Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2012/02
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 February 2012
Another contributor first added this category to Category:Steel industry in the United States -- and then replaced it with a redirect to Category:Steel industry in the United States. The problem I have with this replacement of an existing specific cateogry with a more general one is that "Steel Industry" included more than stell mills. Shipping steel rods, steel plates, steel rails is also part of the "steel industry", so is the shipping of scap metal, and the crushing of old cars. So, arguably, would be the manufacture and shipping of Coke, and the mining and shipping of iron ore and limestone to charge the blast furnaces of those steel mills. I reverted the redirection, and invited the other contributor here, to make a case for their redirection. Geo Swan (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi I left a message that replies to this at User_talk:Geo_Swan#Steel_mill
- To summarise - I maintain (and I think this can be easily verified) that all I have done is merge categories that contained indentical content - presently "steel industry" contains little or no content of the type described above - it is mostly "steel mills" (in the en:Steel mill sense)
- OR to put it another way - I could have moved 99% of the images in "steel industry" into matching "steel mill" categories.
- There is a minor issue with the worldwide meaning of "steel mill" - eg in some places it doesn't mean primary production such as blast furnaces as shown in File:Steel_Mills_at_mouth_of_Calumet_river_Chicago.jpg - I thought "steel industry" was a good name choice - but possibly "steel production sites" (or something better) may be better names for the category:Steel industry and the similarly named subcats. Now would be a good time to do such block moves.
- I am quite happy to go through the contents again (after a move) and sort out all the erratics etc, and stuff like that. In general though many of the images need more categorisation - I suggest down to factory name level - eg like Category:Bethlehem Plant or Category:Allegheny Ludlum.
- Note I also emptied Category:Steel industries in Category:Steel industry and subcats - I assume this was just a duplicate category. Mddkpp (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- To summarise - if people can come to a good decision on what categories they want I am happy to go through the pages I have altered, plus any other images that come to hand and categorise by the system decided.
- If any work messages arise a note on my enlgish wikipedia page will be appreciated as I am there most of the time.Mddkpp (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No consensus to do anything. No action required. —howcheng {chat} 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The category is empty -- the only entry was moved to category "Passport stamps of Venezuela" Auntof6 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Closed, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
duplicated with Category:COMPUTEX Taipei 2010 Rico Shen contact... 17:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 00:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for this specific pig slaughter. Commons categories have a certain scope, too - Commons is no private photo album with private image galleries High Contrast (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just wanted to distinguish the images from the one specific pig slaughter from another one, because every pig slaughter is very specific - that´s all, my intention was not create useless category or (as you said) "private photo album". If you think that category is not useful, please delete it, I don´t have problem with that. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't wanted to offend you but private galleries like such are not ok on Commons. We can order it geographically. --High Contrast (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't offend me, it's OK :) I just transfered all images to Category:Pig slaughters in the Czech Republic, think it's OK now, isn't it? --Podzemnik (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't offend me, it's OK :) I just transfered all images to Category:Pig slaughters in the Czech Republic, think it's OK now, isn't it? --Podzemnik (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: category has been emptied. Content moved accordingly. --High Contrast (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty now. --rimshottalk 00:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category, should be deleted. Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category, should be deleted. Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category, should be deleted. Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category, should be deleted Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category, should be deleted Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused. created in error... (sorry :) :) WhiteWriter speaks 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 20:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Kategorie bitte löschen! Falscher Name; alle Dateien in Kategorie "Street signs in Rhineland-Palatinate" verschoben! ANKAWÜ (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cancelled request. --Foroa (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gut so, der LA war mein Fehler ... Gruß vom
-- ANKAWÜ (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gut so, der LA war mein Fehler ... Gruß vom
Kept, request created in error. --rimshottalk 00:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Kategorie bitte löschen! Falscher Name! Alle Dateien wurden in die Kategorie "Street signs in Rhineland-Palatinate" verschoben! ANKAWÜ (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 20:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, das wußte ich nicht, dass es schon eine Kategorie dafür gibt. Hätte man mir ruhig persönlich mitteilen können. --Saviour1981 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
empty category Auntof6 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw -- category no longer empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
empty category Auntof6 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 23:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
empty category Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw CFD, category is no longer empty --Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
empty category, duplicates category "Harewood, Yorkshire" Auntof6 (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty Category Kiran Gopi (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category, and it duplicates category "Sowood, West Yorkshire". Auntof6 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, as per nom. --rimshottalk 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Category is redundant to Category:Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wasn't this really just swiped from Wikipedia without correcting the category? Because I see that with a lot of commons transfers. ----DanTD (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- you have done the right thing --El. (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 21:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
because knowledge shouldnt be hidden 66.87.7.143 03:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ehm, yes - sure. Those are not "knowledge" categories. They are used for maintenance. Could you please explain that a bit more? --Saibo (Δ) 04:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done, no follow-up after several weeks. --rimshottalk 09:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty and poorly capitalised. One file exists that could reasonably belong in this category, but the lack of capitalisation means that this should be renamed or that it should be deleted because there's only one known file that belongs here. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. Besides, there is only one image of money of Kerala, which makes it somewhat pointless to create a sub-category for coins. --rimshottalk 21:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
empty, duplicates category "Square Chapel". I didn't realize there was already a category when I created this one Auntof6 (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please insert {{Badname|Goodname}} for such simple cases. --Foroa (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you told me that before and I didn't remember. I'll make a note on my user page to help me remember. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 21:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Should be named Category:Matheus. 141.3.192.51 17:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was looking for a page for requests for moving categories, but did not find the place on Commons. Indeed I misspelled the category. It should be Category:Matheus. After moving Category:Mateus should be deleted. --Gereon K. (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just saw that the category is already deleted and now can be found und Category:Matheus Leite Nascimento. All is well. --Gereon K. (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 00:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This name is somewhat ambiguous. I suggest we rename it Category:Image file formats. - dcljr (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it's a technically better name. For example, an uncompressed TGA or PNG contains image data in a bitmap format. Bitplane (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the {{Category for discussion}} template from the category. I hope that's okay... - dcljr (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it's a technically better name. For example, an uncompressed TGA or PNG contains image data in a bitmap format. Bitplane (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Image file formats. --rimshottalk 21:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
IF its ever used, it should be renamed "Flags with three stripes" Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Flags with three stripes. --rimshottalk 09:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Accidental, real cat is Bank of Montreal branches in Quebec. Nick Moreau (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 21:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
censorshipfilter. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nsfw. Discussion should take place there for now... Saibo (Δ) 20:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - it's nice to know the creator's userpage is unsafe to look at, I will avoid doing so. I personally think a category NSFW would have rather a reverse effect though. Anyway, no point in such a category, if you want to filter content, install filtering software on your pc. Mattbuck 21:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Please move to Category:Scylla AG, company renamed. Watch Skylla (Reederei) in de. WP [1] Biberbaer (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thx, --Biberbaer (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Redirected, as the old name was once valid. --rimshottalk 21:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete! this Category is unnecessary - it`an double from Category:Images uploaded by Geolina163 - redundant. 1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 23:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Done per author request. --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name. --rimshottalk 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No purpose for this category, QI always QI. Delete unused category. Tony Wills (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, unused. --rimshottalk 00:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. No viable images on Commons GrapedApe (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 00:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This is nothing but a magnet for copyvios. Bugs Bunny is copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Right now, there's pictures of non-copyrighted parts of Bugs Bunny films in the category. We could also have photos of Bugs Bunny statues or what not in FOP parts of the world--we've generally kept such things, though that's debatable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the character is copyrighted, it doesn't matter if the film itself is not. Same if the film used copyrighted music, even if the film became PD, the music doesn't, these are separate copyrights. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I understand now, that film copyrights are limited to images only and do not extend to the characters, compositions, or stories contained therein, unless such elements are original to their respective films. I have filled this category with an extensive supply of title cards from shorts throughout Bugs Bunny's filmography, all of which are composed entirely of elements that qualify as "common property, without original authorship." Also, regarding an image of the rabbit as he appeared in Falling Hare (one of the few shorts of his that have fallen into the public domain) which had been deleted from Commons before, I have added that image to a list of files that should be undeleted in 2036, as Bugs was created in 1940, and will remain under copyright until the copyright on his debut film A Wild Hare expires in 2035.
- And with that, the category no longer appears to be a "magnet for copyvios", as there are more images now that don't depict the copyrighted character than images that do. — Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), 04:33, Saturday, March 10, 2012 (UTC).
