Last modified on 10 June 2014, at 17:48

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2010/11

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 November 2010


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

Category:Pieter_de_NeynEdit

musica 190.50.106.32 15:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC) ??? Can't see the problem with this category. Can you communicate a reason please? Jane023 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Kept. -- Common Good (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Category:Accuracy_disputesEdit

nude 129.41.205.101 23:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

? Seems to be a hoax. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Kept. -- Common Good (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Category:Possibly_interesting_imagesEdit

Empty category. Created before than 2 years ago by a meanwhile long inactive user. I just removed 2 images outof this category which were "sitting" here for more than 2 years. It seems it was a temporary experiment of a single user. JuTa (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


Apparently gone, so closing discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Category:Possibly_quality_imagesEdit

Empty category. Created before than 2 years ago by a meanwhile long inactive user. I just removed 2 images outof this category which were "sitting" here for more than 2 years. It seems it was a temporary experiment of a single user. JuTa (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


Apparently gone, so closing discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Category:Cemetaries_in_MaastrichtEdit

It needs to be removed Mark Ahsmann (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Apparently gone, so closing discussion. Misspelled, in any case. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Category:Eddie_MathewsEdit

Empty category, only editor Secret (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Apparently gone, so closing discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Category:Colleges_in_KeralaEdit

Can be merged with Category:Universities and colleges in Kerala Sreejith K (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


Apparently has been done, so closing discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Category:Jacob_AltEdit

Should be deleted as it is a double of category:Jakob Alt 193.176.235.94 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Deleted. Typo. -- Common Good (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:CC-BY-3.0-CAEdit

No such license. Bsherr (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


Correct, deleted. Ill help you with the cleanup, thanks for bringing this to attention. --Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Category:Monastary_gardens_in_the_USEdit

spelling mistake Anna reg (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


No need to come to CFD for a spelling mistake, and it looks like someone already dealt with it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Warwick_GobleEdit

author dod. 1943 - any works first published in UK not PD until 2014. I've nominated all three items in this category for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


Deleted, not used for another few years. --rimshottalk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Duck-shaped_box_N1740Edit

renamed to Category:Duck-shaped box - Louvre N1740 Zolo (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Deleted by Jcornelius. --rimshottalk 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Subcategories of People by yearEdit

What is the scope of the first level subcategories of Category:People by year (samples: People in 2007, People in 2008, etc.)?

Are they for pictures of people taken/made in a given year? Sample: For Category:People in 2007 that would be photos taken in 2007.

If yes, Births by year/deaths by year should probably be listed as "see also" in the subcategories as they do at Category:People by year. --  Docu  at 14:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I will update Template:PeopleYear, Template:Birthcat accordingly. --  Docu  at 05:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Closing this. --  Docu  at 06:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Lous_HaasdijjkEdit

Empty, misspelled name Clausule (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Deleted by Foroa. --rimshottalk 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Pornographic_showsEdit

ErosPyramide20090221... 188.52.50.144 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep No reason has been developped by the IP... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, certainly wouldn't want them listed under other shows...proper categorisation helps keep unsuspecting eyes from accidentally finding things Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Inappropriate pictures that are/could be within this category can be dealt with via existing rules. Otherwise fully appropriate cat. Ingolfson (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Kept, no reason given for deletion or anything else. --rimshottalk 20:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Rat guardsEdit

Reasons for discussion request are: we have ratcatchrs and rat guards. As not native speaker of the English language I don't know what the correct or best name is. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rat guards is best for all these photos. Rat-catcher is an occupation, ought to contain people hunting vermin. Searching both in Google images is also a way to check. Benchill (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Kept. per Benchill -- Common Good (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:RatcatchersEdit

Reasons for discussion request: we have ratcatchers and rat guards. I don't know what the correct or best name is, being a not native speaker of the English language --Stunteltje (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rat guards seems to be more accurate, ratcatcher means "catching", en:Ratcatcher has basically another meaning. --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Kept. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Rat guards -- Common Good (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Gin_and_TonicEdit

gin 115.133.165.206 01:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Closed, nonsense. --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Interstate_73_in_MichiganEdit

Interstate 73 in Michigan was cancelled in 2001. Although the corridor is still officially written into legislature, there are no plans to revive in in Michigan in the foreseeable future. Imzadi 1979  07:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Deleted, empty category. --rimshottalk 20:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Purple automobiles in PolandEdit

