Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/04
The name of the category is very broad (no mention of a religion or denomination), yet it redirects to Mormon salvation plans. This redirect is a timebomb which over the years may fill with different diagrams of salvation plans into a category which only concerns mormonism. Therefore, I believe this category redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: This redirect is the best solution.--93.195.202.214 07:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I do not see the danger which you described.--93.195.202.214 08:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Could you justify your positions? Veverve (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
If the deletion is good managed, it is also good.--93.193.170.30 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete redirect. According to en:Plan of salvation, other plans of salvation can exist so it doesn't make sense to take it so broadly right now. It doesn't make sense to have this category with just one subcategory subcategory either. Can the anon explain what 'solution' this redirect solves? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete-closed, as no longer discussed.-- Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Why was this moved from the English "Japonism" to the French "Japonisme"? The subcats continue to use "Japonism". I think we should go with the English, but if not we should at least be consistent in using the French. Jmabel ! talk 13:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's not just us. English wikipedia is equally confused, using. en:Japonisme but en:Category:Japonism. Not that this really helps further the discussion here. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, Themightyquill, the en wiki article was moved to Japonisme in February 2020 following a requested move discussion at en:Talk:Japonisme#Requested move 2 February 2020. That was probably the reason for moving the commons category in November 2020, but the movers obviously didn't worry about the en wiki category or the commons subcategories. Based on that discussion I would support Japonisme. Tate and the Met seem to use Japonisme in their websites as well. TSventon (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm totally happy with Japonisme if we use it consistently. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, Can I propose here to move Category:Japonism in France to Category:Japonisme in France; Category:Japonism in Italy to Category:Japonisme in Italy; Category:Japonism in Poland to Category:Japonisme in Poland and Category:Japonism in Spain to Category:Japonisme in Spain. TSventon (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: Sure. Tag those to point to this discussion, and if no one objects in seven days it's time to go uniformly to that spelling. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, subcategories now nominated. TSventon (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: , can the subcategories be renamed now? TSventon (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: fine with me. I believe this is a complete list of affected categories.
- - Jmabel ! talk 14:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TSventon: Sure. Tag those to point to this discussion, and if no one objects in seven days it's time to go uniformly to that spelling. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, Can I propose here to move Category:Japonism in France to Category:Japonisme in France; Category:Japonism in Italy to Category:Japonisme in Italy; Category:Japonism in Poland to Category:Japonisme in Poland and Category:Japonism in Spain to Category:Japonisme in Spain. TSventon (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm totally happy with Japonisme if we use it consistently. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Jmabel, Themightyquill, the en wiki article was moved to Japonisme in February 2020 following a requested move discussion at en:Talk:Japonisme#Requested move 2 February 2020. That was probably the reason for moving the commons category in November 2020, but the movers obviously didn't worry about the en wiki category or the commons subcategories. Based on that discussion I would support Japonisme. Tate and the Met seem to use Japonisme in their websites as well. TSventon (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Consensus for Japonisme across multiple categories - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Makara at the National Museum (Malaysia) or Category:Makara in the National Museum (Malaysia). Themightyquill (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Makara in the National Museum (Malaysia). -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. Also a magnet for derivative work/no FOP copyvios. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. Also a magnet for derivative work/no FOP copyvios. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Quirino Highway (Balon-bato, Balintawak, Baesa, Talipapa, Sangandaan, Bagbag, San Bartolome, Gulod & Novaliches Proper)
[edit]Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name to this category to "Kurt Schneider (cyclist)" to match standard category naming. Thanks in advance. 51.37.26.120 21:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name to this category to "Jochen Schmidt (cyclist)" to match standard category naming. Thanks in advance. 51.37.26.120 21:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty cat can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This cat is emty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Can somebody remove this page? It is a faulty page that I accidentally created, the surname mentioned is not correct, as it is missing some accents on letters. - NeoMeesje (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Named for a user, but no clear scope or usefulness - is this images that TMenang uploaded? Likes? DannyS712 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to Category:User:TMenang. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Suggest just deleting this. I believe that the QR code just leads back to this category on the enwiki's version--Minoraxtalk 09:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Update: creator has been blocked as an LTA, so unlikely to be developed further --DannyS712 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Wrong spelling of name. Obsolete and empty Elly (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The model in question was marketed as the 1972 Plymouth Fury Gran rather than as the 1972 Plymouth Gran Fury. My mistake. GTHO (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Done - I marked it for deletion. Closed. E4024 (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Highly redundant category to Category:Manila–Cavite Expressway encouraging redundancy and repetition. All of its 89 image files have been moved there, and so this superfluous category is now empty. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Can Category:Knitted pantyhose be merged into Category:Knitted tights? Is it the same concept? JopkeB (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why not? In the end an invisible "female body parts lobby" arrange many cats, frequently through IPs from where the sun rises, to make women (their legs in this case) everyday more and more "categorized" - or visible. The idea, IMO, sometimes looks like not "classifying" but "expanding". --E4024 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tights are two pieces, I think, and pantyhose are a one piece item. In Iberian spanish there's a very specific tern for this thing (leotardos, very different in meaning from english leotards) and also German (Strickstrumpfhose) and Basque at least have a specific term. --Luistxo (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Luistxo: I do not agree with you that tights are two pieces. When I look at Wikidata, tights are Mallas in Spanish, and they are, like pantyhoses, one piece items. In German it is called Strumpfhose, also a one piece item, the same for the Dutch maillot and I am very sure that that is a one piece item as well. Perhaps you mean nylon stockings? These are indeed two pieces. But they are not what this discussion is about. JopkeB (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @E4024: , I have followed your advise. JopkeB (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Knitted pantyhoses and Knitted tights are about the same concept and these categories can be merged. I'll merge Category:Knitted pantyhose into Category:Knitted tights. JopkeB (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
What is this category about? (I moved one file - File:Suéter de estambre.png - to Women wearing sweaters.) Can this category be removed/deleted? JopkeB (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Prueba 1" means "Test 1", so I suspect this was a test category. It probably shouldn't have been created, so I'd say delete unless the creator can explain what it's for. Even if it's a user category, it should have the user's name in the title. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @Auntof6: for your remarks. I'll delete this category.
This is no useful category, so I'll delete it. JopkeB (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Am I the only idiot that does not understand what this cat serves? I'm afraid to ask the deletion of this ns but am suspecting someone will come forth and say E4024 does not understand anything, this is a very useful cat. But what is this? E4024 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024 You are very much right I wanted to see if it can have any significance at the time of planning it made sense but now that I look back I don't think so. Icem4k 🤗✌ (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I marked it for deletion; closing. --E4024 (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name of this category to Category:Rudolf Hellmann" as that is the name used on the German Wikipedia page. Thanks in advance. 109.76.82.57 23:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Knitted waistcoats is not a good name; waistcoats do not have sleeves and cannot be knitted. The three files have been changed to Category:Cardigans (for the two hunting jackets) and Category:Knitwear + Category:Tunics (for the silk tunic). So now this category is empty and may be deleted. JopkeB (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Those were bad edits. Before the 19th century, waistcoats *did* have sleeves. "Knitted waistcoat" is the specialist term for these 16th and 17th century garments (see http://costumehistorian.blogspot.com/2018/11/early-modern-knitted-waistcoats-and.html). Please put this all back the way you found it. - PKM (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @PKM: You are right. I also see another blog on https://evashistoricalcostumes.blogspot.com/2015/11/17th-century-knitted-waistcoats.html, which comfirms this. Please add a description to (new) categories from now on, especcially when they might cause confusion. I'll make the changes an close this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
"Knitted waistcoat" is the specialist term for 16th and 17th century garments with sleeves. This category should be kept for this reason, the three files must stay here. JopkeB (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion by creator due to typo Invokingvajras (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary category; only media previously here was a single image of an unrelated building merely bearing the name of the company that first deployed this communications technology Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any other "ancient time" cat? Is this a "good" name? E4024 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- This category deals with images that deal with the process of milk creation in ancient times, with archaeological finds. Even today, milk and its products are produced. You raise a question but do not make any other suggestion. I think the category is important and I see no reason to delete itץ Hanay (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- CfD -not necessarily- is for deletion discussions. Why did you say "ancient times" in your talk and not "ancient time"? --E4024 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Realy, this is your problem? My English? User:Geagea, Can you help? Thanks. Hanay 2A0D:6FC0:71A:F500:61E1:D144:A206:C590 02:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- E4024, if I understand correctly you are ok with Category:Milk processing at ancient times?
- Realy, this is your problem? My English? User:Geagea, Can you help? Thanks. Hanay 2A0D:6FC0:71A:F500:61E1:D144:A206:C590 02:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- CfD -not necessarily- is for deletion discussions. Why did you say "ancient times" in your talk and not "ancient time"? --E4024 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- -- Geagea (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Better than what we have, but still some of these "ancient cats" around this one seem problematic to me. Tried to fix a few by "categorization", but we have to understand that we cannot classify things of "ancient times" with terms of "modern times". Thank God yet I have not seen any "ancient automobiles" or "ancient mobile phones" cats. Move it to plural, please, one initial step towards normalization. E4024 (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- -- Geagea (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved: per discussion. -- Geagea (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Should I haved named this (and its subcategories) Category:Armenian Apostolic churches instead? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: such naming is used on English, German, Spanish and most other Wiki projects, but current naming is not incorrect. By the way, I think you made a mistake here: subcategories of this category are categorized under "Orthodox churches in [country]" but the latter is used only for Eastern Orthodox, not Oriental Orthodox churches. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Orijentolog: Thanks! Any thoughts on this discussion or this (much longer) one? -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
No action needed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category that has no purpose whatsoever. Most of the files have been deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Letter-Permit to-from Arnel F. Mendoza (Philippines), while I recategorized the two kept files to the more useful categories: File:332Letter Permit Arnel F. Mendoza Philippines 06.jpg is transferred to both Category:Letterheads and Category:Letters of the Philippines, while I moved File:332Letter Permit Arnel F. Mendoza Philippines 07.jpg to Category:Bustos, Bulacan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant category encouraging redundancy and replication. Its sole occupants; 2 images, have been moved to Category:SM City BF Parañaque JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
"American" is ambiguous. Rename. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it's ambiguous, although the parent category is for the Americas. Maybe this category should be divided into separate categories based on where the people depicted are actually from. It can't be useful to have a category that include people in Sweden who are from places in different parts of North and South America. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Expatriates from the United States in Sweden. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
No need to group north and south america together here. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete As nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this category? Why was it made? It seems redundant to me. Can the three subcategories be moved to Category:Service industries? Category:Distribution, retailing, and wholesaling even has both as a parent. Category:Services (economics) is even a parent of Service industries, so this looks to me as a strange construction. JopkeB (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment The reason for creating that category is, a compatibility with other Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia. For many people, Wikimedia Commons is a media archive site for other Wikimedia projects, and the incompatibilities of the category hierarchy between projects may cause the many confusions and complexities. On the other hand, each Wikimedia project is independent one, so we can select a different design (of category hierarchy) than other projects, if we have a rational reason.--Clusternote (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's perfectly compatible, whatever we call it, or whether we have this superfluous level. This is one of those things that just doesn't matter to Mediawiki. If you meant consistent (i.e. pandering to the puny humans) then you might have a (weak) point, although even that is overplayed. We should not (but regularly do) force a meaningless consistency onto Commons naming, at the cost of accuracy and linguistic correctness. But in this case, it's not even consistent. This category is linked to en:WP:Category:Services sector of the economy, which isn't even the same concept. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions:
- There is no need for consistency or compatibility in naming Commons categories with other Wikimedia projects at the cost of accuracy and linguistic correctness.