- If the character is copyrighted, it doesn't matter if the film itself is not. Same if the film used copyrighted music, even if the film became PD, the music doesn't, these are separate copyrights. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. The copyrighted character only appears in less than one-third of all total images that are presently in this category. -- SethAllen623 (talk) 16:30, Friday, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
empty category Willemnabuurs (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Statues of Saint Martin of Tours .... --rimshottalk 19:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
empty category Willemnabuurs (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Statues of Saint Martin of Tours .... --rimshottalk 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
empty category Willemnabuurs (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Statues of Saint Martin of Tours .... --rimshottalk 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
We should either move this to Category:Images by country or merge it into Category:Countries. - dcljr (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally and pick one of the options mentioned above. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Images by country, certainly not Category:Countries. Category:Photographs by country might be a more uniform choice provided that the images go to "photographs of New Jersey" . --Foroa (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Except not all images related to a country are photographs of (things in) the country — e.g., flags, maps, coats of arms, presidential seals, military insignia, graphs of population growth, etc. In any case, you've already moved it to Category:Images by country, which is fine by me. - dcljr (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The category has been moved to Category:Images by country (not by me). - dcljr (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Except not all images related to a country are photographs of (things in) the country — e.g., flags, maps, coats of arms, presidential seals, military insignia, graphs of population growth, etc. In any case, you've already moved it to Category:Images by country, which is fine by me. - dcljr (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Images by country, certainly not Category:Countries. Category:Photographs by country might be a more uniform choice provided that the images go to "photographs of New Jersey" . --Foroa (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Images by country. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshottalk 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
We should merge this into Category:Image file formats. - dcljr (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Images by format. Not the same as file formats. --Foroa (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The current contents are the subcats:
- Category:Image file formats, which is related to file formats
- Category:Imaging, which is an extremely ambiguous term (and therefore almost useless, unless clarified with some kind of qualifier)
- Category:Vector images, which is related to file formats (only certain file formats can be used with vector images)
- This illustrates one problem with nominating certain specific categories for discussion: there are always related categories that would need to be changed to be consistent/compatible with the suggested changes. I submit that "format" is too ambiguous a term when applied to images. If we keep Category:Vector images, it would seem we'd need to create Category:Raster images to complement it. I'm not sure where those two should go (as subcats), other than just Category:Images (what is now called Category:Pictures and images). - dcljr (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have emptied this category and re-nominated it for deletion. See that nom for more information. - dcljr (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The current contents are the subcats:
- Images by format. Not the same as file formats. --Foroa (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Image file formats. --rimshottalk 22:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Either move to Category:Images by language or merge into Category:Languages. - dcljr (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally and pick one of the options mentioned above. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Category has been redirected to Category:Images by language (not by me). - dcljr (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Images by language. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshottalk 22:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Should probably be moved to Category:Images by size (see also next CFD entry). - dcljr (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- By resolution is more accurate. Size depends too much on the format (tiff, png, ...) --Foroa (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Images by resolution. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshottalk 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Should be split into Category:Images by size (see also previous CFD entry) and Category:Image file formats. - dcljr (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Form has nothing to do with size or format. --Foroa (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see what the word "form" even means in this context, given the contents of the category. It is too ambiguous a term. dcljr (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Category doesn't make sense. It's subcategories are sorted by size (large, small), resolution (1280x960), aspect ratio (widescreen), shape (round), and function (wallpaper). Not needed. Rocket000 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see what the word "form" even means in this context, given the contents of the category. It is too ambiguous a term. dcljr (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Form has nothing to do with size or format. --Foroa (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Images by technical criteria. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshottalk 22:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Suggest move to Category:Images by source. - dcljr (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking on unilateral action Category:Pictures and images by source is in the process of being moved to Category:Images by source despite this ongoing discussion. I don't see where that was discussed. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Images by source. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshottalk 22:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Suggest move to Category:Images by usage. - dcljr (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since no discussion has happened on this item, and most of the other similar suggested renames have been done already, I'm going ahead and making the change I suggested. Moving items to new cat Category:Images by usage and leaving cat redirect at old cat. - dcljr (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Images by usage. CFD for main category still pending. --rimshottalk 22:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
empty category Ray Garraty (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Hiking in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. --rimshottalk 22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
erroneously created. can be deleted Willemnabuurs (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 20:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
to delete GFreihalter (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 20:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:"Apparition_of_the_Spider_Princess"(芳年漫画_天延四年秋妖怪土蜘蛛脳源頼光寝所酒田公時等宿直欲払其妖図),_by_Tsukioka_Yoshitoshi
[edit]Superfluous "芳年漫画 天延四年秋妖怪土蜘蛛脳源頼光寝所酒田公時等宿直欲払其妖図" appendix for this category. Commons category names must be in englsh; the rest should be explaned in the category description and not in the category lemma 80.187.96.24 00:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- don't care that much, but it's bad form NOT to have category topics searchable in the source-language(s) for those topic(s). (it's also bad form not to have the whole category tree & search system fully inter-lingual, but that's too much of a "miracle" to hope for anytime soon... ) Lx 121 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- (also: why the "anonymous" ip siggy (with no previous history attached) from someone who is obviously an experienced editor @ wmc? o__0) Lx 121 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with anon (who was perhaps unknowingly logged off?). By placing the "source-language" text in a description on the page itself, people can still search for, and find, the category using the "source" writing system: our search function is "fulltext" by default. (As for browsing for such items, see the somewhat related discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02/Category:Բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի հայոց գրեր.) - dcljr (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No need for a translation in category names. Write a suitable description in the category as required in COM:CAT if you want to. For the rest Commons:Language policy applies. --High Contrast (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Contains only COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates violations. 84.61.139.62 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- deleted by User:Fastily. --JuTa 19:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Empty, was probably meant to be Category:IIT Ropar. Muhandes (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:IIT Ropar. --rimshottalk 20:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
empty category Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, not empty. --rimshottalk 20:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Contains only COM:FOP#Italy violations. 84.61.139.62 16:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. --84.61.167.13 15:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Contains only COM:FOP#France violations. 84.61.139.62 15:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
kept shouldn't it be CfD ? However cat is in use and files were kept. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This category is in violation with the NPOV policy of Wikimedia. It's only there to discriminate content based on personal value judgement (what is nudity?) and serves no purpose other then hiding content from reusers due to personal sensitivities. ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is no 'NPOV policy of Wikimedia.' There is an NPOV policy on ENWP that deals with content and categorization, but this is not ENWP. COM:NPOV says nothing about categorization, and specifies that images themselves need not be neutral. This category is however important to follow wmf:Resolution:Controversial_content, which unlike ENWP's NPOV policy is a project wide mandate. It's incorrect to say that this categorization 'hides content from reusers.' It doesn't hide anything, it places it in an appropriate subcategory where anyone who wants to see nude images can look. This category is the 4th thing from the top on the general category page. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also note that you aren't complaining about any of the other subcategories of 'Girls in anime and manga,' including cat:Wikipe-tan, which, by your standard, is 'hiding' more than 260 images. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because it says nothing about categorization and Commons is essentially a library and it makes sense to apply the same rules as libraries do. You said that COM:NPOV does not mention categories. The Resolution does not mention categories either.
- Mentioning the Wikipe-tan category has nothing todo with this. Wikipe-tan is a fixed term and the amount of images would flood the higher category. It was created to aid the viewer and not to hide content from the eyes of the viewer, as done with this kind of constructed category. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's hard to take the rest of your reply seriously when you didn't bother to read the thing you're talking about. The resolution explicitly mentions commons categorization. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also note that you aren't complaining about any of the other subcategories of 'Girls in anime and manga,' including cat:Wikipe-tan, which, by your standard, is 'hiding' more than 260 images. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Suggest rename. The use of the word "nudity" would (tend to) cover both "fully" and "partially" nude characters. Also, since the vast majority of female anime characters are in fact (supposed to be) girls rather than women, suggest something like Category:Female nudity in anime and manga. - dcljr (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd see no problem with such a renaming. In creating the category, I just used the naming scheme that someone else (I forget who at this point) had recently been creating a lot of categories with. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept - consensus appears to be that this is the better option. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Vague name; unclear what "custom made" is supposed to mean. --Trivialist (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, purpose of category not clear. --rimshottalk 21:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Oval-shaped heraldic shields, can be deleted!? Perhelion (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, bad capitalization, duplicate. --rimshottalk 06:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Why should “videos of male masturbation” be categorized by time?? Why would somebody want to find such a video from a specific year?? Mormegil (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Create an additional categorization by quality.
- Create a gallery page.
- Create a categorization by technology.
- Create a categorization by another, additional helpful method.
Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Content moved to Category:Videos of male masturbation by decade. -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, as per discussion. --rimshottalk 20:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
redundant to, and should be integrated into, Category:Broadcasting Cqdx (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your thinking, but in Commons Category:Broadcasting (Radio telecommunications\Broadcasting) contains many audio radio pictures and Category:Radio broadcasting (Radio telecommunications\Broadcasting\Radio\Radio broadcasting) contained TV pictures, and many pictures in these categories contain both audio and video, therefore there is no category "television broadcasting". The mixture of radio (wireless) and radio (audio) is confusing. Category:Broadcasting is already in a radio category. --Cqdx (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Although I think this category should stay (at least with some name), I do agree with some of your points:
- First, having "Category:Radio" under "Category:Broadcasting" is a bit odd; other forms of "radio" are common enough that there is non-broadcast communication the general public still calls "radio" in daily life, such as walkie-talkies. I don't have a good answer for what order things should be in there, except that somehow Category:Radio broadcasting is a cultural use of radio signals, that should somehow be under both a radio communications category and a broadcasting category.
- And you're right that some other categories contain an odd selection of files: I noticed that people (or at least the automatic categorization suggestion bots) tend to dump everything into Category:Radio instead of subcategories; I think that's more from not knowing what other kind of radio there could be. They should be "drilled down" into their correct categories.
- And I noticed that there is Category:Television and not Category:Television broadcasting. I assume that's because the main use of the word "television" is broadcasting (assuming one counts cable TV and multi-channel satellite as broadcasting). There are also amateur television (see Category:Slow scan television on Commons) and Closed-circuit television for example. Other than CCTV, I can't think of any video service called "television" that is not broadcast, though. --Closeapple (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Although I think this category should stay (at least with some name), I do agree with some of your points:
- Strong
- Delete. As outlined in the request, television is broadcasted over radio waves, and the category Broadcasting contains both audio and TV, because studio technology is identical, except for the addition of a camera. --DL1FL (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- As someone who has worked in both radio and television, I can say that the statement that "studio technology is identical, except for the addition of a camera" is simply false. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
empty category Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am under the impression that it should be Brackenhill according to OS grid reference SE4216. On the other hand, it looks as if there are 3 or 4 Brackenhill in the UK, + Bracken Hill + Brackenhills. Good luck to untangle that. --Foroa (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Brackenhill. --rimshottalk 23:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
That category is not really useful, besides: is there a prove that those automobiles actually were on holiday in Italy, cause until now I have seen a lot of automobiles that were used to get to your holidays and drive around with them, but I've never seen an automobile that was on holiday.--FAEP (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Emptied and deleted. --Foroa (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was invited to participate in this discussion but the page was deleted before I could write something--Pava (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, no reason given for restoring it in almost a year. --rimshottalk 23:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Good news for some people who might have thought that there car had been stolen. You can relax, it's just on holiday! --FAEP (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was invited to participate in this discussion but the page was deleted before I could write something--Pava (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, no reason given for restoring it in almost a year. --rimshottalk 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There are several categories having names starting with "Pictures and images" (not counting redirected cats and one user cat):
- Category:Pictures and images
- Category:Pictures and images by country
- Category:Pictures and images by format
- Category:Pictures and images by language
- Category:Pictures and images by resolution
- Category:Pictures and images by size or form
- Category:Pictures and images by source
- Category:Pictures and images by topic
- Category:Pictures and images by usage
- Category:Pictures and images with text
If I were to guess, I would say "pictures" was intended to refer to photographs (and scans, etc.) and "images" to computer-created drawings and illustrations, but the terms are at best ambiguous and at worst redundant. I suggest we rename or merge these categories, as appropriate. (See separate nominations below.)
In particular, for Category:Pictures and images I suggest renaming it Category:Images (which is actually a soft redirect to Category:Pictures and images). Note that the category is only really required as a subcat of Category:Media types. - dcljr (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally (as described above). - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thats not fair warning let the discussions take their course now you've started them someone independent will close these when there is consensus then you can do what ever the discussion resolves Gnangarra 07:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, two weeks is the typical time for disucssions, according to CFD guidelines. If no one has commented in that time, there's no discussion to "close". Yes, someone will eventually close it, but nothing will have been decided. In such a case, I think it's not unreasonable for the original nominator to take whatever actions they think are best. OTOH, obviously if a discussion has taken place and no consensus is reached, then the original nominator should not act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thats not fair warning let the discussions take their course now you've started them someone independent will close these when there is consensus then you can do what ever the discussion resolves Gnangarra 07:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Picture" and "image" are near-synonyms.[2][3] Rename/move "Pictures and images" to "images" in the instances above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problems with me. I did already quite some cleanup and renaming. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Redunant and unnecessary if it to stay really some definitions about the structure first, drill down one level on Category:Pictures and images by country and you only get Category:Image sources by country seams to me that the purpose isnt clear I expected to see Category:Pictures and Images of Australia etc. before moving stuff around and changing things what is the intended structure and purpose is there some other format that covers this say like Category:Countries and as such making picture and images by country totally redundant as its a duplicate of what already exists. Gnangarra 07:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I hadn't looked at that, that is another mess to clean up :-). Also going the other direction "Media with locations" doesn't belong to "Media types" --Tony Wills (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I removed "Media with locations" from "Media types" as geocoded location information has nothing to do with the "type" of media, it's just information about the location of the camera taking the photo. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I hadn't looked at that, that is another mess to clean up :-). Also going the other direction "Media with locations" doesn't belong to "Media types" --Tony Wills (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see no advantage to renaming it "images", "images" is a far more ambiguous term that covers a myriad of things (eg some PDFs are just scanned images of pages, films (movies) are just "moving images"). "Pictures" is actually just a qualification to "images" (to help people guess what goes in there ;-).
- But going back a step, what is the category for, well it is just to distinguish different media types (the word media can if course be taken to mean a lot of things!), but here we have seperate branches for images of texts (pdf djvu), "Timed Text" (slide shows of images with annotations?), animated images (generally strung together drawn images, but sometimes strung together photographic images*), and movies/videos (strung together photographic images). "Images" isn't really a distinguishing name, it really encompases all these types, and is really meaningless as a subcategory of media types. What distinguishes media in this category is that they are "static", "individual" images. We could call it "Static images" which is fairly specific, but perhaps not obvious. Perhaps "Photographs and illustrations" would be the least ambiguous (although a little long) but then it may be thought that "photographs" means images of physical photographs.
- On balance I think it is hardly worth changing (it will confuse as much as it helps, and will no doubt be renamed again by the next Commons generation who find it ambiguous :-). I would tend towards something like "Static images" (if we are happy to ignore the fact that pdfs are fairly static, and that if anybody asks I would have to say that a "static image" is well, ... just a "picture" :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- PS how about "Pictures and illustrations" ?) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason for a three word title. Possibilities (all from an American English POV)
- Images -- most generic, includes all files that do not have an audio component. Is our generic word for such things. This would be my choice to replace "pictures and images" as all the rest are subsets.
- Pictures -- ambiguous, some readers will see it as narrowly as "landscapes and portraits", others will read it to include only paintings and drawings. Most readers will think it does not include PDFs of text.
- Photographs -- very ambiguous. Many readers will question whether a photograph of a painting belongs here. Or, for that matter, a photograph of any work of art. Does a scan of a photograph in a book belong here? All of these are reasons that we rarely use the term in discussions on Commons.
- Illustrations -- more or less synonymous with "pictures" -- a picture is an illustration if it is used to illustrate something, but not if it is simply a thing of beauty. Thus a Monet might be an illustration in an article titled "Works of Monet", but not if it were in a gallery "Beautiful Landscapes".
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have seen all sorts of combinations of category names combining the words images, pictures, drawings, illustrations, ... and none of them was ever satisfactory.
- We have on only 8 Pictures and images categories, thousands of "images of/by/from " categories.
- "image:" was the way of designating a file on Commons till a couple of years ago. It still works: Image:Crystal Project image file.png and it will take another ten years or so before all the image:references are updated from all files and docs.
- So, I think that we should consider a specific word to designate a file: or electronic medium, but in the mean time, we can go ahead to uniformise the thing, mainly as proposed. --Foroa (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note that this category is linked to from the Main Page, where the three main media types are listed as "Images", "Sounds", and "Videos". So it seems clear that we need some main category for files that aren't sound or video, regardless of what we call it (so, no simple deletion option here). I agree with Foroa that "images" is a common enough name for it. And presumably whoever was involved in putting the "Images" link on the homepage would agree. (Consider also: Google Images, Bing Images, Yahoo! Image search, Getty Images, NASA Images, etc. — "everyone knows" what the word "images" refers to in these contexts, so why should it be so ambiguous here at Commons?) Whatever is decided here (if anything), we probably need a more general Village Pump discussion about the uppermost levels of the category hierarchy, and what types of cats we want there with what names... - dcljr (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Images and subcategories. --rimshottalk 23:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be redundant with Category:Topics, so merge into that. - dcljr (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)
- Despite the request on the CfD banner to not do so, I see that Foroa has already pre-empted the result and started depopulating this category already. Consensus? Admins have heard of it... Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- What result? What consensus? No one has given any opinions on any of the "pictures and images" nominations I have made here. Not even you. [g] - dcljr (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any (substantive) comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally (as described above). - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Need be emptied and connected to their topic. Basically, all categories contain mainly images, no need for a redundant images by topic. --Foroa (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Andy, this is not a matter of consensus, just pure logic that we should avoid redundant category trees: all cats are by topic anyway. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Images and subcategories. --rimshottalk 23:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Suggest move to Category:Images containing text. - dcljr (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — (See also CFD entry for Category:Pictures and images.)