But Category:Purple automobiles in Poland? That is too specific to be of use. --78.55.56.190 07:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I would suggest that this nomination be expanded to include to Category:Automobiles by color by country (I just "bluelinked" it but it was already populated) and its subcats, since this argument applies to them. I don't have any thoughts atm on whether it is a useful category. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree: a Category:Automobiles by color by country is absolutely superfluous. I support a deletion of all of these categories. --High Contrast (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed, the combination of 'country' and 'color' is not a usefull category intersection of Automobiles by country and automobiles by color. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Oldsmobile_Silhouette_(second_generation)Edit

engine swap 71.35.15.102 20:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? --rimshottalk 23:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done, no reason given. --rimshottalk 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Replica_of_the_Samochód_pancerny_wzór_34_armored_car_made_by_Leszek_KusiakEdit

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 name is out of scope: Just because somebody created a replica of a vehicle does not qualify him/her for a special category. The categorydesignation itself is quite astonishing: for what is this good? Is it a sort of slef promotion? Are categories of not notable persons within the Commons preject scope nowadays? I don't think so. This category must get deleted. 80.187.103.174 02:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Since these are the only two replicas of Samochód pancerny wzór 34 and they are radically different from each other (one is based on a GAZ-69 light truck while the other was made from scratch) I think it helps to have two separate categories for them.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


Mixed languages. Please use only English. --Starscream (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're talking about the "Samochód pancerny wzór 34" part of the name than understand that this is the full name of the vehicle. There appears to be no problem with categories like "Panzerkampfwagen III" so why would this be a problem?
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It is reasonable to create a special category for one individual vehicle but the bilingual category name is terrible and unreasonable. If the Polish name is most known, use the Polish - if the English is established, use the English. But not such bilingual duplicity. --ŠJů (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion about the parent category. --ŠJů (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said "Samochód pancerny wzór 34" is the full name of the vehicle thus if a choice was to be made there is no question that "Samochód pancerny wzór 34" should stay.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Category removed. No encyclopedic value of this category. --High Contrast (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Replica_of_the_Samochód_pancerny_wzór_34_armored_car_made_by_Robert_Tirczakowski_and_Tomisław_KalembkaEdit

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 name is out of scope: Just because somebody created a replica of a vehicle does not qualify him/her for a special category. The categorydesignation itself is quite astonishing: for what is this good? Is it a sort of slef promotion? Are categories of not notable persons within the Commons preject scope nowadays? I don't think so. This category must get deleted. 80.187.103.174 02:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Since these are the only two replicas of Samochód pancerny wzór 34 and they are radically different from each other (one is based on a GAZ-69 light truck while the other was made from scratch) I think it helps to have two separate categories for them.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Only one file. Mixed languages. Please use only English. --Starscream (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're talking about the "Samochód pancerny wzór 34" part of the name than understand that this is the full name of the vehicle. There appears to be no problem with categories like "Panzerkampfwagen III" so why would this be a problem?
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion about the parent category. --ŠJů (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


Category removed. No encyclopedic value of this category. --High Contrast (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Ca_EivissencEdit

The name of the breed was changed to this, as a result i had a hard time finding the page to categorize images that were left uncategorized.. I frequently edit and catorize dog breed images and this is making it harder for me to categorize images... i am curious as to why it was changed to this name and if this is how it should be? Every image of the Ibizan Hound Uploaded to commons is refered to Ibizan hound or Podenco Ibicenco, i just seems to me that when people upload images, they are never going to search for category name Ca_Eivissenc. I thought commons Category where to be in the English Name? Better yet, the spanish name is used more widely the the Catalan name just do a search, not one page on yahoo has the title as this except for the catalan wikipedia.. Ltshears (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some folks defend very much their language. My advise is to formulate and insert a proper move request. The English name might be the best compromise as it avoids to chose beteen Spanish and Catalan. --Foroa (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Foroa, pardon my stupidity, but i am not sure how to insert a proper move request, could you advise..?.. thanks --Ltshears (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Merged, to Category:Ibizan Hound. --rimshottalk 23:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Parque_Nacional_TortugueroEdit

There already is Category:Tortuguero National Park. One of them should be deleted or converted into a redirect. Leyo 08:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirected to category:Tortuguero National Park. --Foroa (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Redirect looks good. How do I proceed? Create all Spanish (local) version as a redirect and create all (if not existing) English categories? Moros y Christianos 13:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
My personal preference is to create all categories in English and redirects in Gallery name space using #REDIRECT [[category:Tortuguero National Park]]. That way, redirect works immediatly and when categories are renamed, referring links in other wikipedia's keep working (if adapted on commons). --Foroa (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Tortuguero National Park. --rimshottalk 14:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Naval artillery of SwedenEdit