- The three subcategories can be moved to Category:Service industries.
- This category "Economics of service industries" can be deleted.
I'll make the changes. JopkeB (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This category doesn't have any logical connection to the Category:Americas category tree since neither other events of this kind or the themes of this event are categorized by supercontinent. It's only link to "The Americas" was Category:Topless women in the Americas was deleted per this CFD for these same reasons. I have no problem with Category:Dyke March by country or even Category:Dyke March in North America (or South America), which fit the existing category tree more obiously under Category:LGBT events by country or territory and Category:LGBT in North America. Category:LGBT in the Americas was deleted in 2019 for similar reasons after this CFD. If these events had any particular pan-american focus, it might be different. There is simply no good reason to group these by supercontinent. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, split up to continents. - Jmabel ! talk 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and split per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Split up. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
We already have Category:Adage, do we need this category as well, or could it be redirected? Mike Peel (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Adages, redirect Category:Adage to it, per our usual standards for pluralisation of category names. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy either way, what seems odd to me is the duplication of categories not the names. I simply suggested merging new to old. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- If I were in your place I would simply do the needed, there is nothing to discuss here, Mike Peel. Use "Adages". Just blow "Adage" up. (BTW -not for this case, in general- some people all the time create unnecessary cats here and when you open a CfD they do not even come to discuss. I can show you examples of my CfDs or other people's CfDs, and I am not referring to people who opened a cat in 2013 and are not active since 2014 or 2015. These discussions tend to go loooong time -mostly without participation after the first one or two days- and in the meantime errors get consolidated or the same people who do not deign to participate in the discussions about their mistakes continue to build their own erroneous cat tree...) So just act. Nobody opposes. Consensus to merge. E4024 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: I can confirm your experience. Although I assume that creation of unnecessary is mostly done in good faith, I sometimes would have liked a means to stop it. Couldn't be there a blocking mechnism for a certain amount of time, or something like that? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: If I'm sure it's a duplicate, I tend to go ahead and merge. If I'm not sure, I start a CfD and see what others think. I wasn't sure here. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: I can confirm your experience. Although I assume that creation of unnecessary is mostly done in good faith, I sometimes would have liked a means to stop it. Couldn't be there a blocking mechnism for a certain amount of time, or something like that? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- If I were in your place I would simply do the needed, there is nothing to discuss here, Mike Peel. Use "Adages". Just blow "Adage" up. (BTW -not for this case, in general- some people all the time create unnecessary cats here and when you open a CfD they do not even come to discuss. I can show you examples of my CfDs or other people's CfDs, and I am not referring to people who opened a cat in 2013 and are not active since 2014 or 2015. These discussions tend to go loooong time -mostly without participation after the first one or two days- and in the meantime errors get consolidated or the same people who do not deign to participate in the discussions about their mistakes continue to build their own erroneous cat tree...) So just act. Nobody opposes. Consensus to merge. E4024 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy either way, what seems odd to me is the duplication of categories not the names. I simply suggested merging new to old. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Merged. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Sandwiches and sandbox’s and salads ....? 197.61.165.174 11:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy close as keep. Invalid, irrelevant and incomprehensible nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was speedy close as nonsense nomination, no files have sandwiches or salads so this is clearly a nonsense nomination. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a duplicate of Category:Hyundai S Coupé - if so, I suggest merging, I don't mind which way. Mike Peel (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to Category:One-person operation, the contemporary gender-neutral term. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Support per Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Renamed. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This category needs to be deleted so that Category:Puerto Princesa City can be moved here (cannot be moved due to technical reason), in accordance with enwiki format/title convention. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
All don’t 203.144.68.240 18:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep Nonsense nomination. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) @Rodhullandemu: The result was Keep, due to a nonsense nomination. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
A typo in the name of the category I created, created a new one, please delete this one. 攝影師 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
My mistake (shouldn't have created categories in Chinese). Could someone help delete this category and move the photos to "Category:Yuhengzai Fude Temple"? Many thanks Wikimycota (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- A bot will do the move, although there are few files and you can do it manually. When the cat is empty we will make it disappear. --E4024 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
moved and redirected.--RZuo (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Armenian Apostolic monasteries? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
See discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:Armenian churches -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant category, also violates no FOP. All erring files have been moved to Category:SM City San Jose Del Monte for an organized batch DR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
According to en:Benjamin Chavis he is no longer using the surname Muhammed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Benjamin Chavis. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:Cions of Ekaterinburg mint at the Museum of History and Archaeology of the Middle Urals
[edit]typing error Vyacheslav Bukharov (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Vyacheslav Bukharov: Typos do not require discussion, just add {{Badname}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect name created by carelessly uploaded photo 攝影師 (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Correct name "Category:1948 km (Zlatoust, former settlement)" [2], [3]. At the same time, it is required to rename all files uploaded by him in this category: 148 -> 1948. 攝影師 (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Klemen Kocjancic. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Deletion. Replaced by Category:Locator maps of the Virgin Islands Urhixidur (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Urhixidur: I marked it as {{Badname}}. Obvious wrong names or mis-spellings don't require discussion. Also, if you are going to open a discussion please don't blank and empty the category before doing so, it makes it very difficult to discuss anything. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
"Paintings" or "paintings"? E4024 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Renamed with lowercase by Andy Dingley. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
empty category Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like there's a whole family of these, seems like a fairly useless means of organizing images. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would say that this even looks like COM:CSD#C2 appliable? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a fairly big difference in definitions between En-Wikipedia and Commons. What should be the definition in Commons?
- The definition in En-Wikipedia indicates a tent for camping purposes ("living area", "inner tent", "outer tent").
- The definition in Commons ("pop up canopies or portable gazebos") indicates other purposes, especially entertaining.
I think that this is a big difference. What is the correct definition? My proposal:
- The main category Frame tents should be about all types of frame tents whith rigid poles. Subcategories are for:
- Frame tents for entertaining purposes, like the images that are now in this category.
- What should be a proper name?
- Should these categories be subcategories as well? They clearly all need frames and are for entertaining purposes, but they are not yet a subcategory of Frame tents:
- Circus tents
- Fumigation tents
- Marquees (tents)
- SG-Zelte: tents for groups, kitchen tents, sanitair tents, for gatherings/meetings. And could this category be renamed into or merged with an English category?
- Small Clear Span Tent
- Striped tents
- Trade tents
- Frame tents for camping purposes (not yet subcategories of Frame tents):
- Bungalow tents and Wall tents (not yet a category). My follow-up question (as a non native English speaker): should "bungalow tents" and "wall tents" be two seperate categories or could they be merged?
- Ridge tents
- What about Tent trailers? Are they indeed always frame tents or should they be a subcategory of the main category Tents, just like Roof tents?
- Frame tents for entertaining purposes, like the images that are now in this category.
JopkeB (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: This is interesting. I also note the big difference between wikipedia's en:Category:Portable buildings and shelters (which contains tents, marquees, etc) and our version, Category:Portable buildings (which doesn't). Oddly, our Category:Tents is instead under a wholly separate Category:Mobile buildings, which is a subcategory of Category:Camping equipment and Category:Manufactured homes. What a mess!
- I'm not sure Category:Frame tents is even necessary? What other types of tents are there but frame tents? But separating Category:Camping tents from Category:Tents makes sense to me.- Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree that the string of categories for tents and the like might need some kind of review. 'Portable' looks more appropriate for camping tents because one or several persons may carry a tent by him-/herself (dependant on the size), while 'mobile' may require a (special) vehicle or pack animals and is more appropriate for larger and inflexible tents. 'Camping equipment' does not apply to all tents, only for those used by tourists; and it does not apply at all to all other types of mobile buildings. Yes, a mess indeed.
- Yes, there are other type of tents than frame tents as I defined them (which are with rigid poles); (1) tents with flexible poles (like dome and tunnel tents), (2) roof tents (though they have poles, I would not put them under frame tents, but I am not an expert at all), (3) with no poles at all (like camouflage tents).
- I am not sure wether 'Camping tents' is a useful idea for a direct subcategory of 'Tents', perhaps it is as a subcategory of 'Tents by association'. Many types of tents may be used for camping as well as for other purposes: rigid tents are also used in the military and scouting; yurts and bedouin tents are used for camping as well as for permanent living by nomads. JopkeB (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree that the string of categories for tents and the like might need some kind of review. 'Portable' looks more appropriate for camping tents because one or several persons may carry a tent by him-/herself (dependant on the size), while 'mobile' may require a (special) vehicle or pack animals and is more appropriate for larger and inflexible tents. 'Camping equipment' does not apply to all tents, only for those used by tourists; and it does not apply at all to all other types of mobile buildings. Yes, a mess indeed.
- @JopkeB: Sorry, I somehow missed that basic definition in your explanation above.
- I think that wikipedia article is rather confused and also poorly sourced, so I think it's safe to ignore it.
- Might it not make sense to rename to Category:Tents with rigid poles or Category:Rigid-pole tents to avoid any confusion? We could create Category:Tents with flexible poles or Category:Flexible-pole tents as well.
- I don't think you need to sub-categorize by entertainment/camping here. That should be done at Category:Tents. You could easily include sub-categories for each of the types of frame tents you've listed above without this category being overly full.
- I wouldn't say Category:Striped tents or Category:Fumigation tents are for entertaining.
- Category:SG-Zelte seems like a very specific line of tents in the German context, but they could fit under something like Category:Emergency management tents.
- "Wall tents" and "Bungalow tents" seem to be redundant. Another term, "cabin tents", is also used.
- Category:Ridge tents does not seem very consistent to me.
- I hope that helps. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, this helps indeed.
- @1: Point taken. If I search with Google for images of a frame tent, I see mainly the type of tents mentioned in the definition and included in Category:Frame tents: large tents, bigger than bungalow tents, with or without walls, for many people. So I would suggest to keep the definition of Commons. (So far for my original question.)
- @2: I tried to make subcategories for Rigid-poles and other kind of poles tents, but nearly all (about 20) were rigid-poles, there were only five for three other subcategories ((1) flexible: dome, tunnel; (2) with just ropes; (3) supported by vehicles: roof tents and tent trailers), so that would not be a balanced categorisation. And because of the extra layer/subcategory, it would be more difficult for users to find what they are looking for as well. So I would suggest not to have a subcategory about the kind of poles, but just put them all under Category:Tents by shape.
