Last modified on 30 July 2014, at 19:41

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/09

Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive September 2010


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Estadio Enrique Torres BelónEdit

This category has no files or images. None are available at the moment. This category should be deleted until appropriate images are uploaded. --MicroX (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. Empty categories may be speedy-deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, and tagged for speedy. May be recreated when needed. Rehman(+) 09:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted: 22 September 2010 by Túrelio (talk · contribs). May be recreated when needed. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:NephtytisEdit

Reasons for discussion request: Ortograph. error, the proper category is Category:Nephthytis (created), media moved --Enzo^ (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's a misspelling, we would generally just request the bot to move the category and then add {{speedy|empty, moved to Category:Nephthytis}}
As this spelling doesn't seem to be that rare, you might want to add {{category redirect|Nephthytis}} instead.  Docu  at 10:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted: 22 September 2010 by Túrelio (talk · contribs). May be recreated if a redirect is required. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Nephtytis afzeliiEdit

Reasons for discussion request: Ortograph. error, the proper category is Category:Nephthytis afzelii (created), media moved --Enzo^ (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done; tagged for speedy. Rehman(+) 09:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted: 22 September 2010 by Túrelio (talk · contribs). AusTerrapin (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cidade NovaEdit

Disambiguated category to Category:Cidade Nova (Rio de Janeiro). This should be deleted to avoid badly tagged files. --jonkerz 12:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


Deleted 12:43, 16 September 2010 Foroa deleted "Category:Cidade Nova" ‎ (moved to Category: Cidade Nova (Rio de Janeiro)) Rocket000 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Mountains of HimalayaEdit

Not needed. Had three pics (2 maps with category:maps of himalaya; 1 foto that already had a subcat of a mountainrange); I cleared them. So please delete (further explanations: Images of mountains are listed in subcats of the respective mountains or in subcats of subranges of the Himalayas. If that's impossible Category:Himalaya should work. But this Cat:Mountains of Himealaya is superfluous.)--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, per nom. Rehman(+) 09:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Partito_Comunista_del_LavoratoriEdit

Should be deleted because its name is not correct (DEL LAVORATORI); in correct Italian it's Partito Comunista dei Lavoratori. A new category with the correct name (Category:Partito Comunista dei Lavoratori) has just been created. -- Blackcat (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, and tagged it for speedy deletion. Rehman(+) 09:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted: 22 September 2010 by Túrelio (talk · contribs). AusTerrapin (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Abandoned_villages_in_USAEdit

Redundent to Category:Ghost towns in the United States, has an improper name ("USA" rather than "United States"), and empty. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Deleted. For future reference, empty categories like that can be tagged for speedy deletion or redirected. Rocket000 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Living_peopleEdit

Essentially, this holds subcategories named after specific persons. As it isn't used as the one at wp, should this be redirected to Category:People by name?

Previous discussion was here. ---  Docu  at 00:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A few % per year die, nobody can maintain a living list. --Foroa (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done  Docu  at 04:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Orders and DecorationsEdit

Rename Category:Orders and Decorations to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and Decorations in Asia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Asia (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Europe to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Europe (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:British honours system to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom (0 entries moved, 1 to go)
Rename Category:Images of orders, decorations and medals of the Republic of China to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Republic of China (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Order and dicoration in iraq to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Iraq (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Austria to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Austria (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Germany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Germany (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Italy to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Italy (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Montenegro to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Montenegro (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Naples to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Naples (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Poland to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Portugal to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Portugal (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Prussia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Prussia (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in San-Marino to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of San-Marino (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Spain to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Spain (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in the Netherlands to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Netherlands (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Tuscany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Tuscany (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Wuerzburg to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Wuerzburg (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and Decorations of Armenia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Armenia (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Czechoslovakia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Czechoslovakia (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Finland to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Finland (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Greece to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Greece (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Moldova to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Moldova (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Reuss to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Reuss (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations of Romania to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Romania (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations of the German Democratic Republic to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the German Democratic Republic (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations of the Holy See (Vatican City) to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Vatican City (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and medals of Socialist Yugoslavia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Socialist Yugoslavia (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and medals of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and medals of Yugoslavia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Yugoslavia (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders in Prussia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Prussia (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders of Russian Empire to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Russian Empire (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Orders and decorations in Order of Saint Lazarus to Category:Order of Saint Lazarus insignia (26 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Decorations of France to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of France (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
  • Merge
Rename Category:Ribbon bars of Vatican to Category:Ribbon bars of the Vatican City (32 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Decorations in Germany to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Germany (0 entries moved, 3 to go)
Rename Category:Decorations of Armenia to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Armenia (0 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Ribbon bars of Philippine to Category:Ribbon bars of the Philippines (46 entries moved, 0 to go)

