
CENTRE DE PRESSE Département Médias Délégation à l'information et à la communication de la Défense
DICoD Ecole militaire 1, Place Joffre 75007 Paris
- Conclusion possible
Aucun fichier d'une unité existante ne peut être conservé sans l'accord expresse du ministère ou de ladite unité. Pour les unités dissoutes depuis moins de 70 ans, les images d'insignes restent soumises au droit d'auteur. Pour les régiments dissous depuis plus de 70 ans, les images ne sont plus soumises au droit d'auteur.
- Autre possibilité
Transférer certains des insignes sur fr, en vertu de fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur (il faudrait que la communauté :fr valide la chose auparavant).-- Sammyday (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sammyday: Closed (license issue; category has been tagged to remind users to be mindful of permissions for files added to this category) Josh (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sammyday (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The name and the contents of the category are at variance. The name suggests that we're dividing former churches by the faith once preached therein: former churches that were once Presbyterian, former churches that were once Baptist, etc. However, the contents are different: they depict churches that were formerly Presbyterian, churches that were formerly Baptist, etc., regardless of whether the buildings are still churches or not. We really ought to change the name; something like "Churches in the United States by former religion" would be much better. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe my first statement isn't too understandable, so let me give you an example, File:Holy Spirit Fellowship, former First RPC.jpg. This building was originally Presbyterian, the Catholics bought it some decades later, and they've since sold it to the Pentecostals. It fits well into two subcategories, Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in Pennsylvania and Category:Former Presbyterian churches in the United States, since it used to be a Catholic church and it used to be a Presbyterian church, but "Former churches in the USA by religion" wouldn't seem to apply to it because it's still a church. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree with you, however, there is the larger issue of how your proposed change matches with the same category in other countries. When I looked into this I noticed a jumbled mess. Some countries use the word religion, where others use denomination and still others faith. I think we should have continuity as well as clarity. So there is, in my opinion, two issues that should be addressed. But I don't think the issue should be taken up here, or maybe it's discussed here with nothing definitive being decided here. In case it's the latter, I support the suggested change with your reasoning. I would also suggest changing the word "religion" to "denomination." Technically, all Christian churches are of the same faith and religion. They are different denominations. Farragutful (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC
- @Farragutful and Nyttend: I'd propose an immediate move to Category:Former churches in the United States by demonimation with the idea that these are categories for buildings that are no longer churches. If there's a need for churches that have changed demonimations but remain churches, then I'd agree, Nyttend, that Category:Churches in the United States by former denomination should also be created. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a need to categorise once-a-church-now-something-else buildings by former religious affiliation; "Former Presbyterian churches" ought to embrace all buildings that were formerly Presbyterian churches, whether or not they are still used as churches, and "Former churches" ought to embrace all buildings that were formerly churches, regardless of their denominational affiliation. Maybe my experience isn't representative, but in my experience, these categories are used typically to indicate the denomination of a congregation that formerly occupied a building, regardless of the building's current use. After all, "building formerly used as a house of worship by Presbyterians" is more basic than "former house of worship that was used by Presbyterians", since the latter's a subset of the former; you basically have to have the first if you want the second, but not necessarily vice versa. I think we ought to rename the category to meet the contents, since the contents reflect a more useful division than "once a church, and also it was used by the Presbyterians". Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I'm confused, because I thought I was agreeing with your comments above. What is your alternative proposal? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't have an alternative proposal. My proposal at the time of nomination, and my proposal now, is "Churches in the United States by former religion", although I'm fine with "faith" or "denomination" per Farragutful's suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: If we rename to Category:Churches in the United States by former denomination (to match parent), do the sub-categories need renaming as well, and if so, how? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- That would sound reasonable. The subcategories don't need renaming. As I note above, the problem is that the current title doesn't match the subcategories. Each subcategory's scope (and the way each one is actually used) is all US buildings that were formerly used as churches by the specified denomination, whether those buildings are currently used as churches by another denomination or whether they're no longer churches at all. Conversely, this parent sounds like it's for buildings that aren't churches at all anymore. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- PS, we already have a category for buildings that are no longer churches at all: see Category:Secularized churches. I checked all the geographical subcategories, and I found only two that were divided by faith: Category:Former Lutheran churches in Austria and Category:Secularized churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Aachen. The first is the result of improperly placing Category:Former churches in Austria underneath Category:Secularized churches in Austria (it's not a subtopic of secularized churches), and the second isn't for all Catholic churches in Category:Secularized churches in North Rhine-Westphalia, unless the diocese happens to be coëxtensive with the state; I have no idea. (Also note that former Lutheran churches in Austria includes two that are used by other denominations and one that's no longer used by any denomination, so it's definitely "building formerly used as a house of worship by Lutherans"). So there is no example worldwide of a "Secularized [faith] churches in [place]" category, unless it's somehow been placed outside the secularized churches category entirely. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: If we rename to Category:Churches in the United States by former denomination (to match parent), do the sub-categories need renaming as well, and if so, how? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have an alternative proposal. My proposal at the time of nomination, and my proposal now, is "Churches in the United States by former religion", although I'm fine with "faith" or "denomination" per Farragutful's suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)