- @4 + @5: I agree.
- @6: Would renaming "Bungalow tents" to "Wall tents" be a good idea? Then this category would be for bungolow and cabin tents as well.
- @7: What do you mean?
- 8. The new subcategories you already made, are useful. I would like to extend them like this:
- Tents by association:
- Nomad tents [new]
- Bedouin tents (moving from Tents by association)
- Chums
- Daboytas
- Kaïmas
- Tipis
- Yurts
- Nomad tents [new]
- Tents by use:
- Beach tents
- Bivouac tents
- Camping tents [new] [+ also at "Tents by association"?]
- Glamping tents
- Tourist tents
- Emergency management tents [new]
- Deployable Rapid Assembly Shelter
- Improvised tents [here or were else?]
- SG-Zelte
- Entertaining tents [new]
- Circus tents
- Marquees
- Trade tents
- Weathering protection tents
- I am still struggeling with Category:Camping tents and Category:Tourist tents, because so many files would fit here. But if one wants to complete Tents by use, there might be no other option.
- Should this discussion be extended to Category:Tents, so that more people might join this discussion? (Originally it was only about Frame tents and now we are discussing the whole Category:Tents.)
- Tents by association:
- Please add your comments.JopkeB (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 8. The new subcategories you already made, are useful. I would like to extend them like this:
- @JopkeB: What's the definition of "ridge tents"? Some seem to be triangular prisms (two "roof" rectangles, one floor rectangle, and two end-wall triangles) and some to be rather more house shaped, like wall tents. I had trouble finding a universal definition of "pup tent" as well. Actually, I don't have a clear definition of "wall tent" in mind either.
- Are beach tents any type of tent used on a beach, or a specific type? If it's the former, it could just be renamed Category:Tents on beaches
- I've been trying to figure out what to do with tents you've listed under "Nomad tents ". I'm not sure that's ideal, but I don't have a better idea for now. (Nomadic peoples' tents?)
- I still don't think "tourist tents" is a thing that exists separately from "camping tents." As mentioned in the separate CFD, I think we should just delete it. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: and others
- I think a ridge tent is any kind of tent with a "ridge": a roof in a triangle, steeply sloping and one horizontal line on top; usually there is a rectangular floor. They might be small or large, with or without a wall. Images of tents with other shapes in Category:Ridge tents should be moved to others, maybe new categories (like pyrimade tents).
- A pup tent is a small ridge tent, only for one or two persons. I think it should be a subcategory of Ridge tents.
- I think a beach tent is any kind of tent, in any kind of shape, that is used on the beach. The category could be renamed or get a clear definition (I prefer a clear definition: in my opinion, the shorter the name of a category, the better; and if I search with Google for Tents on beaches, I still get Beach tents. For me this is an indication that 'Beach tents' is more commonly used.).
- Nomadic peoples' tents is fine with me also, but Nomad tents would be in line with Category:Nomad camps.
- Tourist tents: for the discussion see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Tourist tents. I am pro Category:Tents by use. If we would like this category to be complete (as far as that is possible), then Camping tents or Tourist camping tents or Tourist tents (or something like this) should be a subcategory. But I guess that at least half of the (images of) tents are used for camping by tourists, so there should be subcategories as well (like: Tourist tents on campsites, Tourist tents in nature (or Category:Wild camping), Tourist tents on temporarily campings at events - like festivals and protests). And it is a hell of a job to add this new category to so many files. Or maybe we could use Category:Camping as a subcategory of Category:Tents by use for this purpose? But that category is not only about tents. Who has a better idea?
- Again, I am not an expert on tents at all. I trust the information on EN-Wikipedia as long it is not contradictionary with other information, and I have my own interpretations, usually based on combining information from different sources. I am open to better ideas. JopkeB (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: and others
- @JopkeB: I worry that images are being categorized at best according to their written descriptions, but not consistently, and I'm not sure some of these can be used consistently. This is in Category:Bungalow tents but this is in ridge tents. This is in Category:Ridge tents but this is in Category:Pup tents. Definitions using words like "small" don't tend to be very effective on commons.
- What kind of camping doesn't involve tourists? Category:Camping is a subcategory of Category:Tourist activities. Or you're saying there are tourists tents that aren't being used for camping?
- We could easily have Category:Tents by location for things like Category:Tents on beaches or Category:Tents at markets if we wanted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I agree about your worries that images are not consistently categorized here. Clear definitions and descriptions can be helpful but cannot prevent this problem 100%. This unfortunately applies to many other categories. Do you have suggestions how we can reduce this problem here?
- You are right that Category:Camping is a subcategory of Category:Tourist activities, and that we could easily make Category:Tents by location. But I'm not sure how this fits into this discussion. What exact changes should be made to the proposal? Should there be a Category:Tents on campings in Category:Tents by location as well? Should Category:Tents on beaches be in Category:Tents by use as well? JopkeB (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions so far
[edit]- Definitions in Commons (implemented on 24-6-2021):
- Frame tents: Pop up canopies or portable gazebos, especially used for entertaining. Large tents, bigger than bungalow tents, with or without walls, for many people.
- Ridge tent: any kind of tent with a "ridge": a roof in a triangle, steeply sloping and one horizontal line on top; usually there is a rectangular floor.
- A pup tent is a small ridge tent, only for one or two persons. It should be a subcategory of Ridge tents.
- A beach tent is any kind of tent, in any kind of shape, that is used on the beach.
- Actions:
- Add clear defintions to Category:Beach tents, Category:Frame tents, Category:Ridge tents, Category:Pup tents. (Implemented on 24-6-2021)
- Images that are in subcategories that do not fit there (any longer), that do not fit into the definition, should be moved to the correct categories. For instance, images of tents with other shapes in Category:Ridge tents should be moved to other, maybe new categories (like pyramid tents). (Implemented on 24-6-2021; no new category for pyramid tents yet because there are not enough files that fit in.)
- Extend Category:Tents with new subcategories or move subcategories as follows (I left out the categories still under discussion) (implemented on 26-6-2021):
- Tents by association:
- Nomad tents [new]
- Bedouin tents (moving from Tents by association)
- Chums
- Daboytas
- Kaïmas
- Tipis
- Yurts
- Nomad tents [new]
- Tents by use:
- Beach tents
- Bivouac tents
- Emergency management tents [new]
- Deployable Rapid Assembly Shelter
- Improvised tents
- SG-Zelte
- Entertaining tents [new]
- Circus tents
- Frame tents
- Marquees
- Trade tents
- Weathering protection tents
- Tents by association:
Can I (JopkeB) execute these actions?
Outstanding issues
[edit]- What should be the parent category/categories of Category:Tents? Possibilities:
- Should "bungalow tents" and "wall tents" be two seperate categories or could they be merged? And if we choose for merging: what name should the merged category have?
- Should the category Category:Tents by use be complete, so also with Category:Camping tents and/or Category:Tourist tents? Problems:
- A vast majoritiy of the tents fit into this subject.
- Many types of tents may be used for camping/by tourists as well as for other purposes.
- A solution might be (1) to mention in the description of Category:Tents by use that tourist tents have not been included here because of the problems mentioned above + reference to other categories and (2) make a proposal to delete the current Category:Tourist tents.
Please add your answers, opions, corrections, agreements, disagreements, additions and so on. JopkeB (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: IMHO, tents generally don't fall under standard definition of "buildings" (side canvases are not "walls") but can be count among "structures" - light portable structures. In my language, the equivalent of the word "wall" can include masonry walls, wooden walls, sheet metal walls, solid plastic walls, but not draperies or canvases.
- Opened tents should be categorized also under "shelters".
- Tents designed for sleeping should be categorized also into some category related to housing/residence/staying – I don't know what is the best English word for the situation when somebody stay at some place and live and sleep there for several days or weeks.
- As regards "by use" criterion, some types can be used by tourist and hikers, also by anglers, sportspeople, festival visitors, soldiers, field workers and researches, homeless people and refugees etc. etc. But we can distinguish whether the tent is destined just for sleeping (overnight stay), or also for daily stay and activities, or just for a specific use (a depot, a dining tent, meeting tent, shopping tent etc.). "Tourist tent" is meaningful indication of the original (main) purpose, although the tent can be used by anyone. Similarly, "military tent" is a suitable designation for certain types and designs of tents, although those tents can later be used by anyeone for camping, scouting, civilian infirmary etc.
- Btw., some types of light tents are called "party tents", shouldn't be this term redirected to some of the existing categories? --ŠJů (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @ŠJů: , for your input, it is good to have perspectives from several persons and languages.
- I think you are right: tents generally don't fall under the standard definition of "buildings". We need other parent categories for tents. My suggestions:
- So "wall tents" would not be correct. What would be correct?
- What do you mean by "opened tents"? Is it about portable gazebos, pop-up canopies, marquees and weathering protection tents?
- I made already a new parent category: Category:Accommodations. I think that is the closest to what you mean by "some category related to housing/residence/staying".
- What would you suggest as subcategories in Category:Tents by use?
- Perhaps there should indeed be a Category:Party tents which redirects to one of the existing categories; OR without a redirect and be a subcategory of "Tents by use". Because the question is: to which current category should it redirect?
@JopkeB:
- I agree, Temporary structures and Portable structures/objects are suitable parent categories for tents.
- "Wall tent" seems to be an established term, although the meaning of the word "wall" is a bit broadened and transferred here. (My langague has the word "stěna" for the broader meaning and the word "zeď" for the narrower one). IMHO English understand the word "wall" also primary as a firm structure, and the other meanings (a tent wall or a cell wall) are secondary, broadened. However, it is true that a wall tent is more similar to a building than an "A" tent.
- With the word "opened tent", I meant tents without "walls", opened to one or more sides. However, my comment apply especially to such tents who have a character of canvas "shelters" (not only an opened entrance).
- The word "accomodation" evokes to me a place where a person stays as a guest and is provided by any host. It seems less suitable for own house, flat or tent of any person.
- "By use" structure should be based on the current state, with possible adjustments. As regards "party tents", I'm not able to judge whether they are included or covered by some of existing categories. We would have to find several such photos and assess whether they are placed in the appropriate category, or it is appropriate to move them, or rename the category, or create a subcategory, or create just a redirect. --ŠJů (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@ŠJů: and others!
- 1: As ŠJů pointed out: tents generally don't fall under standard definition of "buildings". So now (26-06-2021) I think the parent category of Category:Tents to indicate mobility/portability should be Category:Portable structures. Explanation: (1) a tent is a structure; (2) there is no category Mobile structures (and Category:Mobile buildings has no mobile parent category, see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Mobile buildings), so the only suitable category is Portable structures.
- 2: So if we would like to, we can use "Wall tents" as a category.
- 3: It will not be simple (in use) to have a category for Opened tents according to your definition: not all tents in Category:Frame tents are opened, so you have to make a new category with a lot of photos of frame tents and perhaps some others. The more categories a photo should be placed in, the higher the risk is that one or more will be forgotten. How necessary is it to have this new category, what would be the use of it? I am in favor or KIS: Keep It Simple, especially for end users.