The above changes are required to assist in standardising the category schema for orders, decorations and medals. In accordance with en:WP:ODM guidelines, the overarching category titles should refer to 'Orders, decorations, and medals' not just to 'Orders and decorations' or 'Orders and medals'. This better reflects the full scope of the thematic subject). The proposed changes will address this and will assist in standardising internally to Wikimedia Commons whilst aligning against the Category naming used on the english Wikipedia. The general schema, the structure of which already exists (with exceptions), will become:

Awards (awards cover all forms of awards, not just state orders, decorations and medals)
|—Awards by country
|—Awards of X
|—Orders, decorations, and medals of X
|—Awards by type
|—Orders, decorations, and medals (Orders, decorations and medals covers, with rare exceptions, state issued orders, decorations and medals as part of a state honours system, top level category includes generic media and categories - see [:en:WP:ODM])
|—Orders, decorations, and medals by country
|—Orders, decorations, and medals of X
|—Orders of X
|—Military decorations of X
|—Civil decorations of X
|—Ribbon bars of X
|—Orders (contains generic media and categories about Orders)
|—Orders by country
|—Orders of X
|—Order Y (eg Order of the Garter)
|—Military decorations (contains generic media and categories about military decorations)
|—Military decorations by country
|—Military decorations of X
|—Civil decorations (contains generic media and categories about civil decorations)
|—Civil decorations by country
|—Civil decorations of X
|—Ribbon bars (contains generic media and categories about ribbon bars)
|—Ribbon bars by country
|—Ribbon bars of X

(where X is a country name and Y is the title of a specific order, decoration, etc) -- AusTerrapin (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as it will standardise categories as per the nominators explanation. MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

& Symbol support vote.svg Support Standarization in category trees is very helpful. SV1XV (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Concord (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am wondering if there could be a more concise and global name to group it all. Anyway, there should be no comma after decorations; that is a language error. --Foroa (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: There is no language error, it is a serial comma. Whilst there are different schools of thought about whether serial commas should or should not be used, it has been the convention of this category structure for several years on en:WP. Part of the idea of the change was to align the Commons English category titling with the category titling on the English Wikipedia making it easier for editors to swap easily between the two. If, and when, multi-lingual category titling is adopted on Commons, I would support alternative language titling mirroring the titling in use on the respective language wikis but that is a bridge we can cross when we get there. Regarding the global name to group it all, we already have the best that is likely to be achieved. Awards is the widesweeping parent category. Orders are not decorations or medals, decorations are not medals and vice versa. Notwithstanding, all three are closely associated with each other. Exonumia covers more than just orders, decorations, and medals and is therefore no better a parent category than awards. "Orders, decorations, and medals" is the category titling that was adopted by WP:ODM in January 2007 and has been used quite successfully without the myriad of inconsistent variations that have sprung up on Commons. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved. Consensus seems to have been established (and serial commas are perfectly ok). I'm issuing the requests right now. Rocket000 (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Serial commas are not common in the international world and not used so far on commons. We cannot mix different styles. --Foroa (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Palauet_AlbenizEdit

Should be deleted. I have created it with the right name Jordiferrer (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Redirected to Category:Palauet Albéniz. --  Docu  at 05:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Murales_a_TinnariEdit

Delete: titolo errato - sosrituito da "Murales a Tinnura" Discanto (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Deleted. --rimshottalk 06:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Images from the National Archives and Records AdministrationEdit