Rcbutcher created a new Category:Naval guns of Sweden and marked this for speedy deletion. I believe this could warrant a discussion - the parent is Category:Naval artillery by country and the are several other similarly named categories for different countries. Is the "Naval guns of" better form than "Naval artillery of"? --MKFI (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, there are some categories with "naval guns" and some with "naval artillery". I don't have enough knowledge of military nomenclature to say which one is better. The Wikipedia article is at en:Naval artillery. --rimshottalk 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, presumably moved to Category:Naval guns of Sweden. --rimshottalk 07:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


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

Category:Missile_complexes_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_RussiaEdit

What is a "Missile complex"? Bad english. I suppose "Missile systems" would be better 93.211.83.213 10:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep -- The term was used in film Dr Strangelove. Geo Swan (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Kept, no opposition to objection and no discussion in years. --rimshottalk 23:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Ship's bellsEdit

Since these categories are about the equipment, or personnel, of multiple vessels I think "Ships" should be in plural. So the category names should be "Ships' bells" -- not "Ship's bells". Geo Swan (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the proposal. Can you please de-capitalise and pluralise the "Serviceman" to "servicemen" too? Ingolfson (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Ship's Serviceman" is an United States Navy rating so it should't be renamed.--Avron (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  • OK. I didn't know that. I've struck that one. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As Jmabel. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
How about "Ship bells"?  Docu  at 17:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Seconding "Ship bells" - the proposed "Ships' bells" would really only apply if you were talking about bells that were in multiple ships (though if we have such bells, I suppose they could populate such a category). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ships's bells is unambiguous. "Ship" is both a noun and a verb. One can ship a tiller -- meaning to mount it. This category is about bells on multiple ships. All of these bells are on different ships. No pair of bells are mounted on the same vessels. If I am not mistaken bells are not re-used. They are built specifically for the one vessel they are used on, and retired when the vessel is retired. Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
To clarify my comment - "Ship's bells" would be for what you describe: multiple bells, but which belonged to only one ship each. "Ships' bells" would refer to multiple bells that each belonged to multiple ships. My suggestion of "ship bells" would include both "ship's bells" and "ships' bells."
Given Geo Swan's comment, I'm going to suggest that the category be left as is, since apparently there aren't any "ships' bells," only "ship's bells." -Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think pluralization can occasionally be counter-intuitive, and indicating possession of pluralized nouns is routinely counter-intuitive. (While "Court Martials" is commonly used, I have read that the correct pluralization is "Courts Martial".)

    I was not an English major, although I have gone back and re-read my Strunk and White Elements of Style several times. Strunk wrote that the apostrophe that indicates possession always follows the "s" that indicates pluralization. (Except for proper names -- Strunk specifically wrote that we should use "Charles's bells" for items that belong to Charles.) So, it seems to me, that "Ship's bells" indicates a category that includes images of multiple bells on a single ship.

    When we have a category full of images, where each image includes just one instance, we still pluralize the category names. So, even though each ship has just one bell, the category name itself should reflect that it contains images of multiple bells. And what kinds of bells are in the images? They are the bells of multiple ships -- hence "Ships' bells".

    I will yield to any genuine English majors.

    Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Categories moved. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Animals of Central KalimantanEdit