- 4: "Accommodation" is for all kind of places to live, work, stay, etc. in. In Category:Accommodation buildings there is also the subcategory Category:Residential buildings, so I think tents will fit in Category:Accommodations too.
- 5 Photos of "Party tents" can at least be found in Category:Frame tents and probably in the categories by country. How would you define a "party tent"?
JopkeB (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
This discussion was not only about Frame tents, but also was about its (great-)parent category Category:Tents.
- The Common definition of Frame tents have been kept: "Pop up canopies or portable gazebos, especially used for entertaining."
- New subcategories have been made for Category:Tents to have a better subdivision: Category:Tents by association, Category:Tents by appearance and Category:Tents by use, and new subcategories for those as well.
- Bungalow tents and Wall tents seem to be about the same type of tents, perhaps even synonyms; another term about this same type of tent is Cabin tents. A "wall" may not be a good term for canvas, so "Bungalow tents" will for now be kept and also be used for cabin tents and wall tents.
- Category:Tent trailers is no longer in Category:Frame tents but in the main category Category:Tents.
- About the parent categories of Category:Tents:
- It should not be Category:Mobile buildings but Category:Portable structures because a tent is not a building, though it is a structure, and there is no Category:Mobile structures.
- It should not be Category:Temporary buildings but Category:Temporary structures for the same reason.
- Because of the staying/housing/accommodation aspect of tents Category:Accommodations has been added.
- There will be no subcategory about the kind of poles, there is just Category:Tents by shape.
- There has not yet been made a Category:Camping tents or Catego:Tents on campings as a subcategory of Category:Tents by use because about half of the current images about tents would fit in. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Tourist tents. But now Category:Tents by use is incomplete. This problem is still open for good suggestions.
- Category:Beach tents should not be renamed to Category:Tents on beaches because it has now a clear definition, "Beach tents" is shorter than "Tents on beaches" and "Beach tent" is more in use in common parlance than "Tents on beaches".
- See also 2. Actions (above, under Conlcusions so far).
Category:Tent-roofs could be confused for "roofs of tents" and is also somewhat confusing with Category:Roof tents. Could we rename to Category:Buildings with tent-roofs? Additionally, we could rename Category:Roof tents to Category:Automobile roof tents or something similarly clear. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the name Category:Tent-roofs is confusing. I also thought that this category is about roofs of tents (and made it a subcategory of the new Category:Tent parts). But looking at the photos I guess this is about tents that only exist of a roof, without panels or walls. Am I correct? If yes: there should be a description for this category. And could Category:Weathering protection tents be a subcategory as well?
- As ŠJů pointed rightly out on Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/04/Category:Frame_tents#Outstanding_issues: tents generally don't fall under standard definition of "buildings", so I would prefer Category:Structures with tent-roofs instead of Category:Buildings with tent-roofs.
- I am OK with Category:Automobile roof tents instead of Category:Roof tents. That indeed would be a better name, and more clear.
- JopkeB (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
What to do with tents that are attached to automobiles, but are not upon the roof (see picture)? Can they be included in Automobile roof tents or should we change this category to just Category:Automobile tents or Category:Tents attached to automobiles? JopkeB (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Tents supported by vehicles might also be eligible; this might function as the parent category of the current categories Category:Roof tents and Category:Tent trailers. JopkeB (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Tent-roofs should be renamed to Category:Structures with tent-roofs.
- Category:Weathering protection tents can be a subcategory.
- Category:Roof tents should be renamed to Category:Automobile roof tents.
- There will be a new category Category:Tents supported by vehicles to inlcude images of tents that are attached to automobiles, but are not upon the roof.
- Category:Automobile roof tents will be a subcategory.
I made these changes. JopkeB (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
An unnecessary and redundant duplicate of Category:Eulogio Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved to the said category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- In such cases there's no need to bring to discussion, just make one of them a redirect to the other. —capmo (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- For one subcategory here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quirino Highway (Talipapa and Sangandaan, Quezon City section) (all images there are redundant and unused anyway). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment) encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
A redundant category encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved to Category:Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church of Guiguinto. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant and excess subcategory encouraging redundancy and repetition. All of its 35 files have been moved to Category:SM City San Fernando (but may fulfill no COM:FOP Philippines) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Redundant category encouraging redundancy and replication. Its only occupants, 37 image files, have been moved at Category:SM City Marilao (but some of the files now moved there pose no FOP issue). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary category encouraging redundancy and repetition. Its only contents – 4 files – have been moved to Category:Main gate of Bulacan State University – Main Campus. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted works. Czech painter who died in 1986 - his works are under copyright until 2061. Vachovec1 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Vachovec1: Use COM:DR for the files uploaded and notify their uploader. The category itself doesn't need any consensus or license, CfD does not make sense. Each image must be assessed separately to see whether it has true information and whether it has been released under a free license. The main problem is that the uploader of the current 4 files declares himself to be the author and copyright holder, claiming that he created these works himself in March 2021, 35 years after the painter's death. However, it is certainly not excluded that any uploader obtains the consent of the authorized copyright heir. --ŠJů (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Not discussion about category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:Art works by František Kleiner, or at concrete, problematic files Estopedist1 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
empty. no archives MiguelAlanCS (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not empty now. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Unclear scope created by since-locked LTA DannyS712 (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Management consultants by country. E4024 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- agree. Nationality of persons is impossible to determine and "by country" is usualy used on categories of professions. Elly (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was move Estopedist1 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
"Management consultants" cannot be a subcat of "Category:Adviesorgaan". We have a "Dutch problem" around management consultant cats. E4024 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024 and Antoine.01: I agree that "Category:Adviesorgaan" is (1) not a good name for a general category (it should be in English or it should have Belgium/Netherlands/Suriname or so in the name; in this case it looks that it is about Belgium) and (2) it looks like it is about law (because its parent categories are about law) and therefor not an approprioate parent category for "Category:Management consultants", because these consultants are about business economics, not about law. So my suggestions are: (2) remove "Category:Adviesorgaan" as a parent category from "Category:Management consultants" and (1) start a discussion about "Category:Adviesorgaan". (I pinged Antoine.01 as well because he added "Category:Adviesorgaan" to "Category:Management consultants".) JopkeB (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Problem of inconsistent categorization is resolve here. -- Mdd (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Rename Category:Mountains in Corinthia Regional Unit. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, please. Just because a peak is called "Mount Foo" (Mount Rainier, Mount Vesuvius, Mount Everest, etc.) doesn't change the fact that it's actually a mountain. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, please rename. -- Schuppi (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was rename Estopedist1 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Bickett-Richards Cemetery and delete or redirect; the name is incorrect. See, e.g., Upper Arlington Historical Society page. Postdlf (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was merged. Category:Bickett-Richard Cemetery is retained as a redirect, because many Google hits Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Fournoi Korseon or Category:Fournoi Islands? Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- EN has it under Fournoi Korseon not Fournoi Islands so the former seems more sensible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- rename, solution per enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Fournoi Korseon. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Category:Human Rights Day seems redundant with Category:International Human Rights Day. The wikipedia article is at en:Human Rights Day. Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: solution per enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Human Rights Day. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not know whether Fanny Hill was a real person or fictional character, but in any case I believe she and the book about her must be categorized separately. Now we even have a film and an actress playing her. E4024 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Fanny Hill (novel) since there are other meanings on Wikipedia and 2 hills. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose @Crouch, Swale: we don't do DABs just in case. At the moment, Commons has no other categories for other "Fanny Hill"--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The People's Republic of China is almost exclusively referred to as China. The cultural region is called Greater China. Therefore, this category should be merged to People's Republic of China. Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Withdraw the nomination. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
We should clean up the China-related categories. Currently, this meta-category is focusing on the cultural region, while most of its sub-categories are focusing on the People's Republic of China (PRC). The China region also includes Taiwan, which the PRC doesn't, despite the PRC government's claim of Taiwan being its 23rd province. Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- One probable option is to rename the meta-category to China (region) and focus all the subcategories to the PRC. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes china (lower case) can also mean pottery though that derives its name from the place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
We should rename this category China (region), and we should create a dab page under China. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- The use of the word 'region' is problematic in this as 'region' is usualy associated with a local part of a country. Not the reverse. Sometimes countries are grouped together as 'Balkans', 'Baltics', Middle-East, etc, but never with the mention of 'region'. By the way: Taiwan was most of the recent times historicaly independant of the Chinese mainland: 1683 - 1895 Chinese, 1895 - 1945 (before a Dutch colonial period): Japanese, After 1945, the communist party never did get a foothold in Taiwan. The original population was related to the Philipine people. The nationalist goverment had a strong en:Sinicization proces.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I assume Category:National Museum, Beirut is redundant with Category:Beirut National Museum. The wikipedia page says "National Museum of Beirut" but the museum's website says "Beirut National Museum". -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: In similar cases, I tend to support enwiki (and Wikidata) solution which seems to be more persistent and ideally should reflect worldwide view. Besides, museum's website is not working--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Realme is not a sub-brand of Xiaomi. See en:realme Larryasou (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Realme is not a sub-brand of Xiaomi. See en:realme. Larryasou (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty category Nadzik (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
This cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Wrong name. Should be "American Theatre (Butte, Montana)". Johnj1995 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I carried it to Category:American Theatre (Montana). Indeed there is no pressing reason to disambiguate, it could even be "Category:American Theatre" but "American Theatre" is too wide a concept. If you do not agree with the move, I can ask an admin to revert it, but I took this initiative to help you, Johnj1995; maybe you are not aware, but sometimes these discussions lag for years. Shall I close the discussion as "done"? --E4024 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Wrong category name, replaced (Category:AS4350-1), this empty one must be removed [4][5]. 攝影師 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
An extra category, created by me through inattention, it turns out that the correct category has already been. 攝影師 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be the same as Category:Ahoy Rotterdam. I tried redirecting the category, but was reverted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to move all the relevant files but got reverted too. nl:Rotterdam Ahoy is the name of the venue, I don't know why people keep using Ahoy Rotterdam, maybe because that is the old name. It should be Rotterdam Ahoy. DutchTina (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Ahoy Rotterdam should be moved to Category:Rotterdam Ahoy, not the other way around. It looks like the category Ahoy Rotterdam was made a long time before the other one, so that's probably why everyone keeps using that as the name. But it's not the correct name.―JochemvanHees (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and of course a similar thing should be done for all the subcategories that also have Ahoy Rotterdam in their name. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: files have been transfered, the Category:Ahoy Rotterdam has been deleted, and this discussion can be closed. -- Mdd (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Scientific laws. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Scientific laws Estopedist1 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This redirect should be deleted. Luckily, not all scientific problems are unsolved. Below Category:Unsolved scientific problems, all categories concern *unsolved* problems, so its name is appropriate. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
He or she says these images require review. But it doesn't say who should review them, or how those reviews should be conducted.
