Why on Earth are you doing this? You have made changes to my county page Merseyside, but these are not "districts" they are metropolitan boroughs so you are quite wrong to make this change.Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Algeria is a country of many historic (even ancient) and modern buildings that would need more information (and more photographs). I think starting with these categories encourage people to specify the construction dates for buildings - hopefully also for the countries that have not yet been categorized so much. There are similar categories even for smaller towns or municipalities in Europe. For example, Category:Built in Motala Municipality in 1251. I think it is as important to get to know when the buildings in other parts of the world are built. --Estormiz (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? How in the earth would people start categorizing into years in the 13th or 17th century (!). Begin by categorizing into "Built in Algeria in the 17th century". Years prior to the 19th century should not be used.--Zoupan (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to categorize by year if it is possible. It could be helpful to find out things related to a certain year. Even more helpful when it comes to years of long time ago. I could imagine some one today is thinking of what happened in 1016. He or she goes to the Category:1016 and finds births, deaths, conflicts, and so on. I would also like to know if some important building was built at the time. I do not understand what harm categorizing by year makes - the year is part of decade which is part of century and so on. --Estormiz (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite true. Also not many people wonder what was Halle Berry doing in the year 1986 -> Category:Halle Berry by year. I brought this up just to show that the building dates are not the only "over-categorized" topics. However I do not mean that this justifies over-categorizing, but it merely shows how extensive the issue is.
I would imagine that in many cases the aim of using these year-categories is to reduce the need for several other categories. For example, there is a category Category:Brüdernkirche (Braunschweig) which belongs to categories "1450s churches in Lower Saxony", "Built in Lower Saxony in 1451" and "Churches in Germany built in 1451". There are two other churches in Germany in the "Churches in Germany built in 1451"-category and even less members in the other two categories. This is clearly not much. So it would be probably better to put his church into broader categories in this way: "Churches built in 1451", "1450s churches in Europe", "15th-century churches in Germany", "Built in Europe in 1451", "1450s architecture in Germany" and "15th-century architecture in Lower Saxony". So instead of three categories, there would be six categories regarding the building date of the church. And these new categories would add up to the other ten categories that the church has got. --Estormiz (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Estormiz: Given the choice between 1) a category or image placed in many similar but non-overlapping categories, and 2) the creation of many categories that will only ever contain one sub-category and no images, I would prefer the former. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding, Estormiz. Personally, I'm not so concerned about "Built in country X by year" categories, at least from the 1800s onward, maybe somewhat earlier. It seems reasonable that they could be filled with multiple sub-categories and images. Since there are so few buildings in Algeria with categories, it does make sense to categorize by century first, but hopefully it will eventually fill up that categorization by decade and year are necessary. It's earlier dates and smaller geographic areas that concern me, because these categories are unlikely to ever be filled up. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category was originally for Natalie Cordowiner but was misspelt. A new category was created instead of moving the old category. Request deletion of the old, misspelt category. --Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, the image is a user page image, so we won't get it deleted. But there is no need to keep a separate category containing 1 user page image only. --Achim (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cross-section of a wing is called an airfoil. Strictly speaking, the word "airfoil" designates the geometry. I understand "cross-section" can also mean a physical cut through an object. I titled the category so that we could have both: including, for example, both File:A320_WingDetails_01.jpg and File:NACA 0012 Demo.svg in here.
Thanks. That seems quite reasonable, Ariadacapo, so I retract my proposals. Would you mind writing up a little description note at the top of the category so that it's clear to others in the future? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name is problematic. What does "Ancient Christian" mean, and what are the boundaries? The category includes many medieval people (not ancient). Zoupan (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category should not be moved to Category:Palangka Raya, it should stay, where it is and the new category should be redirected. Now there are files in both categories, the new and the old one.
Reason: The Indonesian name of the city (id: "kota") is id:Kota Palangka Raya: "Kota Palangka Raya atau Palangkaraya" meaning "City Palangka Raya or Palangkaraya", so its name is Palangka Raya or Palangkaraya, both is correct. The English name is en:Palangkaraya and not the other spelling. Files can have both names, this one or the other, but they will not be renamed from one language to the other.
But categories on Commons shall have English names, so that they can be understood better by more people, see Commons:Categories#Category names. Thus, it doesn't matter for the category name, how the spelling of the city is in Indonesian and which spelling is the official one. For example, the German cities "München" and "Köln" have categories on Commons with the English names Category:Munich and Category:Cologne. The new Category:Palangka Raya can become a category redirect to the English name. --Bjarlin (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category is overly specific (it is a category of one item) and its content is likely to soon be deleted anyway (see deletion discussion of this one item). KDS4444 (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My vision of Wikimedia commons is that it is intended to be the humanity legacy for the coming generations.
The category "Ibrahim ibn Said as-Sahlî celestial globe (Smithsonian Institution)" we are discussing is expected to contain more and more and more photos in the coming future. May be minutes time many be in decades time. However i expect a tree dimensional figure as a celestial globe to have more than one photo illustrating it and enriching in its category in the coming future. This would share in the world knowledge and humanity legacy. Please be more flexible and view the category in a broader view. May be in few days time the category would contain other redundant non categorized photos already present on Commons specifically because it is related to a well known institute (Smithsonian Institution). Thank you for discussion.--Ashashyou (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashashyou: You are welcome leave Category:Ibrahim ibn Said as-Sahlî celestial globe (Smithsonian Institution) as a redlink on any images of the globe you that want, in order to facilitate future use. If a significant number of images of the globe are uploaded in the future, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from re-creating this category when it's justifiable. These discussions and decisions are based mostly on the current number of images on Commons, not the potential for the future. We can't create categories for every person and item that might potentially be photographed in the future. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why this single photo category was made is that there seem to be 2 globe (by same scientist) one in Spain and one in the Smithsonian Institution. The one in Spain have many photos in Commons (category:Ibrahim ibn Said as-Sahlî celestial globe) but the one in Smithsonian Institution has only one photo so how to handle this situation?. Do you think we should change the main category into Ibrahim ibn Said as-Sahlî celestial globes and put all together? on create a new category for the Spanish museum globe? Please advice.--Ashashyou (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a move to "globes" would could probably work. If the globe at the Museo Galileo (in Florence, Italy, I think) has more pictures then it should be the one that gets its own sub-category, not the globe with only one picture.