I don't think fauna and flora categories by small (and often changing) administrative subdivisions, such as a province, make any sense. I am proposing for deletion all such categories within Indonesia. Clearly the fauna of Java, Kalimantan and Sumatra preceded these subdivisions, and their spread is independent of these. --Elekhh (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Started cfd tagging the other categories as well but I am not sure if it makes sense how to link it here, as it does not appear here. Most of these categories have been created by bot and are empty. --Elekhh (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Category:Animals of North Sumatra
Category:Animals of West Sumatra
Category:Animals of Jakarta
Category:Animals of West Java
Category:Animals of East Java
Category:Animals of Central Java
Category:Animals of Banten
Category:Animals of Yogyakarta
Category:Animals of West Kalimantan
Category:Animals of Lampung
Category:Animals of Bengkulu (province)
Category:Animals of Central Kalimantan
Category:Animals of East Kalimantan
Category:Animals of South Kalimantan
Category:Animals of Riau
Category:Animals of West Sulawesi
Category:Animals of North Sulawesi
Category:Animals of Central Sulawesi
Category:Animals of South Sulawesi
Category:Animals of South East Sulawesi
Category:Animals of Gorontalo (province)
See also User:Krinkle/Indonesia cat-matrix. –Krinkletalk 10:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I see many issues there but I wouldn't like to mix them all into this discussion. Clearly not every combination in the matrix makes sense, in particular some geographic categories by province can be unjustified. Most striking is the intersection of Category:Seas of Indonesia with the provinces (noting the existence of Category:Coasts of Indonesia). --Elekhh (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
For one thing, it is certainly advisable to have a "[taxon] by country" scheme, it is also already there for a considerable part. National fana/flora lists can thus be incorporated, we have them on some Wikipedias too. Beyond that, a transnational scheme would best follow the scientific approach by using regions of endemism - note that the WWF ecoregions are flora-based and DO NOT hold true for some other taxa, so a taxon-specific approach is necessary here or there (some taxa have the Holarctic as biogeographic unit, some have Palae- and Nearctic, spiders and other strongly anemochorous taxa have a pantropical distri due to the ITCZ and so on).
Below national level, things are very tricky. For the US for example, a by-state approach is already partly implemented and seems to work fine. For Indonesia, a by-island approach, then perhaps by-province, seems necessary. Always use the most natural scheme if in doubt. This will allow to list taxon categories by level of endemism, which is approach creating the leaat conflict, and as we still have national categories, it is interfaceable with non-taxonomic category regionalization. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Islands yes, but by province of Indonesia is complete nonsense as explained above. --ELEKHHT 23:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "complete nonsense" (political boundaries tend to follow mountains or rivers, and these are biogeographic boundaries). But the problem can be avoided by switching to taxonomic categories when the geographic categories are getting too full. Like Category:Birds of Java. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to categorise by generalised tendencies rather than meaningful definitions, than I will disregard categories from than on. --ELEKHHT 11:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If that is a joke, it's not funny; too many people disregard existing categories already to implement their own "grand" scheme (as seen here). But you might have noted that we have dozens of "Mammmals of [U.S. State]" categories and they work fine, thank you very much. A photo of a single individual animal or plant is not taken in all places of a province or district at the same time. Hence, such categories can be useful.
Still, creating empty or redundant categories because we "might" need them "one day" is simply not allowed. So I'd very much support a speedy deletion here. These categories get in the way as I work through the Indonesian faunal content. At present, we need to work on a per-island basis, and when we have a lot of content in the island categories, then we can see where we go from there. But not now. Content sorting should precede category creation. (For an example, consider File:CatopyropsAncyraNicevilleiMUpUnAC1.jpg. These specimens were collected at "Prafat" = Parapat, North Sumatra. Obviously, they might eventually go into "Animals of North Sumatra". But considering we have "Animals of Sumatra" and "Nature of North Sumatra" and "Parapat" categories, it is better to use these for the meantime. As soon as we have dozens of files of animals from North Sumatra, that category would make sense. But now, it is just obnoxious. (As a rule-of-thumb: don't create "Animals of..." if the corresponding "Nature of..." is not too full) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Remaining entries deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Images_used_by_media_organizations_but_violating_license_termsEdit

The category should be renamed to "Category:Media used by external organizations but violating license terms" as (1) we have media content other than images; and (2) such content may be used by external organizations other than the media, such as book publishers. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Or "Category:Media used externally but incompletely following license terms"? Or even "Category:Media used externally not following license terms"? -84user (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
They may not necessarily be "Media organnizations" at all. And the template, {{published}}, should allow to tracking of stages of non-compliance. Why does everything have to so verbose? How about: Category:Improperly externally reused media or Category:Non-compliant external reuse?
I dislike that we are essentially claiming unlawful activity of others. Some of the uses I've seen probably fall under fair use. Do we even need this category? Rocket000 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, after thinking about it, I guess it is a good idea to point out when publications like Britannica don't follow the license. 84user's wording is better than using "violating". Rocket000 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Category are a wrong tool for this purpose.--Avron (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the renaming, for including other media and not only images, and for including other external usage than just "media organizations". But for the exact wording, I'm neutral, the previous proposals all fit. Anyway, I think that any tool (even a category) can be good for pointing out this problem, to show what is a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, because here we try to respect licensing, medias are deleted when there is a copyvio or a FOP problem, then why would we be the only ones to try to respect all that? Jeriby (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of the category? What does it (help) achieve? Rd232 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In case, 30 years down the track where everybody forgets everything, media companies can't say "we created this image, and we own the copyright, and thus you are infringing on our copyright". It does no harm to keep tabs on things just in case, keeps everything accessible and handy in a readily-navigable category, and it is better to be prepared for something that will never happen, than to be unprepared for something that may happen. Just my two pesos. It's the same reason why the Chinese Wikipedia keeps tabs on en:Baidu Baike's copyright violations at zh:WP:BD - Baidu claims copyright over all hosted content, including the Wikipedia copyvios that they host on their site and blatantly refuse to delete, meaning that if in the future Baidu claims Wikipedia is violating its copyrights, it's easier to pull out the evidence when a systematic listing is available, rather than rustling through mountains of paperwork. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 13:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is usefull to keep track of licence violations. One day it will help if we start a campagne to improve the use of Commons media for exemple. Lionel Allorge (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to do things like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saab900t16sfr.jpg. // Liftarn (talk)
I think it is useful to keep track of violations of the licensing terms (example), I welcome renames to simplify things, to include non-image files (example) and to go beyond media organisations. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Files reused by external parties out of compliance with licensing terms. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:T-54A_tank_in_front_of_the_National_Museum_in_Prague,_Czech_RepublicEdit