As an employee of NARA and of the Still Pictures access division in particular, I think that this category is improperly described. The title of the category regards the files within as images held under the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration. However, the description and notably the template "NARA-image" regards images solely under the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) system with a digital copy or description. This is patently deceiving when it comes to the true nature of NARA's holdings. In Special Media alone, there are approximately 13 million images within NARA's custody, and only a fraction of them are identified in ARC. An even smaller number of them actually have been scanned and are available as digital copies. In fact, ARC is only complete to 68 percent at the SERIES level... (this means that 32 percent of NARA's holdings are not even mentioned on ARC at all, much less identified, cataloged, and digitized as individual records. I'd appreciate discussion on this matter. --BcNARApix (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We could move the ones identified in ARC to a subcategory and update {{NARA-image}} accordingly. What name would you suggest for such a subcategory, e.g. Category:Images from the National Archives and Records Administration identified in the Archival Research Catalog ?  Docu  at 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. It would probably need two subcategories: one for those with an image specific identifier and another one for those with a series specific identifier. Docu  at 09:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that would be perfect, actually. It removes the ambiguity that I was referring to and properly identifies the picture sources. The necessity for two subcategories really depends on the information associated with the photographs themselves - If a series is going to be designated, its more than likely the person or group who scanned the photo is going to include the item identifier too, i.e. an image simply attributed to the National Archives vs. an image with the source and citation information.--BcNARApix (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I tried to add part of your explanation to the main category description. I think it should be enhanced/corrected to guide users as much as possible.  Docu  at 09:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. I've taken a look at it, and I'll try to enhance it as you mentioned, as it's a little bit convoluted (not by your fault at all, it's the system unfortunately). The way that Special Media describes its images involves a few separate components, as in the example 80-G-12345: the Record Group being 80 (which designates it as records created by the Department of the Navy), the series being G (which designates the item as being part of the General Photographs series) and then the number corresponding to the individual image itself. The problem with the ARC system, is that while it is extremely helpful to people as a research tool, it is separate from the systems that NARA's branches (Textual, Special Media-Stills/Motion/Cartographic and the Regional/Presidential Libraries) employ to catalog records. Until NARA gets the manpower and funding to digitize all of its billions (literally) of records, ARC will be incomplete.--BcNARApix (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this discussion can probably be closed. {{NARA-image}}, which feeds this, can now take "None" as a parameter, which gives the notice "This item has no ARC Identifier. It is likely that only its record group (collection) and/or series have been described in the catalog; those citations should be provided on this page along with any Local Identifier." And, at the same time, we are not working with the description staff on cataloging any items that have made their way into the Wikimedia projects with quality scans before NARA cataloged them, and using the Wikipedian scans. Dominic (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Category is kept, as the issue with the category has been addressed. Harej (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Tattoo_innormizmEdit

I'm pretty sure "innormizm" is a made up word by a not-so-notable tattoo artist (his en.wp was deleted[1] however he has been in tattoo magazines). The word can be found in various places all over the web but always can be traced back to Grisha Maslov. The category seems like a valid subcategory to group images that all have a similar style, but the problem is I can't find a definition of what exactly that style is. I would like to rename this category instead of upmerging it into the main one, but I have no idea what to call it. Rocket000 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The category seems to be created solely for promoting own works. While uploading them (still I have doubts about permissions/licenses though) is welcomed; creating "OR-like" categories is in my opinion not. Masur (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as per nominator. FieldMarine (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Jcb (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Stained_glass_of_Mary_MagdaleneEdit

to delete, the right category is: Category:Stained glass windows of Mary Magdalene Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Deleted bad name. --rimshottalk 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tensile_steel_testingEdit

Empty cat Wizard191 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshottalk 20:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rolling_stock_of_Kishu_RailwayEdit

Kishu Railway Kiha 600 series まも (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't seem valid reason. And there's no substitute for this category. Yasu (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing done, as no reason was given. --rimshottalk 20:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Apple_aluminum_keyboardsEdit

Redundant with Category:Apple Inc. aluminum keyboard Fletcher6 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Deleted, empty. --rimshottalk 19:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States NavyEdit