We might also consider "Celestial globes by Ibrahim ibn Said as-Sahlî" unless, the original category name is considerd the common name of the globes, and they are both the same. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I believe no other category uses "Seattle, Washington State" as part of its name. All others are either "Seattle" or "Seattle, Washington". I don't care which of those two this uses, but let's not introduce a third option. Jmabel ! talk17:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Again, nothing else uses "Seattle, Washington (state)". It either uses "Seattle, Washington" or just "Seattle". Again, I have no strong preference between the latter two (I'd go for just "Seattle", but it is clear we don't have consensus) but let's not introduce other variants beyond these two. - Jmabel ! talk16:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hedwig in Washington: That's because there are two Washingtons, the state and the district (Washington, D.C.). but only one Seattle, so when Seattle is mentioned, there's no need to specify that it's in Washington state. As Jmabel has implied, the Seattle in Washington is really the only place called Seattle in the world, so even mentioning "Washington" is unnecessary if Seattle is mentioned. So the two options are
Should the category house sub-categories of all ethnic groups, instead of having these at the appropriate sub-categories (by continent, by region, by country)? Zoupan (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Alaska has no land borders with any other U.S. state, these are all by definition international border signs . Do we need a rename here? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A google search gave me several hits for "Alstom Metropolis AC15", mostly referring to the newest trains on Line 10. None of these results were very authoritative though, so you might well be right. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's mislabelled previous for one image, I have removed to correct category, and the images in the category currently is correct--Fayhoo (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this category was original a topical category, for media related to "files" whether paper or computer files. It has since come to included sub-categories for commons administration. Some clarification is required. Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 'original' revision of the category page would indicate that it was meant for the 'type of physical object', i.e., this... . I think that's a useful category, and the current use (which would theoretically make it the parent of every single content category on Commons) is pointless. Revent (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, this was originally a subcategory of Category:Mechanical hand tools. but has digressed. As it stands... Commons:Categories defines 'topics', 'media types', and 'commons' (i.e. meta-topics or maintenance) as separate category trees, reasonably, and this spans all three. Very broken. As just 'files', tho, it's very ambiguous... even if we fix it, people will still likely miscategorize stuff. For anything outside of the physical object, tho, I think this is too vague to be useful, and as a category for the physical object it's too ambiguous. My inclination is rearrange everything else around it, and redirect this to 'files and rasps'. When people try to cat things here, hotcat following the redirect to a more explicit name will tell them to look elsewhere, or the file will be so blatantly miscategorized that someone else will fix it. Revent (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revent, Themightyquill: I didn't like this to be a category redirect for there are bots which move the content automatically so that a file wrongly put here will be moved to a wrong cat and no one would be aware of that. I suggest to empty this cat and make it {{Disambig}} to other cats. This way files erroneously dropped here a) won't be moved automatically and b) will show up in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. --Achim (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that (a disambig) is probably a better solution, for the reason given. I think something like "BMP icons" should not be connected to the 'meta' Media Type category tree at all... 'icons used to represent BMP files' is a content criteria, not a 'meta' one. Revent (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all in agreement now, and after I did a lot of sorting last night, the category is now mostly empty. I think Category:File formats and its sub-categories are still problematic so I've started a separate CFD for that. Also, I'm thinking Category:Files by language used should probably be renamed Category:Media by language used as well, (and removed from this disambiguation page, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 1 February 2016
+++
MY GODNESS ! This is spam !
You are talking for hours - and it took user:Leyo 10 seconds to open that category Category:Poppaea
Why do you waste your time with that ?
Nothing to do than to hazzle up?
Regards
but I try to CREATE content - not to discuss about it. acutally it was for that reason that I asked de.weakipedia (and also fr.wikipedia) to delete my accounts.
user:Achim55, you are from there - please stay there and do not start same actions here. I won't mind to leave also here and won't upload anything anymore.
Thanks for your comprehension - keep working & creating - not quarreling, thanks.
Tonton Bernardo (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC) (another wasted minute of my life...°[reply]
@Tonton Bernardo: By now your contribution to this discussion has been nothing but lamenting which did move this case not even one inch. Instead of wasting your precious time this way you could have told us something helpful. An old man like me is always willing to learn something from others. Btw, in case you didn't realise it: I argued for keeping your cat. --Achim (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's technically incorrect to have separate Category:Poppaea Sabina and Category:Poppaea sabina categories, I'm just wondering if it will result in confusion to have only the case of one letter to distinguish between the two. I'm also not 100% sure that it's worth having two levels of categories for (currently) one file, but I suppose that might be common for genus categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep both as is. From what I can surmise there are a grand total of two entities with a similar name. Both are legitimate, encyclopedic subjects with media, and the dab hatnote/see also connecting the two categories is sufficient, in my opinion, following similar rationale to WP:DIFFCAPS. An alternative to {{Cat see also}} is {{For2}} (e.g.
), which may permit enhanced clarification/disambiguation. In the event an image is miscategorized, or a viewer ends up on the unintended page, with hatnotes a single click or edit in HotCat can rectify the situation. Categorizing taxonomic media to species, even for a single picture of the only species in a genus, is appropriate, and allows easier access (more granular data) by databases such as Encyclopedia of Life, Wikidata, and others. The moth species appears to be currently valid, see Catalog of Life entry. That said, if other feel strongly that inordinate confusion would result from having two similar named categories without parenthetical disambiguation, I would not be opposed to a move to Category:Poppaea sabina (insect), but at this point I think it is simpler to have leave both names as they are and connect with hatnotes. Animalparty (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Complicated Marian icons - Not sure what to do with this one, but "complicated" is rather arbitrary and unclear, and has no category tree to join.
I'd say "complicated" is in the eye of beholder and not something one should categorize into; remove it. Move 20th-century types of marian icons to 20th-century icons of Virgin Mary.--Zoupan (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncategorized category, likely automatically created from images tags. Unnecessary merge of Category:Indigenous cultures (around the world?) and arbitrary non-specific timeframe. All contained images are already categorized into better, more specific categories. Themightyquill (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with this category, and it was nominated by an anonymous editor without a clear rationale. Possibly an accident or a spambot of some kind?Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Félix Nadar" is a combination of his real first name, "Félix" (well, technically middle name), with his single-word pseudonym, "Nadar". It's like if we took Hablot Knight Browne, who signed his works "Phiz", and named his category "Knight Phiz". Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Files with bad names need to be renamed (or get deleted before the rename), and there is Category:Media requiring renaming already existing for that purpose. Now there is this new and redundant category which has one one subcategory of the existing category (and which, in addition, had also sub(sub)categories of its own subcategory which is more superfluous and creates only more confusion). I don't see any purpose for this new category which the existing category doesn't fulfil already. This new categorization is just creating a lot of confusion. It should be redirected to Category:Media requiring renaming or just been deleted. Bjarlin (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand, why the new category is in Category:Files and which purpose that category shall have. There are also questions according the purpose of that category on the category page. Is it for all files on Commons or for pages (or files) with connection to the topic "files"? Maybe also that category could need such a discussion to define its purpose, so that not any random maintenance category for files will be inserted anymore. If such a maintenance category like this one shall be in it, then all other files of Commons would also have to be there. I don't think that this is of any use, so it's better that Category:Media requiring renaming or an accidental of its subcategories is not in the Category:Files. --Bjarlin (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category to be deleterd. It has been created in 2011 and is yet empty. There is no need for a category with a whole look to the tree. It seems that there are only 2 other categories for the whole look of a plant (I think). Tangopaso (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think your solution is a good one. (It's a villa and a mausoleum at the same time because there are the remains of a roman villa in which there was constructed a mausoleum. Although it's not clear that it really was a mausoleum.) --Jordi G (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Achim55 for updating the link to this discussion! Besides this I agree that we don't have too much media from the early 16th century yet, so that moving the category's content to above mentioned parent category seems useful at the first glimpse. Nevertheless I do strongly support to keep the present Category:1521 in Belgrade for systematic reasons (use of existing templates etc.). Regards, Kleeblatt187 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't create the category, I have only moved it to our common naming pattern for such categories. I have also seen the redlinks, yes. But I decided to wait until this discussion is closed before setting up the proper parent categories – according to our existing and accepted system, nothing else. Besides this I won't spend more time on this discussion, we have much more urgent issues here at commons than deleting categories which are totally systematic and do fit into our category trees. "Overcategorization" in my opinion is something different, esp. if new category trees are invented. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that there are no sub-categories of Category:Serbia by year before 1821, I'm not sure this does fit into an existing category tree. But beyond that, I'm not sure being systematic and fitting into a category tree is sufficient to prove usefulness. If we have a category for a tiny number of images of Belgrade in 1521, then why not sub-divide it into a category for images of Belgrade Fortress in 1521, and so forth? Or if we have an image of some small village in Serbia in 1521, do we create a whole tree for that village by year dating back to its earliest settlement? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures of a small serbian village in 1521 shall be fine in Category:1521 in Serbia, of course we should not necessarily create a new tree for the village by years. But for Belgrade this should be fine as the tree already exists. I am trying to keep the user's point of view in mind: Someone might search for "What happened 500 years ago?": If starting from above mentioned Category:1521 in Europe she or he might find the media about the Category:Siege of Belgrade in 1521 more easily than starting from the much more specific Category:1521 in military history.