How useful is this category? It is named after a special tank that stood on one place any time ago. How usefuls is this? Is it useful to create a category like Category:Citroën 2CV in front of Musée d'Orsay in Paris? I guess such categories would end up in category nonsense 80.187.102.228 17:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong to isolate a set of images concerning a particular event and subject in a category. --Foroa (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As Foroa. Other matter if this category contain only one file. --Starscream (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kept, no reply to objections. --rimshottalk 23:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Joralemon_Street_TunnelEdit

Useless category for only one image. Train2104 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You never know when there will be more. Gryffindor (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Not that I'm saying this cat will ever get enough pictures to deserve life, but I hope to snap a photo of the disguised ventilation building on the south side of Joralemon west of Hicks Street, one of these days. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Kept, 2 images now. --rimshottalk 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Women_by_nameEdit

we have Category:People by name, Category:Men, Category:Women; do we need Category:Women by name and maybe Category:Men by name? Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And Girls by name, Adolescent girls by name, Old Women by name, boys by name, children by name, ... This is a proliferation of needless categories, I would propose to merge it back in Women and maintain one single "people by name" category. --Foroa (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This category doesn't in fact imply all the others you cite. It isn't a subcategory of Category:people by name either. Merging it into Women tends to miss the point of this category.  Docu  at 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Here we have Category:Women/Men, which is pretty much the same. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Compare these with sv:Category:Kvinnor/Män and you will notice a substantial difference. -- User:Docu

To me this category looks quite unneeded. The "by-name" sorting structure is, as far as I understand, a maintenance super-cat utensil which yealds no separate existence to sub-themes. I may be wrong. The category looks reasonless. Orrlingtalk 08:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

OBVIOUS Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; unless the nominator has some other, better, suggestion for how to sort our "biographical" material by gender? & arguing that "we don't need to bother" is NOT an acceptable answer. as regards "people by name" having been made a "hidden" category, i'm not clear on why we thought it was NOT useful to allow ordinary users to have easy access to that cat? Lx 121 (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


Kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


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

Category:Coprinus_micaceusEdit

The formal name is not Coprinus, but now it is Coprinellus. This should probably be made into a category redirect, and all the photos placed in the new category. The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a fairly non-controversial move request that can be dealt with at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed, long done. --rimshottalk 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Photographs by cameraEdit

Reasons for discussion request, as given by User:Apalsola:
(Quote) At the moment, naming the subcategories of Category:Photographs by camera and Category:Photographs by lens is somewhat inconsistent. Per-model categories are named as "Category:Taken with..." (e.g. Category:Taken with Nikon D50, Category:Taken with Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L USM) and I think this does not need to be changed.

However, for per-camera brand/family categories there are at least three naming schemes:

There is also some inconsistency whether the word "cameras" is included in the category name or not (Category:Photos taken with Canon, Category:Photos taken with Casio cameras). I think we should have only one naming scheme, and I vote for "Category:Taken with..." for the following reasons:

  • the shorter the better
  • Today most of the cameras are able to capture video as well.

The word "cameras" would be used if needed for disambiguation (e.g. if the same company manufactures both cameras and mobile phones with a camera). (Unquote) --Stunteltje (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree for lenses as quality lenses are used for quality photos. Not sure about the naming: do we want to mix video and photos from the same camera in a single category ? (I don't think so, see Category:Videos by video camera, sooner or later, one will have subcats for other types of photo's; panoramics, night views, IR, 3D, panoramics, B&W ...). --Foroa (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
As per Foroa. But at least a form of standardisation is very usefull. Also in discussion "by lens" or "by lenses". I prefer the plural version, as it is the standard for commodities. Apalsola reverted my actions in this. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a similar case as in "by country" or "by city" categories, thus it should be in the singular form. --Apalsola tc 08:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely agree: by city, by painter, country, ... This discussions mixes several naming problem aspects. To me, the main discussion is: "Taken with ..." or "Photos/video taken with". --Foroa (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
O.K. I'll rest my case in lenses. No problem. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The categories would probably be better populated if a) the upload software could extract the camera type from EXIF and set the category, like it does with location data b) it was possible for a user to configure automatic categories to be added to every file that they upload. Ghouston (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