- Fair warning, if no one has made any comments on this by March 6th, I'm just going to act unilaterally. - dcljr (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since no discussion has happened on this item, and most of the other similar suggested renames have been done already, I'm going ahead and making the change I suggested. Moving items to new cat Category:Images containing text and leaving cat redirect at old cat. I believe a bot will be along shortly to move the individual images? If it hasn't done (a significant portion of) that in the next day or so, I'll be back to manually recat the images myself. - dcljr (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see this needs to be requested by an administrator (see note at bottom of cat-redirect warning box in the old cat). I'll wait a bit, in case others are still watching this (non-) "discussion", then I'll make the request myself at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. - dcljr (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- The files have the new category now, but I would suggest to keep Category:Pictures and images with text for images with a text description on the side or below, like this or this one. To do this, the redirect has to be removed. Perhaps there should also be a subcategory for pictures with text only like here?--Funfood ␌ 23:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Having both of these categories would be too confusing because of the similarity in names (not to mention the problem that this nomination was supposed to be addressing in the first place, that "Pictures and images" is redundant). Note that Category:Images with captions currently redirects to Category:Images with watermarks; perhaps that category could be "resurrected" for cases such as the ones you pointed to (since captions and other marginal text aren't really the same thing as watermarks). Or maybe some other, more descriptive category title could be thought up. Category:Images containing text in the margins? As pointed out in the "watermarks" category, removal of such identifying text from images is encouraged (the info can go on the respective File: pages instead), so even if you do put images like the ones you linked to into some category, it would only be to collect images that need editing to remove the text, right? - dcljr (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't notice the caption-category yet - I think this would be exactly the right thing without the redirect. I am not really going with the policy to remove captions from images, I think that the combination of "image with caption" has kind of a historical character, so they should be kept for documentation purpose.--Funfood ␌ 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looking through the images currently at Category:Images containing text, I'm not sure I could reliably separate images into a separate "captions" (or whatever) subcategory. That's not to say I think it shouldn't be done, just that I don't think I would be interested in doing that myself. I do wish we could get more opinions from others about this, but since this nomination is now almost 6 weeks old, and no one else has commented here until you did 2 days ago, it seems unlikely that anyone else will notice this. You should probably just nominate Category:Images with captions for discussion and explain what you want to do. (Note the "Nominate category for discussion" link on category page.) - dcljr (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't notice the caption-category yet - I think this would be exactly the right thing without the redirect. I am not really going with the policy to remove captions from images, I think that the combination of "image with caption" has kind of a historical character, so they should be kept for documentation purpose.--Funfood ␌ 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Having both of these categories would be too confusing because of the similarity in names (not to mention the problem that this nomination was supposed to be addressing in the first place, that "Pictures and images" is redundant). Note that Category:Images with captions currently redirects to Category:Images with watermarks; perhaps that category could be "resurrected" for cases such as the ones you pointed to (since captions and other marginal text aren't really the same thing as watermarks). Or maybe some other, more descriptive category title could be thought up. Category:Images containing text in the margins? As pointed out in the "watermarks" category, removal of such identifying text from images is encouraged (the info can go on the respective File: pages instead), so even if you do put images like the ones you linked to into some category, it would only be to collect images that need editing to remove the text, right? - dcljr (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The files have the new category now, but I would suggest to keep Category:Pictures and images with text for images with a text description on the side or below, like this or this one. To do this, the redirect has to be removed. Perhaps there should also be a subcategory for pictures with text only like here?--Funfood ␌ 23:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see this needs to be requested by an administrator (see note at bottom of cat-redirect warning box in the old cat). I'll wait a bit, in case others are still watching this (non-) "discussion", then I'll make the request myself at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. - dcljr (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since no discussion has happened on this item, and most of the other similar suggested renames have been done already, I'm going ahead and making the change I suggested. Moving items to new cat Category:Images containing text and leaving cat redirect at old cat. I believe a bot will be along shortly to move the individual images? If it hasn't done (a significant portion of) that in the next day or so, I'll be back to manually recat the images myself. - dcljr (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Images and subcategories. --rimshottalk 23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This Category seems to fail that Commons:Category scheme People. It seems extremely silly to me to have Categories used by only one image. Are we supposed to have Categories for every single person who has a photo on commons? Nephi Anderson died in 1923, so additional images of him seem highly unlikely, but if they ever do appear, then the Category can be recreated. However, until that time I think this Category should be deleted and the image moved into the appropriate categories. ----ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- At first blush, single image cats don't make a lot of sense. I think, though, that when the person is in many categories that have a large number of images, that having a subcat rather than as an image in each of them might be a good thing. Even given that, I would not have created this cat, but given that we already had it, and that deletion does not actually delete it, it seemed better to keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- One has a much better overview of many elements in a category if they are sorted and alphabetical. Most single picture categories get expanded, so once the first categorisation is right, all the new pictures inherit that. Try for example to find a picture of a specific person (for example Te'o) in Category:Immigrants to the United States. --Foroa (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have created the category, but it now has Authority Control--an indication of some notability. Google scholar yields over 60 hits and Google Images appears to have at least 5-10 relevant images; no idea whether they licensed appropriately. Once it's created, I wouldn't push for deletion; there's too much chance that another picture will be added. If Foroa's right, leaving this alone will save doubled work.
SBaker43 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have created the category, but it now has Authority Control--an indication of some notability. Google scholar yields over 60 hits and Google Images appears to have at least 5-10 relevant images; no idea whether they licensed appropriately. Once it's created, I wouldn't push for deletion; there's too much chance that another picture will be added. If Foroa's right, leaving this alone will save doubled work.
- One has a much better overview of many elements in a category if they are sorted and alphabetical. Most single picture categories get expanded, so once the first categorisation is right, all the new pictures inherit that. Try for example to find a picture of a specific person (for example Te'o) in Category:Immigrants to the United States. --Foroa (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept as per Foroa. --rimshottalk 23:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Empty category, should be deleted Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, not empty. --rimshottalk 23:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Transfer to Category:Geert Groote Geert Grote ist misspelling] 1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 23:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so: in his country, it is nl:Geert Grote. --Foroa (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Both spellings are in use. It seems best to keep the one that corresponds with the title of the Dutch Wikipedia article, as Foroa suggests. Apdency (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept, as per Foroa. --rimshottalk 23:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
category is empty and duplicates category "Yates's Wine Lodge, Bar Lane, Leeds" Auntof6 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not a duplicate, Yates's is a chain, the one mentioned is a branch. Please research these things before deleting. Shall recreate. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me! The only entry was the one for Leeds, so I don't see the need for the more-general category anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just because they may not be yet, it is likely there will be soon. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept, as predicted there are now subcategories. --rimshottalk 22:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
empty category Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw request, category is no longer empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, not empty. --rimshottalk 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This category brings together documents that refer to chemtrails. It does not present evidence for their (dubious) existence. I propose that the category be renamed to "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" just like the Wikipedia page. Moreover, I believe that sky pictures which identify trails as chemtrails should either be sourced ("that person on that external website says these are chemtrails") or be categorized merely as contrails. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Found this link to House of Commons discussion about geoengineering which mentions aerosol techniques from aircraft. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22102.htm
Conclusion: Redirecting to Category:Chemtrail conspiracy theory Ariadacapo (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Neither France nor the United States have FOP for memorials. 84.61.139.62 20:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with above article, BUT we must define what is copyrightable. A stone or a plate/slab or a column with the names of the deads or the name of a battle, is surely not copyrightable as being not a work of art. Don't be more royalist than the King.--FLLL (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
+1 with FLLL. Plus, if it was really a FOP problem, a RfD would have been more appropriate. Could we close this discussion now ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept as per discussion. Nominate individual files for deletion as necessary. The category as a whole does not need to be deleted. --rimshottalk 22:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Category not useful. Can include everything, from jewelry to handguns. Cqdx (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC) ...and there is already Category:Handheld devices for portable electronics equipment. --Cqdx (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Portable equipment or devices might be a better name indeed. --Foroa (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- My same reasoning also applies to "portable equipment, devices, stuff, things, matters, etc." It all sounds like a huge and useless super-category. --Cqdx (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
...and it is in the eye of the beholder whether this oven is "portable". --Cqdx (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there are portable houses and buildings too. With your narrow categorisation logic, one can as well delete the majority of the categories in Objects by animal shape, Objects by association, Objects by bird shape, Objects by color, Objects by condition, Objects by country, Objects by era, Objects by function, Objects by location, Objects by material, Objects by name, Objects by origin, Objects by shape, Objects by type ... Proper hierarchical categorisation about one line of thinking is a basic need but Commons is a server that needs to help finding items, so you might find many surprising categories, such as Category:Number Shape System. --Foroa (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- It gets slightly off topic. The category "portable objects" is under "objects by function" - I doubt it is a function to be portable. Rather a side attribute. --Cqdx (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've found this class very helpful, but I think it should just be a meta-category, or should only contain subcategories. I found it extremely useful to categorize this other category: Category:Portable Typewriters, which in turn contains Category:Olivetti Valentine --Pava (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- It gets slightly off topic. The category "portable objects" is under "objects by function" - I doubt it is a function to be portable. Rather a side attribute. --Cqdx (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there are portable houses and buildings too. With your narrow categorisation logic, one can as well delete the majority of the categories in Objects by animal shape, Objects by association, Objects by bird shape, Objects by color, Objects by condition, Objects by country, Objects by era, Objects by function, Objects by location, Objects by material, Objects by name, Objects by origin, Objects by shape, Objects by type ... Proper hierarchical categorisation about one line of thinking is a basic need but Commons is a server that needs to help finding items, so you might find many surprising categories, such as Category:Number Shape System. --Foroa (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, useful as per Foroa and Pava. --rimshottalk 11:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The normal language on Commons is English - so this category should be translated into the English language as well 80.187.97.78 18:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The syntax can be translated but the proper local names of the bridge and the city shouldn't be translated. --ŠJů (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Przemysł I bridge in Poznań as per nom. The redirect should be kept for the benefit of Polish-speaking users. --rimshottalk 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Already exist under name Streets in Đakovica WhiteWriter speaks 14:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I dont agree, but you know that. it was named Gjakova on commons before you started to rename everything. I am going to stop you from this mr WhiteWriter.