I won't. I'm fine with it. And even if: Why Stockholm into the 1520s, Belgrade into the 16th century? What about Category:Paris by year and Category:Vienna by year? Do you also want to discuss (and move or delete) any singly category by year before 1800 (or any other arbitrary deadline)? What's the point of this? What's so bad about Belgrade? --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be frank - to categorize "City in 1521" is far-fetched and silly. Keeping the years to after 1500 is OK for larger cities if there indeed is much media. As media on Belgrade prior to 1800 is scarce, there is no need whatsoever to ultra-categorize. Ultra-categorizing is dumb and its supporters should go to jail. Paris only has year categories after 1500, which is fine, while Vienna has several ultra-categories.--Zoupan (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoupan: Please tone down your rhetoric and insults. I agree with your point of view, but throwing "dumb" and suggestions of jail time around are not helpful. Please consider apologizing. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kleeblatt187: Despite the rudeness above, no one is picking on Belgrade. Zoupan has proposed deletion of many other similar categories for other cities and towns in other countries. There's no permanent deadline being proposed here either. If we end up with enough images of Belgrade in the 16th century that we need to sub-divide by decade or year, then by all means, we should do that... when the time comes. I'm not sure why Zoupan thinks the sub-categories of Category:Paris by year are acceptable prior to maybe 1700, when media gets rather thin. I'd say they should be deleted as well, along with most of the subs of Category:Vienna by year. Paris even goes to the more extreme (and even less defensible) Category:Paris by month by year, but I hope that doesn't mean you think sub-categorizing belgade to Category:August 1521 in Belgrade would be a good idea! =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(after conflict when saving) Did anyone make sure that all content of Category:History of Serbia and Category:History of Belgrade and their subcategories has been properly categorized at the respective “Location by period” category (country/city by century/decade/year), so that we know for sure about how much media we are talking about at all? (Despite that it is always likely that some library / some archive could start digitalizing their media stock and add it to commons tomorrow or next week.) I started some categorizing for Category:History of Belgrade last night (of course not finished yet), I was astonished how much there is – and is not properly categorized yet. In my opinion this would be much more urgent to do than discussing individual categories out of an widely accepted system just because they don’t have as much content at this time as other categories.
Okay, yes I see we are considering the same questions. I do definitely not want to set up Category:August 1521 in Belgrade or any other category by month and year in Belgrade. I wouldn't set up this new tree, not at all, just stick to the present system. And same as you I am not sure what makes 1500/1700/1800 etc. a good deadline. Why not say "deadline 200/300/500 years ago" and choose 1516/1716/1816? It would be arbitrary as well. That's why I prefer one easy system for all times, even though some categories will not be as full as others. We are all volunteers here and we should try and keep work low also with regard that media from whichever times gets added frequently. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although it hasn't been expressly written out (yet), I think the most widely accepted system is that, unless there are a large amount of files, to combine a narrow date with a broad geography, or a broad date with narrow geography. So a file might be in Category:1521 in Europe or even Category:1521 in Serbia but in Category:Belgrade in the 16th century, and maybe Category:August 1521 or Category:2010-09-01 (without a location at all). Zoupan has talked about crafting a categorization schema, and maybe even proposed one, but I can't find it at the moment. It's hard to write a clear categorization scheme, because no one want to to put in strict rules ("You must have X number of files before subdividing" or whatever) so the schema has to take circumstances into account. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: It was a joke, I thought that was quite clear; I apologize if someone took offence. I think we should continue discussing what I and Themightyquill did some time ago, at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/01/Category:Built_in_Motala_Municipality_in_1251. For Belgrade, I see no reasoning whatsoever, as already pointed out, to have years pre-1800 (Kleeblatt187 created several pre-1800 categories despite us having these discussions, which I see as kind of disruptive). We could begin by discussing year stops for cities? 13 files in pre-1500 year categories of Vienna, most single-filed, clearly need to be upmerged for example. --Zoupan (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer to certain aspects:
1. Personally:
Your comment was indeed somewhat strange, at least it wasn't clear to me that it was supposed to be a joke. Anyway, apology accepted, let's forget it now!
Yes, eventually I did create Category:1456 in Belgrade and a few of this kind after this discussion started. This may be considered disruptive, yes. Firstly I did that while categorizing some of the existing media in Category:History of Belgrade by period and secondly as of now there is no consensus that these categories are indeed not wanted by majority. Likewise – after me joining this discussion, but not joining your opinion – Zoupan kept nominating further categories of this kind for discussion, i.e. Category:1280 in Berlin, Category:1230 in Berlin and Category:1521 in Stockholm and even removed content from Category:1253 in Berlin and Category:1250 in Berlin. This might be considered as disruptive as well. I suggest to stop both for now: creating new categories of this kind and also nominating further categories here.
2. The categorization issue:
I understand your point, but I don't share yor opinion. What you call "overcategorization" here is not part of "the official explanation of "overcategorization". Also at this time I cannot find a recommendation that consensual category trees shall be broken at a certain point because average content becomes less. Please help me to find that.
Once again I would like to point out that categories should be reasonable and follow a simple and for all (or at least for most) users understandable system. In my opinion the "year by place" categories are one oft those wideley accepted systems. I am not talking about creating empty categories in those tree "just for the sake of it", I am talking about creating and keeping such categories if they have at least one item (file or useful subcategory). I don't know how many people have "participated" in creating exactly those categories which we are talking about now (for Berlin, Belgrade, Stockholm, Vienna etc.), but its definitely more than only three. And how many people have not complained about those categories, but kept filling the successivly? These are clear indications to me that this system even with some categories that have only few items, might be widely accepted and is definitely not "unconsensual".
Also I would like to renew what I mentioned before: In my opinion it does not make sense to discuss and decide about categories because they contain only one or two items today. If at all it would be useful that it has been made sure that all historical content of a certain place (such as Category:History of Belgrade, Category:History of Berlin etc.) has been categorized down to the proper period category so that we all know about how much media we are talking about at all. I don't blame you for this but personally it seems to me that you follow too much the approach of a team which is responsible for "category maintenance" (if I may say so) and look only for number of items, but not as much from the other users' point of view. This truely might be annoying for those users who spend their time categorizing items which again other users upload (and do not take care of proper categorizing at all). And everything takes its time, even categorizing items by period.
I also share the impression that we have called up a general discussion. In my opinion the subpage for this month's Cfd is not the proper place for this, some users who migth be interested in this topic might not find here (and also not at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/01/Category:Built_in_Motala_Municipality_in_1251). (Myself I found this discussion only by accident because I was active in the Belgrade categories for totally different reasons, but saw the the inital Category:Belgrade in 1521 was not named properly. This would IMO have been the first thing while doing maintenance.) This discussion belongs to Commons talk:Categories, maybe even with an information at the Commons:Village pump.
Again I renew the aspects which I already called up the last days, but I won't mention them all again now. The system of categorization by location and period shall be simple and understandable for all users without any arbitrary limits: Shall we nominate Category:1931 in Belgrade for discussion as well because it has only two items now, which is even less than there are items at Category:1521 in Belgrade? Shall we nominate Category:Belgrade in the 1920s because it has less items than Category:Stockholm in the 1520s? I personally don't think so, I won't do it. But it might be consequent to do so if we set up limits. ...
Finally I want to point out again that I feel that we have more urgent issues here at commons than discussing and deleting categories of consensual category trees, even if they have only a few items. One of those definitely more urgent issues is categorizing the existing media fully by period.
For myself I will stop creating categories by year and city for medieval ages. But this doesn't mean I consider those categories as redundant, over-categorized or otherwise not useful. Likewise I am asking for not setting up more discussion (and deletion) requests for those existing categories, such as Belgrade, Berlin, Stockholm, Vienna and so on – at least as long as there is no real consensus about this.