No action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Photographs by lensEdit

Reasons for discussion request: single or plural name?--Stunteltje (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a similar case as in "by country" or "by city" categories, thus it should be in the singular form. --Apalsola tc 08:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No action needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:New York State Historic MarkersEdit

Recommend merging this category with Category:Historical markers in New York, a well established category for multiple states as seen in Category:Historical markers in the United States by state and defined by Category:Historical markers in the United States. Also recommend renaming subcats in the same way. This will help preserve consistency in the commons. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Went with the name because they are officially known as "New York State Historic Markers", part of the State Historic Marker program. They aren't just 'historic markers', they are 'State Historic Markers'. Might suggest making this cat a subcat of the one you propose merger with, since they aren't the only historic markers in NY (many municipalities have their own, either as a set or itself). upstateNYer 03:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: this seems no different than most states. I think there should be consistency & there already is a well established category structure. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support: Hmm; this question has slept a long time, but I see almost all the pix in the parent cat are State Historic Markers anyway. So, there's little to be lost from merging this category into its parent. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Merged. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:MaxibusesEdit

The term "maxibus" for buses of classic lenght (10 - 12.5 m) is very missleading. There exists no article "maxibus" in wikipedias and the word "maxi" means generally not "classic" or "middle". ŠJů (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also "megabus" isn't an established and intelligible term for non-articulated buses of lenght over 12,5 m. The English article Megabus knows several meanings but not this one nor something similar. Thus those categories should be also discussed>

Also Google searching doesn't reveal that the words "maxibus" and "megabus" would be established terms in this meaning. --ŠJů (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion (in Polish language) is also on the page User talk:Marek Banach#Category:Maxibuses. If some consensus will be achieved there, I will resume it here. But I and Marek know mainly Czech and Polish usage - opinion from other parts of the world are welcome. --ŠJů (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this does need to be changed. Certainly in the UK, "minibus" is up to 8m long, "midibus" is from 8m and up to 11m , and anything longer than is is known technically as a "full-sized bus", though this is interchangeable with a standard single-decker in common usage really. Also, the idea maxibus is anything from 10m long+ is not compatible with the UK view that anything up to about 11m is a midibus. I've never heard of the word maxibus. Arriva436talk/contribs 17:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO names of these categories are not good, if the words "maxibus" and "megabus" are known in Poland only. I like this ŠJů's solution with description in the name of categories like "Buses of lenght 10 - 13 m", etc. There would be a question of lenght range of each category. --Harold (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, what would you have each category as as you say? Also, some buses come in varying lengths, i.e. the Dennis Dart which has been made in anything from 8.5m to 11.3m. Arriva436talk/contribs 20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite misleading category names. If 12.5 qualifies as megabus, then what about ordinary 18-meter articulated buses? "Just buses"? The tiny bus (inner city 9-meter models etc.) may be a distinct category owing to their rarity, isolated service routes etc. but anything longer ... just buses. NVO (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Megabuses" should be merged with the existing category tree of Category:Tri-axle buses which is better defined and adequate name. For the two-axle buses of "standard length" (i. e. buses which are not minibuses) we should create some category, but "maxibuses" is very unsuitable name. Considering that terminology is not unified worldwide, some objective name and definition should be used. Somethink like "Two-axle buses longer than 12 m". Or "Buses longer than 12 m", and tri-axle and articulated buses as its subcategory. However, Full-size buses is likewise unclear and should be merged. --ŠJů (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete this category: the term "Maxibus" is an invention of User:Marek Banach. This category has no encyclopedic value; Wikimedia is not there to invent something. --80.187.107.4 16:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)--80.187.107.4 16:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the first 200 Maxibuses in Poland are no Tri-axle buses, but from my uninformed what is the problem POV they are certainly Full-size_buses_in_Poland. The red link Category:Megabuses_in_Poland on Category:Maxibuses in Poland could be fixed if this request is closed. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted the last one that was still there when I got here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Polish Wikisource booksEdit

Renaming of above categories to the Category:Scanned books in <language> schema is incorrect. Category:Polish Wikisource books (and possibly other *Wikisource*) should remain, as it (they) does not and should not collect all "Scanned books in Polish" but only those used by plwikisource project (in proofread extention). It is especially important as single-page files used in the proofread projects are not reported in the "File usage on other wikis" section.