Category:Aircraft carriers has subcategories for Category:Aircraft carriers by navy and Category:Aircraft carriers by country.
Category:Aircraft carriers by navy has one subcategory, Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy.
Category:Aircraft carriers by country contains the subcategory Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States, which also lists Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy itself.
I'm not sure what if any difference there is supposed to be between the two US carrier categories, nor am I sure what the difference is between carriers by country and carriers by navy for that matter (as if a non-country might have a navy with aircraft carriers or a country might have carriers without a navy?). Maybe someone can shed some light on this but as far as I can tell the category in this request, by nature, should be the exact same category as Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States, and since Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy is missing all of the nuclear powered carriers (Nimitz class and the new Ford class), I propose one of the following:

I don't have a preference or opinion between the two solutions. Both would solve the major problem I see here, which isn't that there is a duplicate category, but rather that there is a duplicate, almost-identically-named category that is missing a lot, so people will end up there and wonder why they can't find Category:USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), for example.
Note: After a decision is reached regarding this page, there should probably be a discussion about Category:Aircraft carriers by navy and whether it should be deleted as a failed duplicate of Category:Aircraft carriers by country. --DanielDeibler (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at en:Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy it has "This category is for aircraft carriers commissioned or otherwise operated by the United States Navy. For aircraft carriers by era or conflict, or aircraft carriers designed or built in the United States for use by other navies (if any), see Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States.". I think the solution is to replicate the category structure from en. Benchill (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, along with the then empty Category:Aircraft carriers by navy. --rimshottalk 19:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Carl_Heinrich_StratzEdit

Most of the images in this category are not used anywhere on any other wikis, and thus do not appear to have substantial educational content fitting inside COM:SCOPE. The child nudity may also be a problem. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Images are used at at least 47 places. --Foroa (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The category is author Carl Heinrich Stratz, a notable German doctor, early 20th century; it includes material from 3 books he wrote about stages of human development. how is this not educational? & commons doesn't only host files being used on other wikimedia projects, we are an open-source/free media repository for educational files that can be used freely on & off wikimedia projects; whether a file is "in-use" on a wm project does not prove or disprove its worth; being "in-use" primarily means "don't mess with it, if you don't know what you're doing & don't have a good reason to be doing it". as regards the second point, the nudity is non-sexual & the books are pd-old. finally, the status of this material has repeatedly been discussed in the past, & it has been "kept" Lx 121 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikisource uses hundreds of images from this category tree, but after only four months editing on Commons, the proposer probably hasn't found that yet. I suspect the proposer is a monolingual and hasn't attempted to read the w:de:Carl_Heinrich_Stratz where he would discover what a notable and intellectually challenging individual, the Herr Doktor was. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Kept, in wide use, clearly in scope. --rimshottalk 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aerial photographs by camera vehicleEdit

I propose a deletion of this category, including its sub-categories. It really doesn't matter from what the the image is taken from, because there is no way you can identify it through the image. Such habits are just over-categorization. The images in this category are better off in subcats of Category:Aerial photographs. Rehman(+) 08:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. Definitely over-categorization.--BcNARApix (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done; emptied Category:Aerial photographs from paragliders. Pending deletion. Rehman(+) 08:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done; emptied Category:Blimp aerial photography. Pending deletion. Rehman(+) 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done; emptied Category:Aerial photographs from kites. Pending deletion. Rehman(+) 09:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done; emptied Category:Aerial photographs from helicopters. Pending deletion. Category:Aerial photographs by camera vehicle can now also be deleted. Rehman(+) 09:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, partly. I did not see this discussion, now I see what happened to Category:Aerial photographs from kites and similar categories. Some of these moves have caused other wikimedia projects to see dead links. Examples: English wikipedia Kite aerial photography linked to the empty Category:Aerial photographs from kites; as did the Czech wikipedia article Letecká_fotografie_z_draků. I have since restored Category:Aerial photographs from kites to File:Calton Hill from a kite.jpg, so that at least the other projects have something to see. -84user (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Also most specifically oppose the wholsale deletion rolled into this of Category:Blimp aerial photography. This is a significantly different method from, say kites or airplanes, and not overcat. Ingolfson (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing this dead discussion. Reasons for keeping the categories were given. ghouston (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:StrukturberichtEdit