Why are the images here? Unstated. But some of the images look like they were once of a famous, notable person, and a fan, that have been cropped, to remove the non-notable fan. Examples: File:Abbie Cornish (37670707932).jpg, File:Alicia Witt (26780367076).jpg.
Checking the revision history of some of the images seems to indicate the category creator was not responding to requests from those non-notable fans. He or she seems to object to photos that include both notable people and their non-notable fans.
Why are the other images in here? Who knows.
I hope this category did not lead to any actual deletions. Geo Swan (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- would u spend a minute reading the hatnote and the talk page first?
- "This category is a temporary holding area for images that require review for a potential COM:BLP deletion. See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself."
- Category talk:Pending removals to be checked
- --RZuo (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like the work wasn't finished and someone still needs to do it. I wouldn't advise deleting the category until the issue has been resolved. Kaldari (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:Pending removals to be checked, or at concrete, problematic files Estopedist1 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
empty, no images MiguelAlanCS (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty category Estopedist1 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Category:Kaiser Permanente announces $32 million for housing and homelessness in Sacramento, California (February 20, 2020)
[edit]Unnecessary category for two photos of a single, unnoteworthy event Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty category Estopedist1 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Photos of the collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna require written permission for use, see https://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/en/press_/film_and_photo_permission. I dont'think that publication of images under free licenses required by the Commons is legitimate without such a permission. There are charges for taking or publishig images and films (https://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/jart/prj3/nhm-resp/data/uploads/Presse/Preisliste_EN.pdf), so free use is obviously not allowed. Vesta(talk) 13:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at Category talk:Collections of the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, or at concrete, problematic files Estopedist1 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Synthwave.94 has marked the category with speedy deletion as a Empty category three times[6][7][8]. User:Tuvalkin has disputed the speedy deletion[9][10][11].
The argument that Sythwave.94 makes on AN/U is that the criteria for speedy deletion "unused and empty categories must be deleted"[12], however it states "it may be speedily deleted", not must be. While Tuvalkin has stated that it is used a maintenance category[13]. I can see the use of the category if someone does upload a photograph (not knowing FOP or ignoring it) and adds the Danse de la fontaine émergente category. --Bidgee (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also in 2015 there was a CfD which resulted in the category being kept, with warning placed on the category page. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- That was over files in the category rather than the category its self but now its empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- That discussion was pretty much not simply about the files (which everybody agrees should be deleted) but how it is important to keep the category in order to make it easy to spot and then delete said files. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- That was over files in the category rather than the category its self but now its empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. Exceptional case, when we keep empty category Estopedist1 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Category:Archdiocesan Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament (Santa Cruz Parish Church of Nuestra Señora del Pilar) 2019
[edit]An unnecessary duplicate of Category:Santa Cruz Church (Manila), only made "different" by the use of the titular designation which is irrelevant in Commons if the designation also refers to the church. All files have been moved to either Category:Exterior of Santa Cruz Church (Manila) or Category:Interior of Santa Cruz Church (Manila). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Misspelling Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Explain further or close this. We don't delete things because they're misspelled, we fix them.
- You've already moved this category to Category:Har Raipur (Tin koni) Bathinda. Presumably that's the spelling fix you want, so we're done here. Category:Har Haipur (Tin koni) Bathinda is now a redirect to that new target. Redirects are good: even if they're the wrong spelling, they can help someone who falls into that same wrong spelling to find the right place. Only if they're actively harmful would they need to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley It's was just a spelling mistake by the uploader. I am not sure if it's a helpful to keep this category. It's not like a common misspelling on the name. But if it's alright to keep then sure. I have no issues. Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Reasons for discussion request Choclo is a common name for large kerneled corn in the Andes but there are many varieties from many countries. I believe its best to categorize photos of corn by country of origin- not the common name which can be confusing and ambiguous and lead people to miscategorize varieties. Not all Peruvian corn is choclo and this common name shouldn't include varieties of corn from Mexico like this category originally had. It just makes it easier to draw a line between varieties (so you don't have to) and organize. --ThayneT (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:National Museum Riyadh redundant with Category:National Museum of Saudi Arabia? Themightyquill (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: merge, it is very likely Estopedist1 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Merged to Category:National Museum of Saudi Arabia. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Why is it relevant to group esperantists by cultural region? Delete this and Category:Esperantists by region nad Category:Esperantists of the Americas -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. Any person who is "of Latin America" or "of the Americas" is also "of" a specific country, so country categories should suffice. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6@Themightyquill: so I guess we should delete whole tree of Category:Esperantists by continent? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't. It's useful to group people by continent to avoid having to wade through by-country categories. The category being discussed here is different because Latin America is a region that crosses continent boundaries. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6@Themightyquill: so I guess we should delete whole tree of Category:Esperantists by continent? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Mobile buildings redundant with Category:Portable buildings? The latter is a subcategory of Category:Portable structures but the former has no mobile-related parent category, aside from Category:Manufactured homes. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd expect something mobile to have wheels, or to be some kind of sled or watercraft, while something portable just needs to be able to be transported easily, e.g. by means of a vehicle. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think it depends on what "easy" means in this context. It isn't super hard to move a "mobile home," but "mobile" is sort of a misnomer since they can technically move regular houses. It has to do with money and time more then anything. So categories like Category:Portable structures and Category:Caravans (mobile home) just get at better as to what these categories are specifically about. Another way to do it would be to create categories based purely on architectural/material terms. For instance Category:Demountable structures or Category:shipping container buildings Etc. Etc. Something along those lines gets rid of the potentially ambiguous value judgements that I just don't think people having to categorize media should have to do deal with, let alone can. Like what qualifies as a "mobile building." (You could almost include teepees and sheds/backyard storage buildings in that BTW, but it would be ridiculous to do so because there's obviously a real life difference between a metal shed and a Manufactured homes that really negates any need for them to share a parent category like Category:Mobile buildings). --Adamant1 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Portable buildings. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Is Category:The National Museum of Computing UK redundant with Category:National Museum of Computing ? Themightyquill (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge Category:The National Museum of Computing UK is wrong (that's not the title), although Category:National Museum of Computing, UK would conform to our usual naming and is arguably clearer than Category:National Museum of Computing 09:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge, but under Category:National Museum of Computing. No need for comma qualifier if only such museum exists--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Merged into Category:National Museum of Computing. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference between a Lit à la française and a Four poster bed? Can these two categories be merged OR have both distinctive definitions, explaining the differences? JopkeB (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bohème21: Would you please give your reaction to my question, since you started this category? (You may answer in French.) JopkeB (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Canopy beds, and now the en WP article, have galleries which needs updating with this information. Also the Wikidata is wonky; for that cat, it describe a canopy bed as "similar" to a four-poster. HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: I gather from your changes in EN Wikipedia, especially the caption under the first photo in the gallery ("Four-poster bed or Lit à la française"), that you think both categories are the same. Is that right? Can I merge both categories? JopkeB (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have changed the English and Dutch definitions in Wikidata. JopkeB (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the fix, JopkeB. A "lit à la française" seems to be a fourposter with a full-size tester or canopy (also a rather infamous etching, which does not depict a lit à la française, but was nicknamed after it anyway). A borderline case might be a lit à la Dauphine, which is not a "lit à la française" and would have four... metal poles, as they are curved, thus not really (wooden) posts, and a small canopy, so I think the correspondence is probably close enough. "Category:Half-tester beds" is English for at least some sorts of "lit à l'ange", specifically the "lit a demi-ciel". This MET article[14] is useful, and cites two sources for naming: Le Mobilier domestique. Vocabulaire typologique, 1987, by Nicole de Reyniès, which I cannot access, and the Dictionnaire de l'ameublement et de la décoration depuis le XIIIe siècle jusqu'à nos jours, 1887,by Henry Havard, which is available online:[15][16][17][18]. To call this work digressive and completionist is understatement; it runs to the better part of a thousand pages, per volume, of which there are four. And the vocabulary is words like "lampas" (that's the English translation), and he assumes the reader knows it. And having read most of the article on beds, which even the author says might be accused of being a bit overly long and detailed, and the shorter and more useful following articles on the various types, I conclude that beds were a dominant status symbols in the French court for some time, bed innovation went wild, and the ontology is arcane and not entirely consistent, and more elaborate than is likely to exist in English especially given the use of French loanwords. Worse, some of these phrases have completely separate modern meanings (e.g. a "lit à l'italienne" is modernly two beds joined together). I will attempt to reach some more useful conclusions soon; I'm pretty sure some of the categorization I've done is wrong because it's overbroad. Help would be welcome, so I'm pinging the MET's W-i-R. Another mildly useful source in French.[19] HLHJ (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: Thank you for your research. So there is much more to it than I initially thought. I'll wait to make any changes until there are more conclusions. JopkeB (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the fix, JopkeB. A "lit à la française" seems to be a fourposter with a full-size tester or canopy (also a rather infamous etching, which does not depict a lit à la française, but was nicknamed after it anyway). A borderline case might be a lit à la Dauphine, which is not a "lit à la française" and would have four... metal poles, as they are curved, thus not really (wooden) posts, and a small canopy, so I think the correspondence is probably close enough. "Category:Half-tester beds" is English for at least some sorts of "lit à l'ange", specifically the "lit a demi-ciel". This MET article[14] is useful, and cites two sources for naming: Le Mobilier domestique. Vocabulaire typologique, 1987, by Nicole de Reyniès, which I cannot access, and the Dictionnaire de l'ameublement et de la décoration depuis le XIIIe siècle jusqu'à nos jours, 1887,by Henry Havard, which is available online:[15][16][17][18]. To call this work digressive and completionist is understatement; it runs to the better part of a thousand pages, per volume, of which there are four. And the vocabulary is words like "lampas" (that's the English translation), and he assumes the reader knows it. And having read most of the article on beds, which even the author says might be accused of being a bit overly long and detailed, and the shorter and more useful following articles on the various types, I conclude that beds were a dominant status symbols in the French court for some time, bed innovation went wild, and the ontology is arcane and not entirely consistent, and more elaborate than is likely to exist in English especially given the use of French loanwords. Worse, some of these phrases have completely separate modern meanings (e.g. a "lit à l'italienne" is modernly two beds joined together). I will attempt to reach some more useful conclusions soon; I'm pretty sure some of the categorization I've done is wrong because it's overbroad. Help would be welcome, so I'm pinging the MET's W-i-R. Another mildly useful source in French.[19] HLHJ (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Canopy beds, and now the en WP article, have galleries which needs updating with this information. Also the Wikidata is wonky; for that cat, it describe a canopy bed as "similar" to a four-poster. HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've come to the conclusion that the terms used by French nobles in the 1700s are pretty useless for categorizing canopy beds, with a few exceptions. These were fashion terms, and their meanings changed as the fashions changed. For instance:
- "lit à colonnes", "lits à pavillon", and "lit à quenouilles" are used by some as synonyms, but others draw distinctions. Different distinctions.