Mdupont (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted 2 years ago. INeverCry 01:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Already exist, under name Category:Streets in Đakovica WhiteWriter speaks 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please go away
I dont agree with this, why are you inviting me to a discussion again. you whitewater have personally hounded and attacked me so many times that I give up on bothering with the wikipedia. please go bother someone else, I refuse to waste any more time on you.
Mdupont (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- ???? What are you talking about? This was automated message, i didnt invite you anywhere. Could not care less. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This just shows that you dont care what damage you do. You dont care what the people who live in gjakova think a:bout this. I am going to stop you from your renaming everything to serbian. You are your wikihounding have driven me from wikipedia, i just want you to know that.
Mdupont (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted 2 years ago. INeverCry 01:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
(JackLee gave me a message (User talk:Via null). I agree.)
The following categories were subcategories of People of Singapore (Singaporeans by descent or ethnicity), I nominated for speedy deletion. Each of bottom categories had few files or categories of Individuals. I think "People of nationality, descent, and gender" is overcategorization or hard to access the media.
- Cantonese
- Chinese
- Eurasian
- Hainan
- Hokkien
- Indian
- Javanese
- Malay
- Peranakan
- Sihalese
- Tamil
- White
- Multiracial
Now, I should have kept (Esnicity) Singaporeans and make 〜 people or People of 〜 descent. But... If there is a photo of Japanese Singaporean, it should be put in "Men/Women" of Singapore" and "People of Japanese descent". I would like to know correct and better way. --Via null (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that you have to discuss this with people concerned of for example Category:Ethnic groups in the United States and its subcats (Orrling, skeezix ?). Anyway, emptying categories and speeedying them by stating they have little contents is not the way to proceed. --Foroa (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment:
- Via null, at the moment you haven't explained why you consider the above category scheme to be "overcategorization".
- Also, I do not see how lumping large numbers of files in a category such as "Category:Chinese Singaporeans" makes such files easier to access. Note that over at the English Wikipedia the following categories exist: "Category:Singaporean people of Cantonese descent", "Singaporean people of Hakka descent", "Singaporean people of Hokkien descent", and so on. (I have no objection if you wish to rename the above Commons categories to make them the same as those used at the English Wikipedia. However, as such a move would involve similar categories relating to other countries, we will need to have a broader discussion somewhere else.)
- Is there any consensus to eliminate categories that categorize people of a certain country by gender? If so, I'd like to see where this issue was discussed.
- I do not see any good reason for deleting categories such as "Category:Eurasian Singaporeans", "Category:Multiracial Singaporeans", "Category:Peranakan Singaporeans" and "Category:White Singaporeans" (and their subcategories). If these categories are deleted, then how are Eurasian, multiracial, Peranakan and white Singaporeans to be categorized by ethnicity?
- — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Closing dead discussion, anyone can recreate the categories if they think they are needed. --ghouston (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The term "Polish Trinity" is not used anywhere in the verifiable sources. It seems to be just a derogatory term used for the purposes of the interwar period propaganda. See the only picture located in that category. --Darwinek (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, the one single file of this dubiously named category is categorized properly, so the cat can get deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Cleared, category deleted by User:Taivo. --Achim (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to "Signatures of painters" to harmonize the name with other categories also containing signatures rather than autographs (as in documents transcribed entirely in the handwriting of its author). Bensin (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Autographs, monograms and signatures of artists are not necessarily the same thing. --Foroa (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly! And since this category consists of approximately 90% signatures it will be easier to properly rename it and then manually re-categorize the autographs and monograms. --Bensin (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Category should be renames "signatures". Autographs to me are pen or pencil on paper, not painted signatures.Wmpearl (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with "Signatures of painters": to harmonize with this. Category:Autographs of monarchs too. --Micione (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
No strong opposition in nearly four years. Both parent category and child category are "signature" rather than autograph. I'm moving the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Category is now empty -- all entries moved to category "Blacksmith's tools" Auntof6 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The name "Blacksmith's tools" might be better English than "Blacksmithing tools". If that is the case here, then I've no objections what so ever. (English is a foreign for me, so I think I stole the name from the "Bookbinding tools", if I remember correctly.) --Elgewen (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a reason that this wasn't changed to a redirect -- which would have preserved its contribution history -- rather than being deleted? Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Restore deleted category -- Question: Are blacksmith's the only people who use blacksmithing tools? Answer: No. Other professions use these tools. Farriers, the individuals who specialize in shoeing horses use blacksmithing tools, without necessarily being blacksmiths. Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- As the originator of this discussion, I'd like to state for the record that I found these duplicate categories and moved everything to the category that had more entries than the other. I thought I'd be saving someone else the work, but maybe I should have let it be discussed first. I don't really care which survives, I just don't think both are needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Category restored as redirect. Auntof6, you did right by merging a more recent little populated cat into the larger older one; the evil is two categories that coexist with a different name. When a rename is needed, a CFD or appropriate move request can be issued. Geo Swan, Category:Farrier's tools is a subcat of Category:Blacksmith's tools and has naming consistency. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did you look at the description at the top of Category:Farrier? I believe it correctly describes a farrier as having some of the skills of both a blacksmith and a veterinarian. They specialize in the care of horses hooves. Accordingly, a farrier's toolkit contains both blacksmithing tools and specialized tools for caring for horses' hooves -- tools that are not blacksmithing tools. So, no, farriers use blacksmithing tools without being blacksmiths, and the farrier's toolkit overlaps, not duplicates blacksmithing tools. Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Category restored as redirect. Auntof6, you did right by merging a more recent little populated cat into the larger older one; the evil is two categories that coexist with a different name. When a rename is needed, a CFD or appropriate move request can be issued. Geo Swan, Category:Farrier's tools is a subcat of Category:Blacksmith's tools and has naming consistency. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'am sorry for creating a redundant category. The categorization as it is now, looks fine to me - the Farrier tools as a subcat from Blackmith's tools. The farrier as a specialist making mainly horse shoes needs not all the tools of the more alround blacksmith's. It should be simple for the common uploader to decide in which category a gripper or hamer should be placed, the specialists wouldn't mind I think. --Elgewen (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- This comment ignores the point I made that a farrier's toolkit also includes veterinary tools. I repeat, this means the farrier's toolkit is not identical to a Blacksmithing toolkit, and is not a simple subset of a Blacksmithing toolkit. I regard this as an important point. Geo Swan (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Geo Swan. There wasn't any reply after my entry of February 2012, so I thought that the subject closed, I'm sorry that I lost interest in the subject.
Two lines in the English WP article farrier's are interesting I think:
- ' Historically, the jobs of farrier's and blacksmiths were practically synonymous, ... '
and
- ' Modern day farriers usually specialize in horseshoeing, focusing their time and effort on the care of the horse's hoof. For this reason, farriers and blacksmiths are considered to be in separate, albeit related, trades. '
Especially the second quote is in line with the respective lemmas in the Merian Webster and the Concise Oxford dictionaries, which means that you are absolutely right: the the tool kits of the blacksmith and the farrier have some tools in common but there are differences, no doubt. Please note that I had this in mind when I wrote in my previous entry 'the farrier as a specialist making mainly horse shoes needs not all the tools of the more all round blacksmith's.' I'm sorry that you thought that I ignored the point of the subsequent differences of there tool kits.