A more correct name for this category and its subcategory should be "Crystallographic point groups" (an English term, used in crystallography) instead of "Strukturbericht" (a German term of a journal, that I think nobody use). See w:en:Crystallographic point group. --Aushulz (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The sub-categories refere to a notation (A1, L13, etc.) which is specific to the Strukturbericht journal (a supplement to the Zeitschrift für Kristallographie in the beginning). This notation is widely used in some fields. It is complementary to other notation such as space group number, Pearson symbols, Schoenflies or Hermann-Mauguin notations. The notation used by the Strukturbericht journal takes into account the chemical composition, which is not the case of the "purely crystallographic" notations which only take into account the symmetries.
For this reason, I think that this category is accurate and useful. See for example http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk/index.html
Cdang (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather keep these categories too, even if I never use this classification myself, other people do and they're helpful to see at a glance that different compounds have the same structure. The Strukturbericht categories are also sorted under Category:Crystal structures by space group (better than "point groups" I think), when the right category exists.
Since so few people have commented here and it's been more than a year, I'll remove the template on the category - undo my change if you feel it's necessary to keep the discussion going.
Perditax (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Closed, as per comments. ghouston (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Partidos of Buenos Aires ProvinceEdit

It should be explained, what the content of this category is (or should be...) and it would be better to have an english name.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Nightscream (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment What would you suggest the English name should be? The literal translation would be Parts of Buenos Aires Province, which is meaningless, and confusing. A partido is both a municipality and a department, and so to use either Municipalities of Buenos Aires Province or Departments of Buenos Aires Province would be misleading and equally confusing. English Wikipedia uses the word partidos to describe these entities in the absence of anything better. I have no objection to an explanation being added, which could easily be taken from the English Wikipedia page, which reads:

A partido is an administrative subdivision of the province of Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. They are formally considered to be a single municipality, and usually contain one or more population centers (i.e. towns and cities). These are distinct from all other provinces of Argentina, which call their first-level subdivisions departamento (see Departments of Argentina), and are further subdivided into distinct municipalities.

Skinsmoke (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Closed, since the discussion is dead and the name matches Wikipedia. Added a description to the category. ghouston (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Education_Pdf_filesEdit

Useless categorization. All PDF files we have are hopefully educational. If this category was for PDFs related to education (like schools, curriculum, etc) then I would understand its purpose, but it's apparently for anything educational... everything should be categorized by topic. Rocket000 (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support; speedy delete? Rehman(+) 09:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a few on-topic files, so there's no need to delete it. I moved the off topic stuff to a parent category. ghouston (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Search and Rescue boats in FinlandEdit

Empty, replaced by Category:Search and Rescue boats in of Finland. Badzil (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Category replaced by a new category that conforms to naming style, although I believe that the replacement category is actually Category:Search and Rescue boats of Finland. MKFI (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted. Techman224Talk 05:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Old category has been deleted, I believe this discussion can be closed. MKFI (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Closed as per discussion. ghouston (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sightseeing spots of JapanEdit

It seems that this category is a duplicate of Category:Visitor attractions in Japan. IMO Sightseeing spots should be replaced for two reasons:

  1. Category:Visitor attractions by country exists while Category:Sightseeing spots by country doesn't.
  2. According to Commons:By location category scheme: When [object] "of" [place name] means location in which the object may currently be found, then "in" shall be used. Yasu (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Both can coexist if it is useful to distinguish, because "sightseeing spots" (w:ja:観光地) and "visitors attractions" (w:en:Tourist attraction) have slightly different meanings for different point of views. For example, the former implies interest/beautiful landscapes/area,etc for everyone including inhabitants (supplier view), and the latter implies interesting spots/events,etc for tourists (consumer view).
  • My opinion is, better to keep current Category:Sightseeing spots of Japan (or rename to Category:Sightseeing spots in Japan) as inhabitants/supplier view, and separately, improve Category:Visitor attractions in Japan for tourists/consumer view. Current "~ by prefecture" structure seems to be too fragmentary to search a sightseeing area spanning several prefectures, and hard to search nearby spots on different prefecture, IMO. --Chime (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The global category is Category:Sightseeing, and it's a subcategory of Category:Tourism. Since Category:Sightseeing in Japan also exists, I'll redirect Category:Sightseeing spots of Japan there. Category:Sightseeing spots by prefecture of Japan and subcategories are still inconsistent, but anyone is welcome to rename them or start a separate discussion on that category. ghouston (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Thorn_(farm)Edit