- Historic sources use "lit à duchess" and "lit à l'impériale" both as two independent traits and as synonyms. "Lit à la duchess" seems to originally have meant any bed with its headboard against wall, which was later called a "lit de bout". "Lit à l'impériale" implied both specific shapes of some, including one that seems the same as a "lit à la polonaise", and also any dome or dome-like shape, and had subterminology. Or just a "flying canopy". Whatever that is. "Lit en dôme" may mean something different sometimes, "lit à la dauphine" is sometimes a synonym and sometimes seems more like a "lit a la polonaise".
- "lit a l'italienne" can mean anything from a way of tying the drapery to a type of bed recently adopted from Italy, like, say, a domed bed (see above), or a bed with Ancient-Rome-style decorations. Or a bed with symmetrical head-and foot boards, also called a "lit a deux dossiers" or "lit de travers"
- a "lit de baldachin" can be any bed with it's side against the wall. But once that starts getting called a "lit a la romaine", it means any canopy bed.
- A bed with raised ends and one raised side may be a "lit a la turque", a "lit a la sultane", a "lit a la romaine", a "lit à l'anglaise", or several other things.
- The Empire beds are often named after objects. Like that giant ceiling-mounted fake shell suspending the drapes (lit à coquille), or the fake carved giant tulip (lit a tulipe), of the three giant arrows, as long as the bed is wide, sticking out from the wall as if shot into it and supporting the canopy (lit a flèche). At least this is clear, but these are too rare to be useful.
- a "lit d'ange" needs a full-width non-full-length canopy (a "lit a demi-ciel"), and may need not to have a footboard, or sometimes it does have a footboard, And it may or may not need an exposed frame with carved crown moulding around the canopy. And it may nearly mean "lit de parade" in some periods.
- "lit d'alcove" means a "lit à balustre", until balustrades go out of fashion and it comes to mean a bed in a niche in the wall, as at Category:Alcove bed. "Lit à balustre" is sometimes a synonym for "lit de parade", "lit de paré", "lit de parement". But sometimes not, when the fashion is not for balustrades.
- So... I am strongly in favour of not using any term that does not directly describe something we can see in the pictures (suspension methods are particularly hard to see). And having category names in English, since they will be descriptive, and putting in the French terms in the notes, where inconsistency can be documented. As an example, I've made Category:Beds behind balustrades.
- I suggest starting with beds by time period. There is a sharp divide between the medieval canopy beds, with suspended canopies and no exposed bedframe, and the Renaissance beds, with exposed frames that have lots and lots and lots of fancy woodcarving. This was caused by the invention of bed bolts and removable-slat bed bases, making the bedframes portable, and by the rich people becoming more sedentary. In the 1700s, the fashion changed a lot. Things like flat-panel fixed corner drapes went in and out. So dividing by fashion will divide by time and vice-versa. There was already Category:Medieval beds, and I made Category:Renaissance beds as non-controversial. I suggest that we divide the rest into "Ancien-Regime and Restoration" and "Empire". The periods of French history really make a difference. Republican beds were presumably not particularly ostentatious; if I find any I'll deal with them. I'd suggest sorting by time period first, and then sorting by style if needed. Time period and style correlate strongly, so that would make the work much easier. Potential sub-sorting could be by canopy shape (round or rectangular), size (oversize, full-size, full-width but short, and [rare] full-length but narrow), and location (end, side, center). There are also medieval beds with curtains but no canopies, and some late ones with dagged valences; I'd suggest a cat for them in case of overcrowding of Category:Medieval beds.
Opinions? HLHJ (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, you did a lot of research!
- Odd that the French terms vary so much over time; I agree that we can not use them for (new) categories, unless they are still used nowadays with clear definitions. But in general I would like them to be in English.
- I agree that we should using terms that do directly describe something we can see in the pictures. I am fine with sub-sorting by canopy shape (round or rectangular), size (oversize, full-size, full-width but short, and full-length but narrow), and location (end, side, center).
- Yes, beds by time period or style is also a good idea. Then there is an extra entrance on period/style as well. I prefer by style because that is more specific (and for me more clear) than time period. For instance: the 20th-century or the period after WW-II might be time periods, but there are many styles involved, even coexisting at the same time.
- About the Renaissance beds: nearly all of them are four poster beds. Should we add Category:Four poster beds to the category or to each file?
- I am not familiar with all the different styles in France and the differences between them, so I trust you in dividing the rest of the beds into these styles.
- I am not at all against sorting by style, but I'd be a lot easier to do period first. Some Ren beds have separate canopies, on four posts that are NOT the bedposts (the earlier suspended-canopy beds had separate canopies, and amalgamating them was an innovation). Should they be separate? Or do we count them all as four-posters? If so, add to category. If not, add to subcat. HLHJ (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@HLHJ: What is the status of this discussion? I lost track. Which questions are still wating for an answer? What is yet to be done? How can I help? Is the overview at Category:Canopy beds still good or should categories be renamed, be merged or should there be extra categories? And the key question: Can Category:Lit à la française and Category:Four poster beds be merged? JopkeB (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Difference between a Lit à la française and a four poster bed
[edit]- @JopkeB and HLHJ: Bonjour, no, they can not. Merci JopkeB pour ta persistance et à vous deux pour votre engagement. Je ne prends que tardivement connaissance de la question en tête de discussion et vous prie de m’en excuser. Il n’y a, à l’exception de leur caractéristique de « lit de bout » et de « lit à baldaquin » (ou « lit à dais ») et de leur forme cubique, pas de similitude entre
- le lit à la française, lit de bout à dais (ou à baldaquin), appartenant au type de lits « à rideaux », est monté sur une structure cubique d’une extrême simplicité (en bois, voire en fer !). Il est l’œuvre d’un tapissier. La structure qui n'est d'aucun intérêt est entièrement « encourtinée », c’est-à-dire dissimulée par les tentures.
- le lit à colonnes (ou à piliers), lit de bout à baldaquin en bois massif (généralement en bois de chêne) est l’œuvre d’un menuisier spécialisé en association avec un sculpteur. Les colonnes, richement sculptés restent visibles même quand le baldaquin est garni de courtines (rideaux). On peut distinguer deux formes :
- lit de bout à quatre colonnes
- lit de bout à un haut chevet de tête et deux colonnes, abusivement appelé lit à « quatre » colonnes (correctement lit à colonnes ou lit à piliers).
- en conclusion : le premier se distingue par la qualité des étoffes couvrant une structure médiocre (dissimulée), le second par celle des piliers sculptés (exhibées).
- Catégorisation : ces deux types de lit sont à catégoriser au même niveau sous la Category:Canopy beds. Bonne continuation, --Bohème21 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Dear @Bohème21: , Thank you for your explanation. I understand that:
- 1) The categories about Lit à la française and Four poster beds cannot be merged.
- 2) You can recognize a photo with a Lit à la française by the curtains: they totally hide the four posters. So the gallery on Category:Canopy beds shows a wrong photo of Lit à la française, File:ChenonceauChambredeDianedePoitiersBed.jpg is wrongly categorized as Lit à la française. Is that true? Fixed on 12-7-2021, JopkeB
- 3) The opposite is a Lit à colonnes: a canopy bed in solid wood with richly sculpted columns that remain visible even when the canopy is adorned with curtain walls. So there are a lot of photographs wrongly categorized as Four poster beds and should be in Category:Lit à la française. Is that correct? I tried to fix this also on 12-7-2021, but I am not sure whether all the Lits à française are now out of the category Four poster beds; some fullfil the description but have nice woodcarving as well. JopkeB
- 4) A Lit à colonnes might have two forms: four posters or two posters. Are the two-posters indeed called Lit à l'ange (for a small canopy) and Lit à la duchesse (for a large canopy)? But on the photos in their categories you cannot see the posters; is this correct? If not: Can you show me photos of true two-posters beds?
- Dear @Bohème21: , Thank you for your explanation. I understand that:
-
Lit à la française
-
Lit à colonnes/Four poster bed
-
Lit à l'ange
-
Lit à la duchesse
- 5) Category:Lit à la française should in your opinion not be a subcategory of Category:Four poster beds (though it has four posters, you only don't see them), but be a subcategory of Category:Canopy beds.
- Is my understanding of your explanation correct? JopkeB (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: , bonjour, 1) correct ; 2) true x 2 ; 3a) correct lit à colonnes (common use) or lit à piliers (prefered by some historiens of decorative arts) ; 3b) Correct, due to forced mass categorization? 4a) normally the headboard of a four-poster bed is placed between the two posts. Instead of those you may find a very high sculptered board supporting the (wooden) tester. Difficult to distinguish on the available files. I guess there are not many. Keep them in the four-poster category. Do not confuse with some duchess reinforced with 2 front posts added for security. 4b) The dangerous overhanging lit à la duchesse canopies are usually fixed on such high boards or wall-mounted and often secured by chains (suspended). The lit à l'ange is a shorter version of the lit à la duchesse. 5) Correct. It should be under Cat:Canopy beds. It has not necessarily posts but can be mounted on any cuboid structure. Artistic value is not required. It takes me time to write in english. I hope it is not too lousy. Regards, --Bohème21 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Pardon d'avoir détruit des catagorizations que je n'ai pas compris; j'éviterai de le repeter, en essaiant de les décrire tant que personne ne comprendrait pas. Please also pardon my French, especially if I fail to write in a polite tone. I am not trying to be rude!
- La difference entre les lits de menuiserie compliquées et les lits tapissées est importante et facile à reconnaitre dans un photo, et je trouve que c'est une bonne distinction de categorization. Category:Renaissance beds contient beaucoup de lits à colonnes de menuiserie compliquées d'un autre époque. Mais plusières ont des ciels séparées, et non part des lits; par example, la "Great Bed of Ware" ci-dessus ("Lit à colonnes/Four poster bed").
- "Post" ne me semble pas tout a fait d'être synonyme de "colonne". "Post" serait aussi traduit par "quillion", ou "pillier", une autre nom de membre de compression. Dans l'usage quotidienne de "four-poster bed", des "posts" encourtinées seraient probablement inclus (l'OED dit simplement "[bed] having four posts to support canopy", et "bedpost" est décrit ansi: "upright support of bed". "Post", c'est plûtot "fencepost" que la menuiserie élegante). Category:Lit à la française se décrit comme "Lit de bout à un seul chevet et dont le dais, supporté par quatre piliers droits, est de même dimension que la couchette." Un "Lit de bout", c'est un lit avec le bout contre le mur? Category:Four-poster beds dit:
English: Distinguish Category:Canopy beds with a ceiling (canopy) fixed on the wall, with or without posters, see on the left and Category:Four poster beds with a ceiling on four poles (posters), see on the right.
[Distinguish Category:Canopy beds with a ceiling (canopy) fixed to the wall or ceiling, with or without posts (as on the left) and Category:Four-poster beds with a ceiling on four poles or posts (as on the right).]