So, although the blacksmith and the farrier both forge iron, there toolkits are not identical.
An adequate description at the heading of an category is worth gold to avoid misunderstandings, I think. (sorry, forgot to undersign.) --Elgewen (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The category has been deleted for over three years. Category:Farrier's tools is a sub-category of Category:Blacksmith's tools. Can we close this, Elgewen or is there need for further discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, Themightyquill, I think we should close this discussion; but I suggest a redirect for the term "Blacksmithing tools" which is in use here and there. Happy 2016 --Elgewen (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Themightyquill --Elgewen (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- A redirect absolutely makes sense.
- A redirect absolutely makes sense.
Category has been moved to Category:Blacksmith's tools. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that it is useless to create megacategory for all drawing created using computer Bulwersator (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Today computers are a medium like any other, no more useless than categorising images as charcoal drawings, chalk, pastels or any of the other traditional mediums. If it becomes to unwieldy to be useful create subcats. Covering my bases here but if it is decided to be unnecessary there would be no great harm done in keeping and making hidden.--KTo288 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- This category and Category:Paintings by computer, and Category:Computer pictures are all very similar; all are subcats of Category:Computer art and their contents are almost indistinguishable from one another. I could also mention Category:Computer generated images, which consists mostly of subcats at the moment. All of these titles are somewhat ambiguous: all but "Computer pictures" (IMO) could "reasonably" be interpreted in two different ways: that the art was done (1) on a computer (the medium) by a human (the artist), or (2) by a computer (the artist) that was only programmed to do so by a human. (Granted, the distinction is not always a clear one.) Actually, I guess the fact that "computer" is not pluralized would tend to discourage interpretation #2. OTOH, "Computer pictures" could be interpreted as meaning pictures of computers. These should probably all be nominated together and a coherent naming system devised to reduce ambiguities. (There are other ambiguously or redundantly named cats related to computer graphics I haven't even mentioned.) I guess in this case, I would suggest a merge/redirect of the files in Category:Drawings by computer to (other appropriate subcats of) Category:Computer art. I would also recommend doing the same with Category:Paintings by computer and Category:Computer pictures, BTW. - dcljr (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- "by a computer (the artist) that was only programmed to do so by a human" - then it was still done by human (AFAIK a real AI is still uncertain future) Bulwersator (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- But you get my point that there is a distinction to be made there...? - dcljr (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- "by a computer (the artist) that was only programmed to do so by a human" - then it was still done by human (AFAIK a real AI is still uncertain future) Bulwersator (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- This category and Category:Paintings by computer, and Category:Computer pictures are all very similar; all are subcats of Category:Computer art and their contents are almost indistinguishable from one another. I could also mention Category:Computer generated images, which consists mostly of subcats at the moment. All of these titles are somewhat ambiguous: all but "Computer pictures" (IMO) could "reasonably" be interpreted in two different ways: that the art was done (1) on a computer (the medium) by a human (the artist), or (2) by a computer (the artist) that was only programmed to do so by a human. (Granted, the distinction is not always a clear one.) Actually, I guess the fact that "computer" is not pluralized would tend to discourage interpretation #2. OTOH, "Computer pictures" could be interpreted as meaning pictures of computers. These should probably all be nominated together and a coherent naming system devised to reduce ambiguities. (There are other ambiguously or redundantly named cats related to computer graphics I haven't even mentioned.) I guess in this case, I would suggest a merge/redirect of the files in Category:Drawings by computer to (other appropriate subcats of) Category:Computer art. I would also recommend doing the same with Category:Paintings by computer and Category:Computer pictures, BTW. - dcljr (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Should be called something like "Computer generated drawings" to distinguish it from "Digital drawings". --Pitke (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think dcljr is right - there is no clear difference between a "painting" and a "drawing" made with a computer, and Category:Computer pictures is meaningless. Merge to Category:Computer art for further sorting. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've tagged the following categories to encourage more discussion, and help clarify the difference between these categories, if there is any.
- Category:Digital art
- Category:Pixel art
- Category:Digital painting
- Category:Computer generated images
- Category:Computer art
- Category:Computer pictures
- Category:Paintings by computer
Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- +1
Support I agree with all. ↔ User: Perhelion 12:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- +1
- Computer pictures is vague, because it may mean pictures of computers, or pictures made with computers.
- Pixel art relates more to the 8-bit computer era;
- Many computer pictures can instead be categorised as Category:Digital paintings;
- Computer generated images are images programmatically (via script, etc) generated by a computer. Should probably renamed to Category:Computer-generated images for grammar and to avoid ambiguity;
- Computer art is a general category that encompasses all the other categories;
- Paintings by computer is closer to File:Calculadoraya.PNG, but the wording of that category is maybe confusing. Redlink User:Paulo Cesar-1 created that category containing a Portuguese translation, and separately created many other categories and uploaded a large amount of images that have been deleted. This lead me to infer that the user is not an advanced speaker of English, and the category should thus be renamed.
- Therefore, I propose:
- To rename Category:Paintings by computer to Category:Computer-aided drawings or Category:Digital drawings (shorter form). "Digital drawings" could contain Pixel art as a sub-category;
- Category:Digital painting could be renamed to plural and maybe given a redirect to or from Category:Computer-aided paintings.
- -Mardus /talk 11:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Mardus for response and your suggestions. This is far from my area expertise, but let me share some thoughts:
- I agree with you that "Computer pictures" should go, as it's rather meaningless.
- As for Category:Pixel art, I'm okay with a category for 8-bit digital art, but it should be called such. After all, all digital graphics are pixel art, aren't they? Category:8-bit digital art ?
- Similarly, I'm okay with a category for images created via script/programming language, but maybe under Category:Script-generated images or some equivalent? And maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think everything in Category:Computer generated images was created script/programming language. So some sorting may be necessary?
- I also think there should be a general category to encompass all the other images-related categories, but I'm not sure it should contain the word "art". Certainly you could have script-generated images that are not intended as art. And perhaps not all computer art is visual, either? So maybe "Digital images" or something like that?