Content in this category is from numerous farms/villages, with the only commonality being the name - truly pointless trivia. This suggests Symbol delete vote.svg Delete of course.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Deleting. ghouston (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Electronic musiciansEdit

I suggest a merge of Category:Electronic musicians into Category:Electronic music artists. Category:Electronic music artists from the United States and Category:Electronic musicians from the United States should then also be merged. Hekerui (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Stands to reason, and eliminates redundancy. BcNARApix (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks like they should be merged, but in Category:Musicians by genre "musicians" is a lot more common than "music artists". So shouldn't the merge go in the other direction? That would match en:Wikipedia too. ghouston (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Category:Electronic musicians" and "Category:Electronic music artists" should be merged right away!! Orrlingtalk 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll merge Category:Electronic music artists into Category:Electronic musicians. --ghouston (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Craters on the MoonEdit

Propose renaming

These craters are really impact craters. See also their parent category—Category:Impact_craters. Ruslik (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't see the need for it right now (especially as not all extraterrestrial craters will be impact, even if that is true here). But won't oppose rename if others agree. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. To be in line with others at Category:Impact craters. Also, I don't seem to come up with what else can cause terrestrial craters? Someone threw grenades from Earth? ;) Rehman(+) 09:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I asume you mean extra-terrestrial craters? Well, volcanism is existent outside of Earth, so there are non-impact craters around. MAYBE not on the Moon, but we are not really talking about the Moon only here, but about whether we need to specialise the category more than it is at the moment. IF this change to impact craters is done, we at least need an intermediate cat. 04:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no non-impact craters on Phobos, and it does not appear to be any non-impact craters in the Moon's category. Ruslik (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't see the need for it as stated by another. The disruptive proposal seems merely officious. O'Dea (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No consensus for the change. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bird's-eye viewEdit