It is already made perfectly clear from the discussions that categorizing into modern years is not the problem. Over-sub-categorization, or ultra-categorization are better terms to describe the matter. I don't think having "Built in 987 in Paris" or "1312 in Berlin" is reasonable, at all. This "understandable system" of yours is actually the opposite, since there are huge gaps between years and it makes it harder for people to reach information and understand overviews of subjects. When people go through "Histoy of" categories, they are obviously not starting by going into "year in city". That it is "widely accepted", as you say, makes it even more problematic. Common sense tells one to not create "Category:1512 in Altstadt, Dresden" or "Category:1685 in Potsdamer Platz". There is no guideline going against me creating either, if I have media on it, but I won't do it because it is ultra-categorization. You, on the other hand, see no problem in this because it is accepted. I do upload Belgrade-related media, and I refuse to categorize into years that far back because a) scarcity of media, b) easy access, c) common sense. Simply put, when it comes to the history of Belgrade, years in the Middle Ages are not important, the overview is.--Zoupan (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some well intentioned contributors have thought it was obvious that categories about cameras they thought were similar should be merged into a single category -- without regard to the model name embedded in the exif data. I strongly disagree.
The name embedded in the exif data is unambiguous;
Anyone can read the name from the exif data;
Robots can read the name from the exif data, and we can leave the donkey work of this kind of low level organizing to robots.
Two cameras, might share the same case, same internal circuit board, and other key components, and yet be functionally distinct, because they were flashed with different firmware. We know they were flashed with different firmware, because they embed different model names. Two physically identical cameras might be functionally distinct because they were manufactured on different dates. The later camera's firmware might enable features not available in the earlier camera, merely because those features weren't ready when it was manufactured.
Two physically identical cameras might be functionally distinct because the manufacturer wanted to market a camera at every price point, to compete with their competitor's range of products at every price point. The two models of cameras might be physically identical, with the less expensive model being run by firmware that provides drastically reduced set of features to the more expensive model. That is Capitalism for you. Manufacturers do pull this kind of stunt, as intel did with their 486sx, 486dx and 487 cpus.
Previous generations of intel cpus required a separate floating point co-processor, to handle floating point intensive applications. Consumers were told that the deluxe version of the 486, the 486dx, had an onboard FPU, while the less capable and much less expensive sucky version, the 486sx had not FPU, but could be supplemented with the purchase of a 487 fpu co-processor. Wrong. All the chips looked the same, but were mounted in packages with different pinouts. The 486sx chips were 486dx chips with defects in the manufacture of their floating point regions. The 487 was not a coprocessor. If a 487 was installed the motherboard shut off the 486sx.
There is no reason for us to be pawns to the marketing tricks of sneaky manufacturers.
"As for the question of one or two cats for the camera, I strongly favor having two. While it may be true that the two cameras are identical under the hood, many users will not know that and confusion will arise again. El Grafo would have a redirect, but which way should the redirect go? We do not, after all, combine Dodge and Plymouth cars, even though they were made on the same assembly line with the same parts except for the labels front and back."
Ah, now I got it: There are several paintings by El Greco he painted more than once, so they need to be distinguished. Well, that can be made either by the year of creation or by location. What about the blanked categories? In general it's not useful to blank empty category pages. Either they should be deleted (per {{Speedy}}) or even stay as {{Category redirect}}. --Achim (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your concern, Cookie. Most category names for paintings have no disambiguation by location at all. That is indicated by the categories. Why is it suddenly important to indicate exactly where the painting is kept in the category name? Unless there are two paintings with the same name by El Greco that are both in Toledo, I don't see how using "(Toledo)" should be a problem. As mentioned, using "(Toledo)" nicely avoids any confusion between "Catedral de Toledo" and "Cathedral of Toledo" and has no negative side effects. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there aren't two Virgin of the Rocks in Paris nor London and the categories for the two versions of that painting are clearly identified by its location (there must be other cases but one is enough). According to Wethey there are more than 17 versions of El Expolio, some painted or partially painted by El Greco himself, others by his apprentices. I don't know whether there is a replica somewhere in Toledo or not, but the original is in the cathedral and the category also contains images of the sacristy where the painting is located. I think those are enough reasons to keep the specific location, not the generic "Toledo", just to harmonize and avoid confusion. A hypothetical confusion, as this has been solved renaming catedral to cathedral, and a harmony that sometimes is useful to disharmonize in order not to lose information. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious other things exist. If they didn't there wouldn't be anything to unify or harmonize with. And your proposal of renaming the category makes me think that you're suggesting to harmonize all the rest to their official names. Strange, considering that this discussion started with the opposite purpose. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other things existing is different from an existing commons-wide naming scheme to harmonize with. If no such scheme exist, there's no reason to try to apply it here when there are perfectly good reasons to do otherwise. I'm not sure what you mean about this discussion starting with the opposite purpose of using official names. I don't see that anywhere. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for your concern. I have been going through all the book and catalog and journal related Categories as User Fae and others have been putting images from books etc in these areas. I realized that there was a difference between what people think are books and are really just book covers or book pages or blank pages or blank covers and back covers. There already is a Cat for book covers and book covers by year. Only recently I found out what djvu files were and really, they and pdf files are the only true books. All the rest are book covers and some single pages. I am trying to clean up all the excess images so the main page is clear and only contains sub Cats. For example:
► Poetry books .djvu files (106 F)
► Poetry books PDF files (155 F)
► Botany book covers, single pages etc. (9 C, 143 F)
► Botany PDF files (2 C, 26 F)
► 1770 books book covers, single pages, etc. (18 F) and other years
► 1770 books djvu files (17 F)
► 1770 books PDF files (2 F)
See also Category:Books DJVU files
Etc etc. I realize that I could only use only book covers but it was too time consuming to open every file individually so therefore I was using the three main sub Cats. I hope this explains things. I can just use book covers seperate from single pages if really necessary. WayneRay (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went through Cat: poets, Poetry, Poems etc and am filling Cat Poetry book covers and I think I created a Cat Poetry ogg files as well as there are lots of sound and video files as well. I will try and straighten out my original mistake accordingly. WayneRay (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganized two of the subcategories. I removed etc. for poetry books single pages, etc. and moved all the files in the new Cat. Someone renamed Poetry book covers and I moved the rest of the files in there. I vote to remove this old Category. !WayneRay (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes. This should have been done years ago, only I never got around to doing this myself. In my defence, I never knew this borough existed when creating my category. Thanks for spotting this, @Stefan2. odder (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "User:" prefix is a good suggestion, especially for pseudonyms. But we've plenty of user categories exist without that prefix. Maybe a wider discussion/consensus required. Jee14:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it adding a User: prefix should be mandatory for pseudonyms, but I don't think it's necessary for real names, except possibly as disambiguation. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMO the same notability criteria should be used as in Wikipedia. Hence, only users who are notable in that sense should be allowed to have a category such as Category:Prename family name. --Leyo21:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is ongoing debate over whether notability or quantity of photos justifies a named category for an individual, but certainly, at least one of those criteria should apply. ie. A non-notable user with one or two files shouldn't be assigned a category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as successful; I've moved the page and its contents, converted CAT:Odder into a redirect to CAT:O Kommune, and removed the CFD templates. Just leaving this as unclosed because I've never become comfortable with the coding for closing discussions; anyone competent can do it. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, though I notice the category description says "History of Hungary before Hungarians and history of Hungarians before arrival to Hungary." Theoretically, "Prehistory of Hungary" could be the former and "Hungarian prehistory" could be the latter? That doesn't seem to fit well with the subcategories though.... - Themightyquill (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed to:
Category:Prehistory of Hungary for the prehistory of the Pannonian Basin and Contemporary Hungary, prior to and during the arrival of the Hungarians
I don't see this as a problem the way it is. There are 22 church sub-categories, plus assorted images of churches without their own categories. There could well be more in the future too, no? Why not divide by county? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam Cuerden. Nadar has indeed a very confusing category tree. Please keep in mind that the photographic studio founded in Paris by Félix Nadar was later managed by his son Paul Nadar who was also a portrait photographer. The attribution is not always evident.