- Finally, I can certainly see the difference between File:Calculadoraya.PNG and File:Arm-robotic_010_final.png in terms of quality of the artwork, but I'm not sure I can accept any inherent functional difference in the method of their creation, aside from the sophistication of the software and, more importantly, the skill of the artist. So I'm not sure that I buy the idea that the former is a drawing and the latter is a painting. The former certainly used the "paint" function in MSPaint, and the latter may well have incorporated the free-hand drawing tool in Gimp. Probably among artists, there is greater nuance, but I imagine the commonly understood difference between drawing an painting is not one of quality/accuracy/skill, but of which tool is used, a paintbrush or a pencil/pen. In all both these cases, the tool used is a computer. Neither actually use paintbrushes or pencils/pens. - Themightyquill (talk), 21:17, 27 January 2016 (utc)
Seeing no further response, I'm going to suggest the following category tree:
- Category:Digital art
- Category:Digital art by artist
- Category:Digital art by subject
- Category:Digital art by medium
- Category:Digital art festivals
- Category:Digital artists
- Category:Algorithmic art
- Category:Autostereograms
- Category:Demoscene
- Category:Fractals
- Category:Gimpressionist
- Category:Glitch art
- Category:Computer inscriptions (Separately nominated for discussion)
- Category:Computer art installations
- Category:Interactive art
- Category:Computer music (This one could stand further cleanup)
- Category:V2 Institute for the Unstable Media
- Category:Visual music
- Category:Video game art
- Category:Poietic Generator
- Delete these categories and upmerge images to Category:Digital art
- Category:Paintings by computer
- Category:Computer pictures
- Category:Drawings by computer
- Category:Digital painting
- Category:Digital paintings
- Category:Digital matte painting
Further thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No response, and the discussion is 4 years old. Moved/redirected/renamed as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
because the pictures included are not from Collégiale Saints-Pierre-et-Giudon d'Anderlecht, but from l'Eglise de N.D. du Sablon in Bruxelles Parsifall (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Closing as keep, as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02/Category:Stained glass windows in Collégiale Saints-Pierre-et-Guidon (Anderlecht) - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
the pictures included are not from Collégiale Saints-Pierre-et-Giudon d'Anderlecht, but from l'Eglise de N.D. du Sablon in Bruxelles Parsifall (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Parsifall: I can't tell what pictures were in this category when you nominated it for discussion in 2012. The images currently in the category don't seem to match up with the stained glass images in Category:Église Notre-Dame du Sablon (Brussels). If the current images are in the wrong category (and incorrectly named), please move them appropriately (and propose renaming if necessary). If this makes this category empty, then we can consider deleting it. Otherwise, I suggest we close this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the images in the category have changed since February 2012, but there seems to be no further interest in deleting. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:US National Archives series: Photographs Relating to the Administration, Family, and Personal Life of Harry S. Truman, compiled 1957 - 2004, documenting the period 1849 - 2004
[edit]Category name too long. Merge into Category:Harry S. Truman -- Docu at 17:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Way too heterogeneous to merge. Since it's a hidden category, I do not find the length a problem. If it is judged too long, something like Category:US National Archives series:Administration, Family, and Personal Life of Harry S. Truman would do. Sets like these need to continue to be listed in one place to help those who are categorizing the images track progress. Dankarl (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at any image in the category, you will notice it's still visible. To keep it short "US National Archives series: 1207" could do as well. -- Docu at 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Template generated name according to NARA database. --Foroa (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at any image in the category, you will notice it's still visible. To keep it short "US National Archives series: 1207" could do as well. -- Docu at 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Name corresponds with NARA database. It's rather long, but merging doesn't make sense. Closing as keep after 4+ years. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This category should be renamedso that it is written in English - English is the Commons language 79.221.110.241 18:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- How does Category:Krzysztof Kluk agriculture museum in Ciechanowiec strike people? If there's no opposition, I'll move it. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Per http://www.muzeumrolnictwa.pl/ they call themselves Museum of Agriculture in Ciechanowiec. --Achim (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Museum of Agriculture in Ciechanowiec as per Achim's suggestion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
User:wingtip suggests to merge the categories Category:Pacific_Airlines and Category:Jetstar_Pacific to Category:Jetstar Pacific Airlines. Apparently Pacific airlines have been bought / have merged with Jetstar (see e.g. de:Jetstar Pacific Airlines or en:Jetstar Pacific Airlines). I, personally, don't know if defunct companies should be merged to the successor companies' categories or not. Saibo (Δ) 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let's keep it, but only use it for aircraft with the name "Pacific Airlines". -- Docu at 23:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Defunct companies should be kept separate, although they can be categorised into their "new" company, as I have now done. russavia (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- But: the company isnt defcunt, its just renamed. so i think it should be one category and not two for one airline.--Wingtip (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- We don't change the name of he Roman empire in Italy neither. So they all have their place in history and categories as to be consistent what one sees on the images. There are hundreds of merged companies, but an encyclopedia has to be able to reconstitue history. Look at the tree in Category:ArcelorMittal, Category:Lufthansa] and Category:Anheuser–Busch InBev, a result of many merges. Youngest version is the top level category. --Foroa (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- But: the company isnt defcunt, its just renamed. so i think it should be one category and not two for one airline.--Wingtip (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense to keep Category:Pacific Airlines as a sub-category, because it's filled with images of planes that say "Pacific Airlines". I don't, however, see the need for both Category:Jetstar Pacific and Category:Jetstar Pacific Airlines - they are and always have been one and the same.
- According to the wikipedia article, it was (semi?) independently run from 1991 until 1994, at which point in joined with other airlines to form Category:Vietnam Airlines Corporation (so it could be a child category there.) Its name was changed to Jetstar Pacific (Airlines) in 2008, when it became a joint company of Vietnam Airlines and Jetstar.
- It doesn't look like Pacific Airlines was ever a subsidiary of Category:Jetstar Pacific Airlines, so I don't see why it should be grouped as a "peer" of Category:Jetstar Pacific. Category:Jetstar Pacific Airlines and Category:Jetstar Pacific should be merged (I don't care which way). Category:Pacific Airlines either should be a sub-category, or the two categories should reference each other's existence in text with links. Jetstar Pacific and Pacific Airlines should both have Category:Vietnam Airlines as parent categories, even if that means Pacific Airlines becomes both a child and a grandchild category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Category:Jetstar Pacific Airlines deleted/merged to Category:Jetstar Pacific. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I question whether we should characterize all national assemblies as Parliaments. I have no problem calling the national assemblies of countries of the British Commonwealth "Parliaments". But unless a non-commonwealth country calls their national assembly a parliament shouldn't it be called whatever the locals call it?
The US Congress is not a Parliament -- and we don't call it a Parliament.
I suggest this category should be renamed something like Category:Afghan Wolesi Jirga election, 2005 or Category:Afghan National Assembly election, 2005.
(Representatives to the upper house, the Meshrano Jirga, are appointed, not elected.)
I have written elsewhere of a routine practice that I think should be deprecated:
- Good faith contributor comes across a category with a name they don't like;
- Good faith contributor decides to create an essentially parallel category, and without discussing it with anyone else, removes all the elements from the old category and places them in the new category;
- An administrator comes by, and deletes the old category is empty, without realizing its contents were silently stolen.
Sometimes the new name is superior -- other times they are inferior, parochial, poorly thought out. This isn't quite what happened here, as the original categor didn't specify a year -- as the 2010 elections hadn't occurred when it ws created.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's no opposition, Geo Swan. Do you have a preference from your two options? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No opposition in nearly 5 years. Moving to Category:Afghan Wolesi Jirga election, 2005. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This category is for a medieval village that no longer exists. I think many/most of the images here should be in category "Kirklees", which is for the modern entity. Can these images be moved to the other category? Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The one is a village, the other a metropolitan borough. The overlapping of the names has of course created a mess in the categorisation and most images should be categorised in their appropriate town. With the remainder, we can see if we have to keep it. --Foroa (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it was the automated process of allocating locations to geograph images which has caused this problem. I think the same has happened for other metropolitan unitary authorities where the bot trying to allocate a location does best with civil parishes and really badly with metropolitan wards. The telltale footprints are "BotMultichillT (talk | contribs) (Trying to find better categories for this Geograph image)" such as here. Scillystuff (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed that there where many not created categories, so no wonder that the bot pushes it all in one category. Indeed, there is some room of bot education improvement, but the complexity of the urban/metropolitan organisation does not simplify things. Any way, there is a chicken and the egg problem too. If we keep deleting empty categories, the bot will never categorise properly neither. --Foroa (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like the bot is getting some of its information from nominatim.openstreetmap.com (example), this one was for this photo. If the openstreetmap info missing a settlement for your photo, you get the next nearest, sometimes not even in the same county. At least in this case it chose Huddersfield. Scillystuff (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed that there where many not created categories, so no wonder that the bot pushes it all in one category. Indeed, there is some room of bot education improvement, but the complexity of the urban/metropolitan organisation does not simplify things. Any way, there is a chicken and the egg problem too. If we keep deleting empty categories, the bot will never categorise properly neither. --Foroa (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it was the automated process of allocating locations to geograph images which has caused this problem. I think the same has happened for other metropolitan unitary authorities where the bot trying to allocate a location does best with civil parishes and really badly with metropolitan wards. The telltale footprints are "BotMultichillT (talk | contribs) (Trying to find better categories for this Geograph image)" such as here. Scillystuff (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral Although it should be fine to have cats on former settlements but I can't find any evidence of boundaries etc. The category at the moment contains a lot of images from around Kirklees district so it will need to be checked if kept. There are images like Stable block, Kirklees Home Farm, Clifton and Malthouse, Kirklees Estate that the cat could contain (however they are already in Kirklees Hall). There is details on the village here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This could have been moved to Kirklees (village) but there is also a hamlet called Kirklees in Bury district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Crouch, Swale. The category description says its in the Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale and all the images are contemporary. Can't we rename it to Category:Kirklees, Calderdale and add to Category:Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale? Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have created a DAB at Kirklees. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Crouch, Swale. The category description says its in the Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale and all the images are contemporary. Can't we rename it to Category:Kirklees, Calderdale and add to Category:Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale? Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Name of category is not in English Auntof6 (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a policy which requires it to be in English? It contains the initials from an Armenian book, so the current name is most descriptive. Thanks, Chaojoker (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a policy. See Commons:Categories#Category names. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. On that page, it states:
"Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However there are exceptions."