I propose a deletion of this category, with its contents categorized into subcats of Category:Aerial photographs. Rehman(+) 08:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. Agreed. I am not even sure what is specifically meant by "bird's eye view".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. In terms of cartography or aerial photography, "bird's eye view" is a misused term in the Commons. BcNARApix (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. Moved contents to aerial photographs category; pending deletion. Rehman(+) 08:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep -- I am extremely disturbed by two aspects of this deletion discussion. First, our nominator didn't choose to advise the contributor who started the article of the discussion. We don't reach a real consensus if we choose not to invite those who disagree with us to voice their views -- and give their counter-arguments fair consideration. {{cfd}} should not be a rubber stamp. There should be real discussions. Second, I strongly disagree with our nominator reassigning all the images in the category to other categories, as if this discussion had already been concluded as delete. Good faith contributors who want to weigh in with an informed opinion should be able to look at the category, and look at the images, prior to reaching that conclusion. This is no longer possible. Geo Swan (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I asked our nominator why they removed the category from File:Mekong River between Laos and Thailand -a.jpg. In their reply they stated that they thought the category was "redundant". If one is searching for birds' eye views it is certainly not redundant. Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
How is a bird's eye view different than an aerial view, or more generally, view from above? I'm not trying to be difficult - I am just asking. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Please consider File:Bird's eye view of a snowy orchard in Bistrita, Romania.jpg. I suggest it is different than other images that are view from above. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
But how is it different? To me, that's a view from above. Perhaps you could clarify. The issue here is whether this category replicates existing categories. You need to explain how it is substantially different such that we need to create a new category. How will editors know what belongs where? It is something we would need to be able to put into words. It's not apparent to me that this category is needed, as it appears to replicate existing categories (thus, the "redundant" comment that was made above), so what I am looking for is an explanation of how this fits into the category tree and how there will not be any confusion between this category and the other categories. Again, I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative, and if there was some sort of reasonable distinction between the categories, I would say keep this category; but right now, I am not seeing any difference between this category and existing categories. But I will keep an open mind.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
With respect GeoSwan, I don't think you are handling the discussion right. Your question was "Do you accept...?", hence I gave my personal opinion. For a more formal decision, I have created this discussion, with the intention of hearing what others think. You simply cannot vote "keep" based on this. Thats ridiculous. But I do accept, not informing the creator is my fault; honestly I forgot. Rehman(+) 16:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
But, as nominator, aren't you supposed to give a reason for the deletion? You didn't do so. The opinions we express here aren't votes. I honestly didn't believe this category was redundant when I made my comment. I honestly don't believe it is redundant now. And I honestly don't believe it was ridiculous to say so. Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Rather than focusing on who said/did what when, I think it would be helpful if we focused on the substance of the issue, which is what this category is intended to capture and how that differs from the category for Views from Above. I've put the question to both GeoSwan and 84user, in order to try and possibly figure out a solution to this debate, but I am still waiting for answers to my question above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose move, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose delete and Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. I also echo Geo Swan's concern about this discussion. I have found that these changes have caused other wikiprojects to see dead links. Examples: the Czech wikipedia article Nadhled was seeing the dead page Category:Bird's-eye view (until I reverted one of the above changes), as was the Chinese article 俯视图. We should not forget that Commons should be serving the users and not merely ourselves. Please note I am reverting a few of these changes so that other wikiprojects see fewer dead pages. Please consider reverting the others, or make a full discussion (I suggest at the Village Pump), considering all the effects on our client projects. -84user (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry if this move was wrong. As you can see the last "support" was on September 16, so I thought there wouldn't be any "opposes", hence I did it in good faith. Please revert if you find this appropriate. I will too restore the work wherever I can. Rehman(+) 01:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate you are working with good intentions. And thank you for doing a generally thankless job. By the way, I have only just now seen the related category Category:Views by angle which includes Category:Worm's-eye view described in English and German wikipedia articles as the opposite of Category:Bird's-eye view. -84user (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, procedural issues aside, Category:Views by angle also includes category:Views from above, so it would appear that the concept is covered off. The issue here is how is this category different from views from above or aerial views? Just because different terms exist for the same concept doesn't mean that we create categories for all the terms. I am really trying to get to a sense as to how this category accomplishes something different than the existing categories. The existence of Category:Worm's-eye view doesn't in itself justify Category:Bird's-eye view, if the latter is mere duplication. See my comment to GeoSwan above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In an effort to resolve this, some time ago I asked the simple question of the two contributors who favour keeping this category: how is this category different from existing categories? Except for a link to an image of a snowy orchard in Romania, there has been no response to date. I know everyone is busy, so no worries about delays in responding, but a response would be appreciated. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Birds-eye perspective, like worm's-eye view (with the more speaking German names: Vogelperspektive and Froschperspektive (Frog-perspective)), is a term in photography and film (en:Bird's eye shot) that generally means a special (wide angle) perspective (Vanishing point close by) that you don't have with aerial photographs (often a specific angle that is not possible with aerial photographs). I added/removed some pics to make it more clear. In my opinion, this category should clearly document this and warn that it is not equal to aerial photographs, rather a subset. --Foroa (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting - thanks, that would appear to be a distinction that we could work with. Although, shouldn't the category be Category:Bird's eye shots, as per the link you note in your comment, rather than Bird's-eye views, as the en-wiki article on the latter doesn't really distinguish the latter terms from aerial shots or views from above. What do you think? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear to me how you envision the subject of this category, given the examples you have used to populate the category. Could you please point to some examples of what you anticipate would be included, and why, and what would not be included? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I needed some thinking. All aerial views can be considered as bird's eye views, as stated by the en:wikipedia. We need a distinguishing name for this category that should contain all bird'eye views that cannot be (reasonably) taken using standard aerial photo equipment, that operate normally with medium to telephoto lenses with very limited depth of view; they cannot have a sharp foreground and a sharp background. Category:Bird's eye shots is not very different from the current name, while I think that, like in the German name where they don't mixup with aerial photographs, Category:Bird's eye perspective might be less confusing. If you call it perspective, then several pictures that are (hardly) possible with aerial photography (from towers or so) should be removed.
Another somewhat simple example is easy to understand in nl:Horizon (perspectief); no need to read theory about perspectives. Several IW would be completely wrong too. --Foroa (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
And some more mixup: Category:High-angle shot: a low height aerial shot ... --Foroa (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep "Bird's-eye view" is a term which has been commonly used in architecture as in this example or this one (see captions) for perspectives drawn from an imagined high-point not accessible to humans, but to birds. It is different from "aerial view", which in architecture is used for real images taken from the air (airplane). "View from above" seems to be the broadest, as it appears to mean any view from a level above that of the subject. I am not aware of the use of the term in other fields, but for this reason alone the category should be kept. Otherwise I fully agree that the three similar categories "bird's eye view", "Views from above" and "Aerial views" should be more clearly defined so that the same image is not triple categorized. --ELEKHHT 03:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Some of the pictures in the category could be recategorised as aerial photographs, but there are others taken from the tops of buildings taht could do with some kind of special treatment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