@Rettinghaus: I'm not sure how to determine common name here. German wikipedia has him listed under Sixtus, but the Philadelphia Museum of Art lists Sixt not Sixtus. Google scholar yields exactly one result for each name. "Sixt Armin Thon" has 3x more google hits than "Sixtus Armin Thon" but some of that might be derived from wikimedia files. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read These works or works by this artist may not be in the public domain, because the artist has not been dead for at least 70 years. Please do not upload photographs or scans of works by this artist, unless [blah blah]; and I notice that the artist's own page about the matter explicitly says that they're free of copyright. This is a very surprising statement from an artist. (Copyleft is one thing, public domain another.) Is there a suspicion that his website has been hacked? If there isn't, then yes, remove {{NoUploads}}. -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to doubt the statement by the artist that he has published his works under a free license, so can we remove the {{NoUploads}} notice? --DAJF (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate the suggestion, George Ho, as I've also nominated images from this category for deletion, but it's plausible that legit images could be uploaded. Images of the building under construction, or views from the building, for instance, might be acceptable. Also, it's easier to keep track of unacceptable images if they are uploaded to a category like this than if they simple fall into Category:Buildings in Dubai. I've added {{FoP-UAE}} to the category to discourage uploads. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Do you have a preference which way the merger should go? Both names have their own wikipedia articles, so it's hard to say which one is correct. If they are portrayed differently in art, then maybe two categories isn't a bad idea, though one should probably be a sub-category of the other. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a single example of art which would depict one and explicitly not the other? To me, it is quite confusing. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was exactly my question. I have no idea, but I thought it was worth asking before we merge. =) I mean, Clark Kent and Superman are the very same person, but we could imagine separate categories for them. That might also be true of different categories for someone at different stages of their life. If, however, there is no difference in imagery between art portraying "John as Evangelist" and "John as Apostle" then a merger obviously makes perfect sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I merged to the Evangelist, which is the most common category (and older). A new category tree of the "Apostle" was wrongly creted by an user in 2012, and the error was kept on by more users. I merged all the categories and moved all the files. I just didn't fix wikidata, where apparently there are 2 entries. --Sailko (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
bad name?? "orthodox" instead of "Orthodox" ! ok, does not matter. But giving exact name to the church- I do not see how it is "bad" why it should be renamed. --QuahadiAñtó12:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These "absurdities" are highly subjective. I would say this category is useless because there is no clear criterion for what it should include. BrightRaven (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct the capitalization, for sure, but it seems logical to me to have the formal title of the church in the category name. Same with the following nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming for cosmetical reasons? There are many categories whose names contain "paintings of apostles", so they would have to be renamed too. I didn't support that effort. --Achim (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to en:ISO 6346 and jp:コンテナ, 20G9 seems to refer to the size and type of container. According to the ISO standard (which I can't link to), 20 is the size of container (2 = 20 ft long, 0 = 8x8ft high and wide). G9 is the type, where G stands for general purpose dry-goods container and 9 isn't officially assigned. I can't tell where the 09 comes from in the category name. If we want to keep this category, it could be named Category:20-foot dry containers and be made a child of Category:20-foot containers and Category:Dry containers. Those categories are filled really well and would probably benefit from intersections of this type. A shipping container expert could judge whether a category for the custom type G9 makes any sense. As I understand it, it's a custom designation that could be used by different manufacturers with different meanings and therefore isn't very good as a category. Such a category might be named Category:20-foot containers of type G9 or even Category:Special dry-goods containers of type G9, which is very close to your proposal (but note the plural). --rimshottalk21:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to disambiguation. No useful way to join the category tree, and unlikely to contain anything but other categories, so it's already effectively a dab page. Themightyquill (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have chosen this name "Human rights memorial Castle-Fortress" due what it is for me and it is and was never been a castle and only a fortress or dead zone. Or other nobles lived there as rulers of Pirna with soldiers. The name castle Sonnenstein is wrong. --Blackwhiteupl (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A category redirect has been reverted by ElbHein. So we have to discuss naming and categorizing. To prevent misunderstandings I suggest that also statements in German language are welcome. Die Angelegenheit ist ja zugegebenermaßen etwas kniffelig auch hinsichtlich der Wortbedeutungen. --Achim (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Schloss Sonnenstein has definitely to be kept separately as it refers to a notable building. It can be treated as a proper name and be kept the way it is now or alternativly be renamed to Category:Sonnenstein Castle. Die im Deutschen vorhandene feine Unterscheidung zwischen Burg (primär Verteidigungszweck) und Schloss (primär Wohnzweck) gibt es gleichbedeutend im Englischen nicht, da wird üblicherweise beides als castle bezeichnet. At de:wp we find de:Schloss Sonnenstein, en:wp reads en:Sonnenstein Castle. --Achim (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this category describes anything specific. The United Farm Workers and other farmers movements are hardly connected. Suggesting deletion.. Themightyquill (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Globetrotter19, do you have a preference? Given the number of categories with "Innenstadt" in the name, we could also consider Category:Belváros (Budapest) since it's also considered a formal name for the neighbourhood. I'm not sure those unfamiliar with Budapest should be categorizing things as "Downtown Budapest" since it's not necessarily obvious to the average tourist that it refers to a very specific area. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My guess Downtown, Budapest or Inner City is also acceptable. Just becoz I think the Inner City and Downtown, Budapest are same cats,-in this case,-one of these should be deleting/redirecting, which one is up to you. Belváros is doubtful thing, becoz the district formal name also Belváros.
@Globetrotter19: I'd say it makes more sense to create Category:Belváros (Budapest) for the neighbourhood in District 5 and just not have a category for "downtown budapest" or "Budapest within the nagykorut". The Budapest category is already highly sub-divided by district and neighbourhood (maybe more than any other city category on commons) so I'm not sure there's a need to also sub-divide by unofficial categories as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox Churches in Russia is not the same. For example we have here Greek Orthodox Churches, Starover Orthodox Churches etc. --Shakko (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Frescos in churches of Orthodox Church in Russia" means simply "Eastern Orthodox frescos in Russia", but that's why those you enumerated could be divided from the majority, which is ROC.--Zoupan (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that doesn't mean the same thing. Your suggestion assumes Eastern Orthodox and doesn't say that the frescos are in churches. The original also doesn't say that the frescos themselves are Orthodox, just that they're in Orthodox churches.--Auntof6 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this word is, but it's in Category:Egyptian Arabic dialect words of Turkish origin. It would be a little strange to have a category about an Egyptian Arabic word, but to use the English translation of said word, wouldn't it? Whether or not we should have categories for individual words, let alone based on their etymology, however, is a different question. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The transliterated Arabic word is barīza which means both "10 piastres" (⅒ of an Egyptian pound) and "socket": this is the reason why we find money and electrical devices in the very same category.--Carnby (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's definitely some help. The more I think about this, the more it doesn't make sense to have categories for words, let alone categories for words based on origin. And it turns out, I'm not the only person that feels that way. There's an ongoing discussion (since 2014!) at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/06/Category:Egyptian Arabic dialect that covers this category as well. Carnby, if you want to add your voice there, it would be helpful in establishing consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be a duplicate, but I can partly understand why. According to en:Ottoman Algeria there was an Ottoman eyelet (administrative district) formally called the Regency of Algiers, which covered some of modern Algeria. (The rest of modern Algeria was not, if I understand correctly, ever under Ottoman rule.) So one category is about a formally named region of the Ottoman empire, while the other about the historical period a modern country. They overlap perfectly, though, so it doesn't make much sense to keep them both. Which way do you propose to move? It would be great to have some consistent naming in Category:Ottoman Empire by country. It currently has the following sub-categories:
All of these are for the Ottoman historical period in said countries (modern borders). The word under implies that the said country (with modern borders) was subordinate (as a country) the Ottoman Empire, which is false. For instance, Iraq only came into being with that country name and borders in 1920. So I think those ("X under Ottoman rule") need to be renamed. I think "Ottoman X" is too simple and ambiguous; does Ottoman Syria mean the Damascus Eyalet (which does not overlap with modern Syria) or the Ottoman historical period in Syria (modern borders)? I think "Ottoman period in the history of X" is the clearest we can go for the purpose and subject of these.--Zoupan (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Themightyquill: Zurbarán was a painter so his works are only paintings. He, as well as many other famous painters in his days, had a workshop. In fact, he had two, the first in Llerena and then a notorious one in Sevilla where he produced paintings for monasteries and exported to America. Therefore, with such a big production, not all of Zurbarán's works were painted by himself, some were his apprentices' works, or in collaboration with them. So, Category:Paintings by Zurbarán's workshop sounds appropriate to me.