Français : Différencier Category:Canopy beds (lits à baldaquin) avec le ciel de lit fixé au mur, avec ou sans colonnes, voir sur la gauche et Category:Four poster beds (lits à colonnes) avec le ciel de lit reposant sur des colonnes, voir sur la droite.
- Alors, un ciel fixé au mur ou bien au plafond, mais avec quatre colonnes/posts quand-même (ça existe, ça?), n'est pas un "Four-poster bed"? Les definitions de Henry Havard de "lit à colonnes" ne me semblent aussi pas tout a fait en accords avec eux-mêmes. Ils nous faut des définitions plus claires.
- "Four-poster beds" may be unclear in French. I'm starting to think there isn't a good direct translation. The English term does not seem to have the same meaning as any French term. Well, no French term whose meaning is agreed upon by the sources I've read. Unless we resort to pure descriptions, making some terms clear in multiple languages may require some careful operational definitions. Four-poster bed = any bed incorporating four upright members that support a canopy, or placed under a separate canopy supported by four upright members? un lit avec, ou sous, un ciel soutenu de quatre soutiens verticales?
- Je suis prêt a traduir des définitions françaises en anglais, si vous êtes prêtes a lire et corriger, mais evidement je n'ai pas tout compris. Un travail collaboratif serait ansi peut-être necessaire. HLHJ (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your English is fine, @Bohème21: , I can read it without the need of a translation program. I fixed some badly categorized files, see above in green.
- I can very well live with the definition: Four-poster bed = any bed incorporating four upright members that support a canopy, or placed under a separate canopy supported by four upright members. It is clear and easy to understand. Perhaps we should make a subcategory for Four-poster beds with woodcarving, for instance for des lits à colonnes de menuiserie compliquées. And make a category for Side-mounted canopy beds (including or instead of Lits à la turque), as a subcategory of Canopy beds (but this may be part of the broader discussion). JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your English is fine, @Bohème21: , I can read it without the need of a translation program. I fixed some badly categorized files, see above in green.
Other canopy beds
[edit]- Sans vouloir offenser personne, je tiens à dire que le classement des lits à baldaquin dont HLHJ souligne à juste titre les difficultés ne peut pas être fait sans compétence ou sans connaissances sérieuses en la matière.
- Hors sujets et suite de la discussion : Il me semble que les autres questions abordées ci-dessus (classement par période, époque, etc.) sont hors sujet sur cette page concernant les lits à la française. Je propose de les transférer pour une discussion plus générale sur Category talk:Canopy beds (où j'y répondrai volontiers), ce qui permettra, avec votre consentement, de clore cette discussion. Bonne continuation, --Bohème21 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Vous avez raison, Bohème21, je trouve aussi q'un séparation des discussions serait ûtile. Je ne suis pas offensé; être offensé d'un qui n'essaie pas à offenser? Que j'evite un tel stupidité. Et puis, mes modifications étaient agaçantes. Si les catégories ne sont pas compréhensibles sans la compétence ou sans connaissances sérieuses en la matière, ils ne sons pas convenables à Commons, mais las compétence et les connaissances sérieuses sont bien necessires à la formation de ces categorisations, et j'espère qu'on profiterons de vos connaisances. HLHJ (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree. I created a discussion page, see Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/07/Category:Canopy_beds (a discussion page has more reach that a category talk page). Please check whether all the points to be discussed are mentioned and are well worded. JopkeB (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Vous avez raison, Bohème21, je trouve aussi q'un séparation des discussions serait ûtile. Je ne suis pas offensé; être offensé d'un qui n'essaie pas à offenser? Que j'evite un tel stupidité. Et puis, mes modifications étaient agaçantes. Si les catégories ne sont pas compréhensibles sans la compétence ou sans connaissances sérieuses en la matière, ils ne sons pas convenables à Commons, mais las compétence et les connaissances sérieuses sont bien necessires à la formation de ces categorisations, et j'espère qu'on profiterons de vos connaisances. HLHJ (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Suite lit à la française
[edit]@JopkeB and HLHJ: : bonjour. Pour information, suite aux interrogations de JopkeB concernant la structure du lit à la française, j'ai posé là un lien vers une rare photographie de l'intérieur d'un tel lit. Cordialement, --Bohème21 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@JopkeB and HLHJ: : bonjour, voici un article avec une autre image montrant la structure d'un lit à la française en cours de restauration, entièrement dégarnie. On voit bien que c'est un travail de menuiserie (sinon de "charpente") plutôt grossier et en rien comparable aux bois de lits sculptés des four poster beds. Cordialement, --Bohème21 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merci,Bohème21, c'est bien utile, cet article! Je crois que l'ontologie est plus simple, ici. "Post" désigne pour la plupart plutôt un travail en charpente grossier ("pole", c'est plutôt rond, mais on ne dit pas "four-pole bed"). "Pillar", "column", ou, si courte, "baluster" sont plutôt des travails en menuiserie fins (mais on dit "a four-poster bed with turned and fluted columns" et non "four-column bed"). "Upright", c'est génerel: une element structurelle vérticale. C'est possible qu'on dit "four-poster", même pour le Great Bed of Ware, par ce que la charpente du moyen-age etait si simple; on pourrait demander aux lexicographes. Égale, "four-poster" ne dit rien du grossière ou visíbilité du menuiserie (même pour les lits stupidement prétensieuses[20][21]). Seulment que le ciel peut être supporté de dessous aux quatre coins. HLHJ (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
-
The Great Bed of Ware, commonly called a four-poster, although it has ornate pillars and a solid full-height headboard. English Rénaissance.
-
A simple bed of the same period, also English; would also be called a four-poster
Conclusions
[edit]- There is a difference between a Lit à la française and a Four poster bed. These two categories cannot be merged.
- Lit à la française: a simple bed with a full-size canopy, the curtains totally hide the posters (when there are any posters).
- Lit à colonnes: a canopy bed in solid wood with richly sculpted columns that remain visible even when the canopy is adorned with curtain walls. A Lit à colonnes might have four posters or two posters.
- Four-poster bed: any bed incorporating four upright members that support a canopy, or placed under a separate canopy supported by four upright members.
- Category:Lit à la française should not be a subcategory of Category:Four poster beds because it has not necessarily four posts and it can also be mounted on a cuboid structure.
- The discussion about other sorts of canapy beds has been transferred to and continued on Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/07/Category:Canopy beds.
HLHJ and Bohème21 do you agree? Please give your opion. --JopkeB (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Since there was no answer for over two months, I close this discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Category:Lit à la française should not be merged with nor be a subcategory of Category:Four poster beds. More conclusions: see above. --JopkeB (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Empty category for a nonexistent country. Liz (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- There was a 12th-century Kingdom of Africa, see w:en:Kingdom of Africa and articles in other Wikipedia languages. However, the category text specifies a modern non-existent kingdom. We should change the text and include File:Regnonormanno1160.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted empty category, apparent hoax/troll -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Notice This is one of the category-for-discussion (CFD) which falls into WikiProject Chemistry. For more CFDs, see Commons:WikiProject_Chemistry/Deletion_requests#Categories_for_discussion
Es gibt bisher nur zwei bekannte Minerale, die die oben genannte Bedingung der Zusammensetzung erfüllen: Ertixiit (Na2Si4O9) und Natrosilit. Zählt man die wasserhaltigen Minerale dazu, gibt es weitere 8 Minerale: Chesnokovit, Grumantit, Kanemit, Kenyait, Magadiit, Makatit, Revdit und Yegorovit.
So far, there are only two known minerals that meet the above-mentioned condition of composition: Ertixiite (Na2Si4O9, no category) and Natrosilite. If you add the water-containing minerals, there are another 8 minerals: Chesnokovite, Grumantite, Kanemite, Kenyaite, Magadiite, Makatite, Revdite und Yegorovite.
Greetings Ra'ike T C 20:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- The first is obviously yes (we can close this now). As the nominator themself notes there are valid members for this category. Two of them are already here: Kenyaite and Magadiite. The fact they're subcategories, not images here directly, doesn't change that. Yes, they're rare - but that's just not relevant.
- Secondly, the question can be re-stated as "What is a sodium silicate mineral?" or more clearly, "Do we take a broad or narrow definition?" A mineral that's purely a sodium silicate is obviously included. However what else is allowed? Hydration? - I would certainly say yes. Any WP:RS definition of "sodium silicate mineral" begins by listing the three best known: Kanemite, Kenyaite, Magadiite. Combinations with metals other than sodium? - I would say no. At present we have Albite here and that's always described as a "sodium aluminium silicate". This is a common and even more well-known mineral as one of the textbook standards for plagioclase feldspars. The whole point of which is that they're a continuum of metals substituting for each other. They're an important group, but we should categorise them under Plagioclase etc., not here.