If necessary, the separate categories should be created either to be made parrent categories of the categories mentioned above or to be added independently to apropriate files/subcategories. --Ankry (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two variables the language and the wikisource, the text could be in dead language without a wikisource, and included in one or more active wikisource projects. JeepdaySock (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Category:French Wikisource books and Category:English Wikisource books created. I prefer English and French rather than en and fr in order to make them understandable for everybody. Is this what you have asked for? Regards, --Zyephyrus (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Count me as a Wikisource user who doesn't see the need for these Wikisource categories. The categories collecting scanned texts are sufficient. Unless commons begins deleting files that don't display anything in the "used on other wikis" section, additional categorization based on usage in a Wikimedia project is unnecessary navel gazing and a waste of time. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I’m sysop on fr.WS and oldWS and I dont really see the necessity of theses categories (moreover, in fine all the scans will be used on the wikisources and the categories : Category:X Wikisource books and Category:Scanned books in X will be exactly the same). But I’m sysop on COM too and I know that commonists like to categorize a lot ;) and it cause no harm so why not. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Question: is a "French Wikisource book" a book in French or a book from France (and not from Canada) ? This gives you a motivation why Commons needs a more precise category naming system. And how do you classify an Italian book from Switzerland and a German book from Italy ? --Foroa (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It's by language. I see little value in categorizing by country of publication, since many books were and are published in many different countries. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 19:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I continue to hold the same position I held back in 2006 and 2007. I don't think it is the Commonists who are advocating this strange category structure, but rather a few of the WS projects who like it this way and don't understand that we don't need Category:De Wikisource book for the same reason we don't need Category:De Wikipedia image. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 19:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any need for discussion of that system. A person who is only thinking in categories he defined himself wants to mess up a working system. He's coming back nearly every year, the first time in 2007. The arguments not to change they are the same as before. And we are messing around with just another cleaning up action which generates the missing of the license tags because someone who is thinking the same way is sending bots for correcting things but do exactly the opposite. There is an old joke: Never change a running system. And De Wikisource book means that this book is maintained by the german wikisource community, the language of this book may be english, french ore even multilingual. --Joergens.mi (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, with all due respect, but I have a problem of calling Category:Wikisource and its subcategories a "system". --Foroa (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
From what I've seen, Joergens is right; De is one of the better organized Wikisource categories. If they want to maintain a De Wikisource category, completely outside the structure of [[Category:Scanned <language> texts]], which could contain books in any language they want (for translation purposes, etc.), I don't have much of an issue with it. I would hope though that they would be willing to categorize new uploads as both De Wikisource and Scanned German texts. And I certainly wouldn't want De Wikisource to be a model (like it seems to have become) for other less organized and less motivated (in this particular respect) WS projects. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 04:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I am an admin of Polish Wikisource and I think that Ankry, Joergens.mi & Spangineer are right. Never change a running system. For what? It works good now. Electron Smiley kabelsalat.gif <Talk?> 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think, there schould be no problem, to add the category Scanned German texts to the new uploads if we decide to do so, and I think if a carefull bot operator is able to add this category to the older texts, we would agree, too. But he should be carefull, because there are some non german language texts part of the Category. If there is any question he can ask me, i'll try to help him.
Hi Foroa. With the same respect, yes we call it a system. The system is based on our needs, because the categories help us to embed, find books we want to work on. It's a system but not a systematik. If your interested in systematik, your are invited to have look at the category tree in de wikisource - but be carefull it is in german :). --87.176.172.141 14:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry I didn't see, that I wasn't logged in --Joergens.mi (talk)

ACK joergens.mi --Historiograf (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


No consensus for any further action. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Polski_Fiat_125p_MR'75/MR'76/MR'77/MR'78/MR'79/MR'80/MR'81/MR'82Edit