As for the categories about saints you're right, many aren't divided by gender, others are categorized as Category:Religious paintings by painter with the saints in a sub-category like Category:Paintings of saints by Bernardo Strozzi or Category:Saints by Titian. There isn't a clear standard, it's all a bit messy. That's why I think it'd be worth of creating those gender divided categories, at least with some painters whose work have a good number of saints (men and women) to feed those "Paintings of female saints" and "Paintings of male saints". But I'd need to do a good search, and ask for some help to some people I know more experts on art than me. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Themightyquill: I'm glad we have been able to solve the workshops vs. ateliers categories. I'll start to work on them as soon as I have some time.
Something new by Tiefkuehlfan. I don't know whether or not it is covered by our naming conventions nor do I know the behavior of search engines. Maybe it's allright but I'd like to hear some more opinions. Achim (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's where my neutrality fits in. I see your point, how they could be problematic as a precedent (and that they probably contravene naming conventions), even if they might serve to avoid conflict in the short term. =) I notice they were both created by the same user way back in 2009. BokicaK, would you agree to choosing one language for these categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikimedia projects (see d:Q991291 and d:Q8691146) managed to come up with one name to use as the primary one, I believe we should be able to do the same. In the meantime, the maintenance category should be deleted for the reasons given. FDMS 4 21:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that one day every category will get an ID like C1234567890 by which it is identified and all category names then will be just aliases pointing to the cat. This way we would get rid of naming probs as well as of category redirections. --Achim (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly no agreement about what to actually do with these categories - each one may require its own discussion. In the meantime, I've made it a hidden category under the maintenance category scheme. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it is subcategory for main Category:Icons of Michael - we put there icons where Michael is painted not as simply angel (for example in white) but as a heaven warrior (with weapon, in armour) - "archistrateg". It is the normal term in Christian iconography for this subject (see ru:Архангел Михаил#Иконография). If you don't know it - it doesn't mean it is unnecessary. --Shakko (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article you linked to is still "Archangel Michael" and not "Archistrateg Michael". It would be best to add a commentary, clarifying that iconography often depict him as an "archistrategos".--Zoupan (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no, it is the category not for all the images of Michael warrior, but for his icons. Icon - is the Orthodox church painting, tempera+wood. The words in the category's name "Icon", "Michael" and the variation of Greek "archistrategos" (or Russian transcription "archistrateg") is exactly what is this category about, and should be kept. I belive that in Catholic iconography the Michael-warrior isn't named with this Greek word, and Western European artworks (painting = oil+canvas; not icons) can't belong there. --Shakko (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understood my suggestion. There *should* be a separate category for all images of michael warrior. This category should be a subcategory of that one, and contain all the icons.. As well, since Category:Appearance of Michael to Joshua makes no mention of the word icon, it should also be in that broader category. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why the latter would be a better name for a wikipedia article, but when you are asking people to put the right file in the right category, maybe including the dates is a good idea? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category name Category:Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938) and most of its subcategories use the official name of the republic, with a standard disambiguation (years scope) in brackets. A similar format is used also for other periods of Czechoslovakia (even though a rename to "socialistic" in 1960 is not reflected). "First Czechoslovak Republic" would deviate from the system: it's not the official name (the word "first" was never a part of the official name of the country) and such a numbering is not usable for periods of Czechoslovakia after WWII. The name "2nd Republic" (1938-1939) is a bit less known, "3rd republic" (1945-1948) is very rare and 4th Republic for the period 1948-1968 and 5th Republic for 1969-1990 are not commonly used (I meet them only at disambiguation pages at the Czech Wikipedia). 6th Republic for 1990-1992 period was maybe never used. --ŠJů (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoupan and Themightyquill: The "Twelve Apostles" would definitely be a proper noun, but there are other apostles listed here (15 by rough count) so "apostles" by itself is just a common noun (no capital 'A') and that is what this category covers. A sub-cat restricted to the "Twelve Apostles" would need capitals. Josh (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not determined to keep "maeul", I'm just pointing out that we don't have a policy that would make this decision clear. You linked to a tourism website, not the official website of the city, so I'm not sure that can be considered an "official English name." - Themightyquill (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Piotrus, and G41rn8: There is no need for disambiguation beyond its natural name. While we do not want to be making up our own names for places, it is perfectly acceptable to use a short form of the name as the category name. The official name of Category:Silverton, Oregon is "The City of Silverton", proudly displayed on their website and official logo, but of course we feel no need to add that all to the category name. Of course there are several thousand such examples. This village should follow suit, Category:Jeonju Hanok is more than sufficient, no need for eitehr 'maeul' or 'village' or 'Village' to be appended.
The word village means a kind of tourist attraction here but not a name of the community. Google 文化村 or 民俗村 and you'll see lots of Chinese examples. This Korean one is similar. It's like a theme park.--Roy17 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble: Can you explain why you feel this is over-categorization and how you propose to re-categorize the contained files? This applies to your other two CFDs as well. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Since this article only contains two images and two subcategories, I think it would be best to merge it into other categories. There are countless other small categories like this one, and they tend to add unnecessary clutter to the category namespace. Jarble (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble: Okay, but merge it into which categories? Over-categorization is mostly a problem when there is limited possibility for new photos or sub-categories (for better or for worse, not really a problem for this category) or when it divides categories that area already underpopulated. If you simply found a way to merge this category with its sub-categories, you'd have 26 images, which is more than enough for a category. Or you could leave this category alone, since its two sub-categories contain 6 and (collectively) 18 images... not too bad either. Since it's a category based on genus, it's not all that weird that it wouldn't have many files, except in sub-categories. Then again, images of erect equine penises rate low on my list of priorities, so I don't really care all that much what you do. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (keep). I maintain what what I said in the linked discussion. Sorting anatomy by genus and species is established practise, and while the erect/non-erect categories aren't highly populated in the equine branch, I consider them useful to have nevertheless, on account of the ease of layman confusion between erect and everted but non-erect equine penis. Additionally, although the current image count for non-donkey, non-horse cases is just two, and there are only two subcategories, the contents of those subcategories would make finding the non-donkey, non-horse cases needlessly difficult. --Pitke (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horse penis is for various non-erect instances (such as urination, anatomical schemes etc), Erect equine penis is for equine erections not belonging to horses, Erect horse penis is for photos which show little other than the penis, and Horses with erect penises is for other photos featuring horses with erections. --Pitke (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Themightyquill: I would consider those two categories to be disparate. A panoramic would just be a very wide shot (it may or may not actually feature the city's skyline), and a skyline isn't necessarily very wide-angle (panoramic). I guess for most big cities it would be very hard to get a panoramic that did not feature the skyline, but a panoramic of say, a suburb, might not feature a skyline. The Spanish is unfortunate, though. BMacZero (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: Except that most sub-categories of Category:Panoramics of cities in Germany are themselves sub-categories of skylines categories. Category:Panoramics in Hannover, for example, is a sub-category of Category:Skylines in Hannover. This is also true for many other panoramic categories in other countries as well. Category:Panoramics in Slovakia is a sub-category of Category:Skylines in Slovakia, and the same follows with their respective sub-categories by region and city. Is that appropriate? It's surely possible to take a panoramic in a city (a panoramic of a restaurant, for instance) without it being a skyline photo, but I'm not sure it's really possible to take a panoramic of a city without it being a skyline photo.