Goodness, this has been open a long time. I can think of two mutually exclusive justifications, differing substantially as to what goes in:
  1. A Birds Eye View is not a photograph. It's a painting, drawing, or other pre- or non-photographic work.
  2. A Birds Eye View may or may not be a photograph, but in either case it isn't a straight-down view as in most official, comprehensive collections of aerial or satellite photos. It's a slant view. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

--- Should one now count the voices supporting and opposing the deletion proposal and take relevant action basing on the outcoming majority? This discussion seems inactive. (As stated, I support deleting the cat.) Orrlingtalk 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


There is no consensus either way, although it would be beneficial if the difference between aerial and bird's-eye were made clear in the respective category pages, and the files adjusted accordingly. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Troy, New York CollectionEdit

Inapropriate category: Commons categories are not collections based on personal judgment. Fully redundant to the appropriate topic category Category:Troy, New York. --Martin H. (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it fills a separate need. Where Category:Troy, New York is really meant to be a main category (i.e., in a perfect world there would be no images in the category, only sub-categories), Category:Troy, New York Collection allows a user to see all images tagged with the {{TroyNY}} template (a template that has been added to every piece of media in the Category:Troy, New York tree), which is intended to pique the interest of the reader/viewer to searching for more images that might interest them. In that category, they might find another image they like, open it, and then follow the path of subcategories to other similar subjects. This category isn't hurting anything; it's actually offering a way for readers/viewers to see a whole range of media on the city rather than making them click down a category tree to find something they might otherwise have missed. upstateNYer 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
For that purpose we have galleries, Commons:Galleries#Galleries vs. categories. --Martin H. (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you there, but the aim is to include all the images. Also, galleries require manual update whereas adding the template to the image automatically fills this category. A hybrid of the two would be nice, but I doubt that's technically possible. upstateNYer 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Normally category tools, not galleries should make it possible to do what you are looking for. As there aren't that many images yet, you could use CatScan. It tends to get messy though if there are too many subcategories, especially such that are only marginally related to Troy and it stops working if there are more than 1000 images. --  Docu  at 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
1000 images can get hit pretty quickly, though. upstateNYer 01:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. Firstly, the name is bad, it reads like it's an art gallery or something, so you are left to wonder who assembled this particular collection. The description in the category doesn't help. Secondly, if the category is intended to contain every file under Troy, New York, then it's just a duplicate of Troy, New York. The category system is hierarchical, and adding "flat" categories at random points in the tree isn't a good idea. ghouston (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Deleted. As has been said above, that's not the purpose of a category, and I question the appropriateness of the template that (formerly) categorized pages into this category. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Maps_of_oceansEdit

to lose all images from wikimedia commons Thai duc tran tan loc (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Kept: non-sense request. --JuTa 19:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)