- There is another possibility: we have many minerals where there is a "doping" effect: ruby and sapphire are varieties of corundum or aluminium oxide which only differ in having minuscule quantities of particular metals. Although they're best known under the specific names, they're also validly regarded as "corundum". Minerals are not reagant grade in their purity, Commons should be realistic in this. I don't know if there's anything similar for sodium silicates, as varieties of minerals within this category. If such do exist, I'd support their inclusion here. But my mineralogical knowledge doesn't stretch that far for sodium silicates. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I created this category simply because there were two very distinct types of images in Category:Sodium silicates - photos of minerals and chemical structure images of chemical compounds. I believe the two types of images warrant separate categorization, so I moved the mineral photos to their own category. If there is a better way to categorize the photos of minerals that were in Category:Sodium silicates that does not require Category:Sodium silicate minerals, then I do not object to deletion of this category. I do not know enough about mineral classification to have a strong opinion of the best way forward in that regard. Marbletan (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ra'ike: Any reactions to the comments above? --Leyo 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Leyo: Was soll ich dazu noch sagen? Wenn die beiden mineralogischen Leichtgewichte glauben, dass diese Kategorie so unglaublich wichtig ist, dann sollen sie sie behalten (auf Commons wird sowieso jeder Müll behalten). Ich hatte diese Löschdiskussion ehrlich gesagt auch schon vergessen, denn selbst bei den normalen Mineralkategorien gibt es so viel zu tun, dass man nicht wirklich hinterher kommt. Mehr als die oben genannten Argumente habe ich nicht, aber die Category:Silicate minerals nach chemischer Zusammensetzung zu unterteilen halte ich immer noch für absolut sinnlos, weil ein Fass ohne Boden. Allenfalls kann man sie noch nach ihrer Kristallstruktur unterteilen. Diese findet man ja auch in Category:Silicates (Inosilicates, Cyclosilicates, Phyllosilicates,...) -- Ra'ike T C 21:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Leyo and Ra'ike: Generell muss man sagen, dass die Category:Silicate minerals ein großes Durcheinander an Unterkategorien hat. Es ist also zu begrüßen, das zu vereinheitlichen. Stellen sich zwei Fragen: 1. nach was soll man vereinheitlichen und 2. hilft diese Kat dabei. Zu 1.: die übliche Unterkategorie für ähnliche Kategorie scheint mir die Einzelmineral-Kat zu sein, keine zusammenfassenden Kategorien nach chemischer Zusammensetzung. Daraus folgt für mich für 2. dass diese Kategorie außerhalb der sinnvollen Kategorisierung ist und daher gelöscht werden sollte. --Orci Disk. 15:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your statements. What about the current subcategories (Ertixiite, Kenyaite, Magadiite, Natrosilite)? Should they be moved to Category:Silicate minerals? --Leyo 10:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, because they're sodium silicates. The point is that such minerals are rare, not unimportant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Every sodium silicate mineral is also a silicate mineral. "Sodium silicate mineral" is also a bad discription, because it mixes chemical and mineralogical nomenclature. How rare minerals are is completely irrelevant. Orci Disk. 11:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ja, die können einfach in die Oberkat. -- Orci Disk. 11:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, because they're sodium silicates. The point is that such minerals are rare, not unimportant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your statements. What about the current subcategories (Ertixiite, Kenyaite, Magadiite, Natrosilite)? Should they be moved to Category:Silicate minerals? --Leyo 10:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Leyo and Ra'ike: Generell muss man sagen, dass die Category:Silicate minerals ein großes Durcheinander an Unterkategorien hat. Es ist also zu begrüßen, das zu vereinheitlichen. Stellen sich zwei Fragen: 1. nach was soll man vereinheitlichen und 2. hilft diese Kat dabei. Zu 1.: die übliche Unterkategorie für ähnliche Kategorie scheint mir die Einzelmineral-Kat zu sein, keine zusammenfassenden Kategorien nach chemischer Zusammensetzung. Daraus folgt für mich für 2. dass diese Kategorie außerhalb der sinnvollen Kategorisierung ist und daher gelöscht werden sollte. --Orci Disk. 15:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per arguments presented in the nomination and in the discussion. --Leyo 13:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Quirino Highway (Caloocan City section). Unnecessary category encouraging redundancy and replication. All 27 files have been transferred to Category:Arnaiz Avenue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also
- Category:Arnaiz Avenue (Makati City section) - all files have also been moved at Category:Arnaiz Avenue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
If I'm not correct, this word also means people or women from Venezuela, and that's why we have so many images unrelated to the airline here? Maybe I have it wrong. Themightyquill (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Convert to disambig. Category:Venezolana (airline) and Category:People of Venezuela Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with above. Sensible approach. Ardfern (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Changed to a disambiguation page per discussion. GeorgHH • talk 15:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Move to Category:Churches in Reinbek. It's a subcategory of Category:Churches in Kreis Stormarn. Themightyquill (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Churches in Reinbek. GeorgHH • talk 20:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
What on earth is the point of this category? If fully implemented, it would contain about a million or more photos. Delete, and delete the subcategories. MPF (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral part of a Category:Animals by quantity scheme--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Greets Triplec85 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- For all these categories, the Category:1 animal is the useful, appropriate main category
...
- All Categories by quantity always go from 1,2,3,4 ... to about ~ 12, some more ... and end with many.
- This whole structure from beginning from 1, ..., to many should of course be kept.
-- Triple C 85 | User talk | 13:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- All Categories by quantity always go from 1,2,3,4 ... to about ~ 12, some more ... and end with many.
@MPF, Triplec85, Geoprofi Lars, and Estopedist1: Closed (no consensus to change) Josh (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Please delete this to pave the way for move of Category:Cagayan de Oro City to this name (to align with the title of enwiki article) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 12:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 and HueMan1: can we retain Category:Cagayan de Oro as a redirect?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: "City" suffix here is unnecessary. There are no other places in the world with the same name, and therefore the most practical and logical name is w:Cagayan de Oro. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: "City" suffix here is unnecessary. There are no other places in the world with the same name, and therefore the most practical and logical name is w:Cagayan de Oro. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 and HueMan1: can we retain Category:Cagayan de Oro as a redirect?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Should Watermills be a subcategory or a supercategory of water wheels? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC) @Elkost:
- Watermills are mills powered by water: they grind something, most commonly flour. All (sic) watermills have a water wheel, however water wheels are also used for many other industrial processes that for not involve milling: mine drainage, sawmills, industrial workshops, blowing air at furnaces.
- Watermills hould be the subcat, not the supercat of water wheels. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Categorize Category:Watermills under Category:Water wheels | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
I have a feeling like this is an invented plate name. I would prefer to have the original (local language) name of this dish, in case it has one. Probably this is more a definition description than a proper name. (Like "porotos partidos" in South America, or "etli bezelye" in Turkish) This cat must be re-named independently from my concerns, due to wrong use of capital letters. Therefore take the opportunity to find a better name, please. Users that know the Philippine cuisine? E4024 (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Piedmont University as Piedmont College became Piedmont University in April 2021 (see https://nowhabersham.com/piedmont-college-changes-its-name/). TSventon (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- The en wiki category has been speedily updated to en:Category:Piedmont University. User:E4024, please could you close this nomination as well? TSventon (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am not sure of that. When an institution is known for a certain name, an official name change is not an issue for WPs. They can and must record the change but may prefer to continue using the old name for a while. (I know this is not WP and I read what you wrote above.) In Commons we have a mixed-sex high-school under a "Girls" name (I made it) because everybody knows that school as such. When the common name changes we may change it here, not when an official signed a document to change it. I have no objection to move this cat but let us expect someone else to do the needed. You may write a note at the Administrators Board to ask help. E4024 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am not sure of that. When an institution is known for a certain name, an official name change is not an issue for WPs. They can and must record the change but may prefer to continue using the old name for a while. (I know this is not WP and I read what you wrote above.) In Commons we have a mixed-sex high-school under a "Girls" name (I made it) because everybody knows that school as such. When the common name changes we may change it here, not when an official signed a document to change it. I have no objection to move this cat but let us expect someone else to do the needed. You may write a note at the Administrators Board to ask help. E4024 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This province (like all provinces of France) were replaced with departments in 1790. We already have categories for the present-day regions but adding categories for the historic provinces would make every single category a mess. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- delete, according to Ricky81682. --Bohème21 (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I propose deleting this category. It seems to be duplicated by its own subcategory. Auntof6 (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
We do not categorize images by quality. Coats of arms of users and Special or fictional coats of arms already do what is to be done. If someone wants to create a collection of bad coats of arms, the right way to do that is with a gallery on a subpage of the userpage. (I would probably add File:Coat of arms of Transkei.png and File:Sade-Blason-Net.gif, and give and honorable mention to File:OSDLPR CoA.svg.) Watchduck (quack) 10:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- What does "fake" mean? Is that the same as "fictional" (in which case, merge) or does it mean "poor quality", as for the pejorative comment "Extremely poor job or Photoshop fakery, obviously made by children or teenagers." on this category page? Some of these images are in multiple of these cats.
- It is also impossibly difficult to determine "fictional" status for some arms, even WP:N notable arms such as Sealand or Melchizedek, where these are granted from some micronation outside the medievally-established European colleges of arms. Then we have the sheer fakes, such as File:Trump coa.svg.
- I don't think we need this cat. Some, such as File:Watchduck.svg legitimately belong elsewhere. There might be some which we delete as poor quality and thus outside COM:SCOPE. But the closest I can see to that would be this series, File:Mcqueen 3.jpg, and even then I'm reluctant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Some of the coats of arms and flags are nothing but jokes. They are not even fictional coats of arms, they are not coats of arms at all. drawings made by children, or jokes made by teenagers. A fictional coat of arms is invented and has no legitimacy, but at least it's really a coat of arms that respects the rules of the art. It's not the case here.
- (comment by Djampa)
- All of the content here is within COM:SCOPE and should be kept. Any content here which fails COM:SCOPE (I agree, that's possible) should be deleted, item by item, on the basis of each item. We don't need a category to contain, "Stuff you have a problem with, but won't delete." Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
It is generally accepted, that users who contribute educational content, can also upload a small amount of personal files. The users behind the first three files have not made any relevant contributions, and I would not mind deleting all their uploads. The users behind the last two files (including my humble self) have made relevant contributions, so there is nothing wrong with a few brain farts in between. It would be incredibly pointless, if we spend our time debating the realness or fakeness of File:Escut Barcelona.svg, File:Blason armes muettes.svg or File:Awesome arms.svg.
I have created a deletion request for most of this stuff: Commons:Deletion requests/uploads by users with personal files only
That should solve the discussion. This category can be deleted. --Watchduck (quack) 21:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 | Category:Sonderkraftfahrzeuge (Sd.Kfz.) | Move to/Rename as | Category:Vehicles by Sonderkraftfahrzeug number | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | malformed initial name, new name fits actual function of category as an index of SdKfz numbers | |||
 | Josh (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
- @Joshbaumgartner: I think you should close this discussion to rename this category with no objections. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Rename category | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
We also have Category:Gallery pages about animals and I cannot see the difference. E4024 (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- One reason for that is many things that are actually in one of these cats might well be in the other instead (per description ). --E4024 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- confusing, parent is Category:Gallery pages about nature--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@E4024 and Estopedist1: See my comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Gallery pages about animals. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
We also have Category:Gallery pages of animals and I cannot see the difference. E4024 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- The idea is that the use of ABOUT is to leave room for things related to animals. Galleries OF animals are normally very specific.--Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I was almost suspecting that in the case of OF, the animals were making galleries (of themselves :). --E4024 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- If you think this separation is so important, useful and other people (those more intelligent than me :) will not get confused about which image to hang at which wall, no problem for me if you wish to close this discussion. I will try to keep away from these galleries not to make mistakes... E4024 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are 14 Categories named Gallery pages about ..., and it seems you are the first to have a kind of problem. I could search for a good example, but I prefer a closure of this discussion ... Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I took the following hatnote from the "Category:Gallery pages of animals" and bolded it for you: "List of galleries of animals by their common (English) names, and things related to animals." When you have two identical cats, you have two problems, not one. E4024 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Good point! The note for this very early category (2014) should be modified to avoid ambiguïty since the creation (by me) in 2016 of the Category about animals. talk) 10:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC) --Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I took the following hatnote from the "Category:Gallery pages of animals" and bolded it for you: "List of galleries of animals by their common (English) names, and things related to animals." When you have two identical cats, you have two problems, not one. E4024 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am often confused about which preposition to use on Commons, or what the differences are between/when to use 'of', 'about', 'from', 'in', etcetera. I too did not know the difference between gallery pages of and about a subject. So can there please be one central Commons page where the differences are explained for non native English speakers? (Not only for gallery pages but for categories as well?) --JopkeB (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are 14 Categories named Gallery pages about ..., and it seems you are the first to have a kind of problem. I could search for a good example, but I prefer a closure of this discussion ... Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- The idea is that the use of ABOUT is to leave room for things related to animals. Galleries OF animals are normally very specific.--Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely in agreement, as it meets my comments and yours. Note that there are similar issues for locations (in or at or of ...). Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Gallery pages of animals to Category:Gallery pages about animals. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||