Themightyquill: Out of my random sample, the majority of Panoramics by <Place> categories aren't in the skyline tree. Either way, I do think that those trees should be split. Here are a few cases of panoramics "of" cities that I don't think would be considered skylines:
If the image is taken from too high above the city such that the buildings don't interrupt the horizon (File:JohnstownPanorama.jpg).
I think I'm now leaning away from Skylines in <City> and towards Skylines of <City> because it better separates the "panoramic" and "skyline" ideas and clarifies that a skyline should represent a larger part of a whole city. I would also support your first solution regarding the panoramic categories since it's perfectly possible to depict a skyline without taking a panorama (stitching multiple images together). BMacZero (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to separate them, maybe we should ensure we use "Panoramics in <city>" not "Panoramics of <city>" since the latter suggests skyline to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: Skylines of <city> sounds good to me, though I have to say your concern about "Skylines of cities by country" resonates with me. Category:Skylines by city of course only contains skylines of cities, but I don't see a reason to limit the "by country" category to cities if we don't have to. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Nanosanchez, it isn'tthe same. It cannot be becaise these are officially 2 different monuments with 2 different monument ids of the ministery. The category you are asking to remove has a wider scope than the other one, and actually includes it, but this doesn't imply that they're similar. Poco205:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hola User:Poco_a_poco. No sé si es correcto responderte aquí, ni tampoco si lo es que lo haga en español, que he visto que es tu lengua madre. Ayer quise 'aclarar' un poco una categoría que me parecía confusa. En mi opinión, 'Castillo de la concepción' y 'Ruinas y restos arqueológicos del Castillo de la Concepción' hacen referencia a lo mismo, o prácticamente lo mismo. De hecho, no sé qué ruinas hay en el cerro visibles ahora mismo que no correspondan al castillo de la Concepción, creo que ninguna, pero igual estoy equivocado. De hecho, la única foto que existía en esa categoría, es decir, ésta:
Puerta de la Villa.
Es la puerta de acceso al recinto fortificado del castillo.
Lo de la diferente identificación del Ministerio de Cultura la verdad no lo conocía y me resulta extraño. Y, por último, lo de 'Castle of the Concepcion', en inglés me suena fatal, aunque la wikipedia commons esté mayoritariamente en inglés, pero siendo un topónimo en Castellano creo que debería conservarse su nombre en español 'Castle of 'La Concepción'.
Para mi, debería todo ir incluido en una sola categoría, independientemente del nombre que lleve. ¿Qué piensas?
Sigo discrepando en que la categoría del castillo y de la de todos los restos arqueológicos del cerro donde está el castillo sean lo mismo y por ello una categoría sobre. Es tu palabra contra la del Ministerio, que los ha catalogado de forma diferente (castillo y zona arqueológica). A no ser que el ministerio haya cometido un error (muy improbable), no estoy de acuerdo con unir esas dos categorías en una. Además, echando un ojo rápido a la zona veo restos arqueológicos en el cerro que respaldan lo que comento. Poco220:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we harmonize sub-categories as "Kitchen utensils of X"? Several are currently "Kitchen tools of X" yet contain things like bowls and glassware, which aren't generally considered tools. Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think all utensils are tools, but not all tools are utensils. For example, this image is of a mortar and pestle, which I would consider a tool but not a utensil. Other points worth considering might be:
Should these be under equipment instead of either tools or utensils?
Should these necessarily be under "kitchen", or should/could they be under "cooking" instead?
@Themightyquill and Auntof6: if no other issues are raised within one month, i will move this cat tree to "kitchenware of xx". they would include basically everything used in relation to food preparation and serving in typical kitchens. RZuo (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: please go ahead and close this cfd as you wish. much appreciation! i've been travelling so i dont have time for a few months. RZuo (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, with endorsement for changing "kitchen utensils" to "kitchenware" throughout; if someone wants to take on that task, great! - Jmabel ! talk20:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In my experience, Commons avoids using nationalities as adjectives when possible, so I think the "Women in the X military" should be avoided. It's slightly more confusing because most of these categories are child-categories of both "Military people of X" but grand-child-categories of "Military of X". So I'd say either "Military women of X" or "Women in the military of X". My personal preference is the latter, but I'm not sure why "Military people of X" was chosen over "People in the X military" (which seems less ambiguous to me.)- Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we go by the "Military people of X", "Military women of X" would be appropriate. We could create cat-redirects for each. I get "military women" (336) and "women in the military" (250) on Gbooks.--Zoupan (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Estopedist1 here. On a project where a lot of people are not native English-speakers <Category:Women in the military of Foo Country> seems the least error-prone. - Jmabel ! talk18:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Lots of problems here. 1) What is wiki-sexuality? It hasn't been defined, it doesn't exist in the category tree, and a google search reveals nothing except a neologism coined by L. Ayu Saraswati, which doesn't seem to apply here. 2) If, as it seems, it will only apply to a few images from each category ever, then it's over-categorization. In this case, all images could go in Category:Wiki-Sexuality images (if this is indeed a legit category at all - I don't know) and categories purely describing the content of the images. @Jmarchn: If you want to provide longer descriptions for all the thumbnails, create a gallery with a section for each image at Wiki-Sexuality Images. There's no need to use categories for this purpose. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the type-name (wiki-sexuality) was referred to a remarkable educational group, as you showed me is not important, then I would be in favour to rename (as you have suggested) the categories. I suggest to change them to standard category names with the pattern Diagrams of .... I.e. Diagrams of male masturbation links to Diagrams of masturbation and Male masturbation, Diagrams of masturbation links to Masturbation and Diagrams of sex practices, etc.
I believe that is not a over-categorization: each category links to two other categories, and (logically) is not the same male masturbation than female masturbation, and my proposition helps to quickly locate a drawing can have an interest in education, more than some of the many photos that already exist. I believe that over-categorization depends on content type more than contained file number, so I think Category:Human penis facing left (12 F) and Category:Human penis facing right (28 F) is an over-categorization.
I don't want to create any gallery, I have other priorities.
Renaming them "diagrams of x" makes a fair amount of sense to me. That's a clear description of what the images themselves contain. I'm not 100% sure that diagram is the right word, but I'm not sure I have a better word. If you can plug the new categories into multiple existing category trees, that would be most useful. Please note that Category:Drawings of male masturbation and Category:Sexuality diagrams already exist. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to 1 and 2, but not to creating new subcategories with only one or two files. It is sufficient to place an illustration of female masturbation in the category chosen from 2 above and Category:Female masturbation. --Leyo21:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep because i work with the year-in-city-categories in a lot of cities in Germany. For me it is useful.
A decision could have been made on this issue years ago, but now ... meanwhile maybe hundrets or thousands of such year-in-city-categories exist worldwide ... and so for me, they can be considered a common system !
While clearly some users see no or less benefit to this year-in-city-category-structure, there are others who do find value in it. Since the structure complies with the basic principles for categories and a number of users value it, there is no reason left to delete it. -- Triple C 85| User talk |13:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep because i work with the year-in-city-categories in a lot of cities in Germany. For me it is useful.