I don't see how I am supposed to write the name of the Armenian book in English, by translating, or by transliterating; and even if I did either of those, it'd no longer be of any use to anyone as noone would be searching for the Armenian book with an English name. In general though, Commons is full of non-English category names: Category:Chamberí is Spanish, Category:Avenue des Champs-Élysées (Paris) is French, Category:Zürcher Unterland is German, Category:Fenerbahçe SK is Turkish, etc. None of the letters í, é, ü, ç, etc. are English letters, ergo all the Commons categories containing those are not English. What those letters share though, is that they are Latin-based (not even all are Latin). So if there's ever going to be a discussion for a strict policy for category naming, I suggest the discrimination not to go against alternative alphabets only. Chaojoker (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)- Let's see what others have to say. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The letters é, ü, and ç are used in everyday English words (café, über, façade), with ü being used in wikt:reünion as an English-only innovation. (The letter í is more marginal, but at least debatable.) English works like guidebooks would use pretty much any Latin character in running text in the name of a place, but not generally non-Latin characters, as wikt:Category:English_terms_by_their_individual_characters shows.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. On that page, it states:
- Yes, there is a policy. See Commons:Categories#Category names. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The category description gives an English version of the book title, "Dictionary of the Armenian Language", published in 1749. Therefore, recommend moving contents to Category:Dictionary of the Armenian Language (1749) and redirecting the nominated category to that one. - dcljr (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please read my argument above as to why that would be a bad idea. Chaojoker (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I already have. I just don't agree with your analysis. If someone is searching for a book title (or portion thereof) using Armenian text, they can already (probably) find it relatively easily (or perhaps find files from or related to it, and thence to a relevant category) in the search results, since the default is to search both titles and full page text in the File, Category, and Gallery namespaces (along with a few others). Also, given that the general practice here is to use English titles for categories, no one will realistically be browsing the category structure looking for titles in Armenian. (OTOH, the title I suggest might be recognizable to someone who knows what they're browsing for. If not, you can suggest a better one.) As for the "non-English" examples you cite, just because words contain non-Latin characters doesn't mean they are not the most common names for those things in English sources. For example, "everyone" who knows about the Champs-Élysées at all knows it by that name. Similarly, the other three things you mentioned also have English Wikipedia articles with the titles you gave; if there were a commonly encountered "English version" of any of them, the articles would (likely) use those titles instead. It is not "discrimination" to prefer one language over others, and one writing system over others; it is a matter of practicality. Do you think Commons would be better if it preferred using native writing systems for the titles of "non-English" things? Would you know what 周易, ऋग्वेद, or བར་དོ་ཐོས་གྲོལ were referring to if you saw them in category listings? How about the I Ching, Rigveda, and Tibetan Book of the Dead? (Admittedly, this last one uses a transliterated title at WP. :) I do have some sympathy with your position "on principle", but I think it just wouldn't work well in practice... - dcljr (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lets face it. There is some discrimination. The closer the language is to the Germanic and Romance languages, the more likely that a minor item will not be translated. If we go to central Europe and slavic languages, the tolerance threshold decreases, while disappearing when non-latin characters are used. After all, we want to give access to all treasures in all countries to all people. I don't think that you would be pleased to have to search for something that is categorised in Chinese, Greek or Arabic structures (not to mention the maintenance problem). If you don't want to open your culture for people of another language, then it makes no sense to work on Commons. --Foroa (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps someday the ability to "choose your language" that we now have for page content (through language templates, when they're used) might be extended to the way (links to) page titles themselves (including subcategories) are shown in category listings (somewhat like a cross between the "multilingualism" of interlanguage links and the category-altering effect of {{DEFAULTSORT:}}), so that Armenian users could choose to see titles in Armenian whenever they're available, and likewise for English and every other language. And, hey, maybe the mechanism that accomplishes this would even allow linking to any of the different language versions of a given page title (e.g., a link to 周易 and I Ching would lead to the same page) without requiring the creation of any redirects. I can see how a "tweak" (from an editor's perspective, anyway) to the current system of interlanguage linking could actually make this possible. I don't see how it would be maintainable long-term, but maybe someone will come up with an elegant solution to the "problem" of multilingualism along these lines. In the meantime... - dcljr (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lets face it. There is some discrimination. The closer the language is to the Germanic and Romance languages, the more likely that a minor item will not be translated. If we go to central Europe and slavic languages, the tolerance threshold decreases, while disappearing when non-latin characters are used. After all, we want to give access to all treasures in all countries to all people. I don't think that you would be pleased to have to search for something that is categorised in Chinese, Greek or Arabic structures (not to mention the maintenance problem). If you don't want to open your culture for people of another language, then it makes no sense to work on Commons. --Foroa (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- In any case, Chaojoker, wouldn't simply leaving a redirect from the current category title to a new (English) one fix the problem you refer to above of people searching for the Armenian book title in Armenian? - dcljr (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- First off, I do agree 100% with what Foroa said. Dcljr, I understand your concern about people who don't speak a certain language understanding what the category is about. That is why many categories with English names contain descriptions in other languages too, for those who don't speak English, and that is exactly why I've included an English description of the contents of the category at the top, which you referred to as well. If you think an English category naming is also necessary, we can have that and redirect that to the Armenian name of a category as well, but the other way around would be senseless at best IMHO. The number of people searching for an 18th century all-Armenian dictionary in Armenian would far outweigh the number of people looking for it in English or with English letters, if not be the only kind of search for it. As far as considering non-Latin characters as English is concerned, because as you said, English sources mention Champs-Élysées as well (eventhough we'd be hard-pressed to find English sources saying Avenue des Champs-Élysées instead of Champs-Élysées Avenue), as late as the beginning of the 20th century many English books would write words containing non-Latin characters in italics, to show that they're not English words. I have no problem with the category about I-Ching being named 周易, eventhough in this case, at least the book has been translated to English and has wide recognition in English as well, which doesn't apply to a dictionary in a certain language, whose total value lies in it being in that language; nobody ever translates an explanatory dictionary that is entirely in one language--it would make zero sense. I am OK with redirecting the English translation/transliteration of the name to the current name, and I think that way even those looking for it in English (if any) would be able to find it as well. The description has already solved the issue of whoever doesn't understand the language being able to tell what's in it. Regards, Chaojoker (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Books names in Armenian (or other) language is o.k with me only if it is the original name. Redirect from English translation only if it is the official translation and not just google translation. Using the template {{Book}} will make the category understandable. I do have problem with the inner category (Category:Բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի հայոց գրեր (թափանցիկ)). I think it should be in English. Geagea (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- First off, I do agree 100% with what Foroa said. Dcljr, I understand your concern about people who don't speak a certain language understanding what the category is about. That is why many categories with English names contain descriptions in other languages too, for those who don't speak English, and that is exactly why I've included an English description of the contents of the category at the top, which you referred to as well. If you think an English category naming is also necessary, we can have that and redirect that to the Armenian name of a category as well, but the other way around would be senseless at best IMHO. The number of people searching for an 18th century all-Armenian dictionary in Armenian would far outweigh the number of people looking for it in English or with English letters, if not be the only kind of search for it. As far as considering non-Latin characters as English is concerned, because as you said, English sources mention Champs-Élysées as well (eventhough we'd be hard-pressed to find English sources saying Avenue des Champs-Élysées instead of Champs-Élysées Avenue), as late as the beginning of the 20th century many English books would write words containing non-Latin characters in italics, to show that they're not English words. I have no problem with the category about I-Ching being named 周易, eventhough in this case, at least the book has been translated to English and has wide recognition in English as well, which doesn't apply to a dictionary in a certain language, whose total value lies in it being in that language; nobody ever translates an explanatory dictionary that is entirely in one language--it would make zero sense. I am OK with redirecting the English translation/transliteration of the name to the current name, and I think that way even those looking for it in English (if any) would be able to find it as well. The description has already solved the issue of whoever doesn't understand the language being able to tell what's in it. Regards, Chaojoker (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I already have. I just don't agree with your analysis. If someone is searching for a book title (or portion thereof) using Armenian text, they can already (probably) find it relatively easily (or perhaps find files from or related to it, and thence to a relevant category) in the search results, since the default is to search both titles and full page text in the File, Category, and Gallery namespaces (along with a few others). Also, given that the general practice here is to use English titles for categories, no one will realistically be browsing the category structure looking for titles in Armenian. (OTOH, the title I suggest might be recognizable to someone who knows what they're browsing for. If not, you can suggest a better one.) As for the "non-English" examples you cite, just because words contain non-Latin characters doesn't mean they are not the most common names for those things in English sources. For example, "everyone" who knows about the Champs-Élysées at all knows it by that name. Similarly, the other three things you mentioned also have English Wikipedia articles with the titles you gave; if there were a commonly encountered "English version" of any of them, the articles would (likely) use those titles instead. It is not "discrimination" to prefer one language over others, and one writing system over others; it is a matter of practicality. Do you think Commons would be better if it preferred using native writing systems for the titles of "non-English" things? Would you know what 周易, ऋग्वेद, or བར་དོ་ཐོས་གྲོལ were referring to if you saw them in category listings? How about the I Ching, Rigveda, and Tibetan Book of the Dead? (Admittedly, this last one uses a transliterated title at WP. :) I do have some sympathy with your position "on principle", but I think it just wouldn't work well in practice... - dcljr (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please read my argument above as to why that would be a bad idea. Chaojoker (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
+ Category:Բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի 193.107.215.195 23:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Any further thoughts on this, Auntof6? - 96.55.104.80 05:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)