A decision could have been made on this issue years ago, but now ... meanwhile maybe hundrets or thousands of such year-in-city-categories exist worldwide ... and so for me, they can be considered a common system !
While clearly some users see no or less benefit to this year-in-city-category-structure, there are others who do find value in it. Since the structure complies with the basic principles for categories and a number of users value it, there is no reason left to delete it. -- Triple C 85| User talk |13:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No, it was not deleted. Category:1521 in Belgrade has been created in 2015 and was not deleted in 2016, only a wrongly named duplicate of it (i.e. Category:Belgrade in 1521). The issue might not have been solved in consensus of you and me (see at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/01/Category:Belgrade in 1521, but the category was definitely not deleted by an administrator, it obviously still exists. Even if someone wrote Deleted, but this obviously refers to before mentioned, wrong named duplicate. The previous discussion has been closed, please do accept the result that the category was not deleted and don't recall things until the decision pleases you. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the time we get to the 18th century, there are more images and categorization by year seem less than great, but not totally unreasonable, so I'd leave those. Oddly, Category:Belgrade in the 19th century, where there are quite a few images, has not be sub-categorized even by decade.
We have had a long discussion two years ago, exactly the same questions, please check here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/01/Category:Belgrade in 1521(with the result of Category:1521 in Belgrade not beeing deleted). Of course those five or six Belgrade-categories, which we are talking about now, do not have much content at this time. Fine, I agree with this and confirm the fact. But still a lot of content from Category:History of Belgrade simply has not been categorized yet by centuries, decades and/or years, so nobody really knows about how much content we actually talk. And same as two years ago I do not understand, why we should treat long-ago Belgrade-categories/Belgrade-related content different that long-ago categories in other places, such as Category:Vienna by year, Category:Paris by year, Category:Moscow by year, Category:Rome by year, Category:Lisbon by year, Category:Amsterdam by year, Category:Darmstadt by year, Category:Eisenach by year and Category:Dresden by year, probably many more. If all those year-in-city-categories with only 1-3 items are unwanted, than we all truely have a big problem; we might need a real discussion at a proper place and afterwards possibly need help from a bot. And if it's not a problem then we all should not waste our time with discussions about individual year-in-city categories. Simply treat capitals and other big cities the same way. Let's use the same time instead to categorize stuff properly. Many uploaders unfortunately don't. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kleeblatt187: If we delete, it's unfair because of Category:Eisenach by year. If we don't delete, we may end up with a Belgrade equivalent of Category:Eisenach by year. Are you intent on making more of these categories? We've had discussions about this kind of thing on the village pump as well without a clear resolution, but I don't think that's an endorsement for their existence. Keep is not automatically the default. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking! I have not been involved with any of those categories in Eisenach, Lisbon, Amsterdam, Vienna, Stockholm etc.; possibly a few in other German places (counting years before 1900). I did create some of the early year-in-Belgrade-categories in early 2016 (which we mostly are discussing now); except for Category:1789 in Belgrade none (before 1900) within the last two years, only decades. I did this two years ago knowing the situation in Vienna, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Moscow etc, assuming that this is an accepted concept for european capitals, nothing else. I had to learn, though, that specifically Belgrade seems to be considered different, for whatever reason. At least it is not systematic and not logical. What I do clearly not intend is creating medieval year-in-village-categories, neither in Serbia nor elsewhere. But the city of Belgrade seems to be important enough to me (both today as well as historically) to treat it the same as any european capital, they have been mentioned before.
I haven't checked how many different users have contributed to create all those early year-in-capital-categories, but it is definitely more than my hand has fingers. And actually I don't really care about this number. Considering this current discussion here as well as the Belgrade-1521-discussion, which has already been mentioned a few times, it is only you and User:Zoupan who obviously prefer those five or six categories, which we currently talk about, to be deleted. Feel free to delete them, if you feel it is necessary. I won't stick to it, I won't create them again. But I will keep the feeling that it is somewhat arbitrary and definitely not systematic. But I'am convinced that deleting those few categories, maybe even Category:1789 in Belgrade, which has not been nominated yet, will not solve the problem what I believe you consider as the problem. We definitely have much more urgent issues here at Commons that spending our time with those few categories. Best wishes, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, out of curiosity, could you and XRay explain how you all three of you came to comment on this 6 year old discussion within an hour of each other today? It doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere on commons... Always nice to know how to encourage participation in old discussions. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because i work with the year-in-city-categories in a lot of cities in Germany. For me it is useful. I know AnRo0002 (Baden-Württemberg), XRay (North Rhine-Westphalia) and a lot of other users, wo work with the year-in-city-categories too. We are in active exchange and regularly take a look at the watchlist.
A decision could have been made on this issue years ago, but now ... meanwhile maybe hundrets or thousands of such year-in-city-categories exist worldwide ... and so for me, they can be considered a common system !
While clearly some users see no or less benefit to this year-in-city-category-structure, there are others who do find value in it. Since the structure complies with the basic principles for categories and a number of users value it, there is no reason left to delete it. -- Triple C 85| User talk |13:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Most of the pictures in this category are St. Anne teaching the Virgin to read. The rest could be moved into categories like "Child Virgin Mary learning needlework" or "Virgin Mary reading". The category "Paintings of Childhood of Virgin Mary" also needs rationalizing; the boundary between a child doing needlework and a child learning needlework is awkward. It would also be good to tag the subject and medium (paintings, sculptures, stained glass, embroidery, gonfalon, etc.) as two seperate tags, and the location as a third tag. The category name as stands is ambiguous, and the grammar is bad. HLHJ (talk) 31 January 2016
@Themightyquill, @Achim I entirely agree. "The Education of the Virgin" is the conventional art-world term for the artistic subject; there's plenty of ancient paper sources for that if they are really necessary. But we could have sub-categories for her learning different things (one of which would be the equivalent of "Anna Maria lesen lehrend", Anne teaching Mary to read), and perhaps a different category for her reading (or sewing) by herself, or even teaching Jesus to read. Those don't really belong, and would, rationally, result in a lot of Annunciation scenes etc. turning up here! And "Child Virgin Mary learning needlework" is not grammatical, and while "Education of the Virgin" or "Education of the Virgin Mary" would both be OK (I'd prefer the latter, as clearer and less parochial) "Category:Education of Virgin Mary", with no "the", is strange and unconventional English. HLHJ (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I hadn't realized that other names were parallel. Symmetry is a good argument, and category names are sometimes rather abbreviated. I'm not really very active on Commons, and I'm not that fashed either way. Although I'd be glad to see someone rationalize the lot, I don't think I'll undertake it. HLHJ (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreate when necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Support as duplicate. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Info: Was move request to Category:Filippo Napoletano. Creator templates have to be "merged" too. --Achim (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment. These are apparently photo sessions of maikos (trainee geishas) at various temples in Kyoto. The images in Category:2015-11-22 Kimihiro at Eiunin should logically be moved back to Category:Kimihiro at Eiunin on 2015-11-22. Likewise, Category:2015-12-01 Korin at Seiraiin unnecessarily duplicates Category:Korin at Seiraiin on 2015-12-01. --DAJF (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Check my username, I know there are two Washingtons. I live in one of them.
But back to business: You are right, we don't need to worry about another Seattle. Let's remove the „(state)“ part. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry, but that's a Taxon category. Therefore imo it should be kept as it is. There is a {{See also}} on top of the page. --Achim (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep Imho, here's no reason to delete anything. We have Category:Poppaea Sabina for the person and Category:Poppaea sabina for the moth and they both have an adequate "see also" Template. --El Grafo (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:Sonnenstein (Pirna), gallery as well. --Achim (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