Is a category called "Polski Fiat 125p MR'75/MR'76/MR'77/MR'78/MR'79/MR'80/MR'81/MR'82" a bad joke or is there some sense behind? Could somebody help that knows something about this polish-built type of car, please? 80.187.102.167 13:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello.
No, it is not a "bad joke". This category is for pictures of Polski Fiat 125p automobiles produced between 1975 and 1982 in case of which it is impossible to say with 100% certainty exactly what model the vehicle on the picture is. Polski Fiat 125p automobiles produced in that time-frame are very similar and there are only a few details that set them apart (for example Polski Fiat 125p produced in 1976 differs from one produced in 1975 in several details including the fact that the former had "flippable" forward part of the windows in the forward doors which were removed in the 1976 model because this model also received a draft-less ventilation system, you can confirm this by looking at following pictures of Polski Fiat 125p MR'75 and Polski Fiat 125p MR'76). Of course I'm only talking here about externally visible differences. Basically since the begining of its production 1968 each year Polski Fiat 125p was modernized in some way and thus each year a new "model of the year" (direct translation of Polish "Model Roku" usually used in its shortened form: MR) entered production and since 1971 these were named in the following way: Polski Fiat 125p MR'XX where XX stands for the last two digits of the year when the given model was produced (for example Polski Fiat 125p produced in 1978 is called Polski Fiat 125p MR'78). Because Polski Fiat 125p automobiles produced between 1975 and 1982 are very similar they are sometimes collectively referred to as Polski Fiat 125p MR'75, however this should be avoided as it is the same name as the one under which Polski Fiat 125p produced in 1975 is known.
All of this information and more can be found here: http://www.polskie-auta.pl/ It is a Polish site with a lot of information on vehicles produced in Poland after World War II.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to ask me as I know a lot about this topic.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/12/Category:Škoda 120 L (1987 - 1988)/120 LS (1986 - 1987)/120 GLS (1986 - 1987)/120 GL (1986 - 1988)/120 LX (1986 - 1987)/130 (1986 - 1988)/135 (1987 - 1988)/136 (1987 - 1988) for a related discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, Category:Polski Fiat 125p should contain subcategories for the specific cars, not groups of cars collected together. --Martin H. (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, the current setup allows us to be as precise with categorization of pictures of Polski Fiat 125p as possible. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Please explain more precise why category names like Škoda 120 L (1987 - 1988)/120 LS (1986 - 1987)/120 GLS (1986 - 1987)/120 GL (1986 - 1988)/120 LX (1986 - 1987)/130 (1986 - 1988)/135 (1987 - 1988)/136 (1987 - 1988) should be a contribution for precise categorization. --High Contrast (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
That is because the vehicles on the pictures in this category lack visible characteristic features that could be used to categorize them more precisely. Thus a category like Category:Polski Fiat 125p MR'75/MR'76/MR'77/MR'78/MR'79/MR'80/MR'81/MR'82 serves this purpose very well. Not only that but it also allows us to put the more specific categories in one place rather than have them clutter the Category:Polski Fiat 125p. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The category name is a monster, its a strange combination of symbols that almost look like an terrible mediawiki error or so. (1) Create subcategories for the individual cars and make them subcategories of Category:Polski Fiat 125p. If that category requires a diffusion the proposed category sheme "Polski Fiat 125p (1967 - 1972)" is much better. Add the images to such a simple category , make that category a subcategory of Category:Polski Fiat 125p and sort the car types to the correct subcategories. But remove this monster. --Martin H. (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC) And p.s.: The purpose of a category is not to contain only subcategories or to look beautiful! If a photo shows a 125p but is not identifiable more it can be in category Category:Polski Fiat 125p of course, collecting, not representing, is the purpose of a category. --Martin H. (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, just more overcategorization by User:SuperTank17, for which he has so far received no support. The Polski Fiat 126, for instance, is currently subdivided into no less than 31 categories, including gems such as this one: Category: Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town Happy End, which is ten steps below Category: Polski Fiat 126p. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If you actually read the description in that category you would know why it needs its separate category and why it is ten steps down.
Also I would appreciate if you tried to work with me on these issues rather than against me.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
All of the information contained in the category heading could easily be placed in the "information" section of the file, and the file could be placed in a category together with pictures of 126 elx Maluch, 126 elx, 126 elx Maluch Town and many others. You have actually managed to create a category for a single car (Category:Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town Happy End (no. 0175)), which is absolutely amazing. I tried to count the number of categories you created for the poor Polski Fiat 125, but I lost count since several of them turn back on themselves and I got completely lost. I would strongly recommend that you carefully read Help:Category#How to use categories. I just now, after an hour or so of perusing, finally found the FSO 125p category: to get there from Category:Polski Fiat 125p, the knowing user simply:
I recommend that we subdivide these subcategories further yet, creating for instance Category:FSO 125p 1.5 C (white), Category:FSO 125p 1.5 C (gray), Category:FSO 125p 1.5 C (green), Category:FSO 125p 1.5 C (blue), Category:FSO 125p 1.5 C (red), Category:FSO 125p 1.5 C (white with black roof), and Category:FSO 125p 1.5 C (ivory). Of course, we could then further subdivide according to photos taken from the front, side, or at an angle. Mr.choppers (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Commons:Categories#Category names clearly states that category names be in English, and "MR" is Polish. They are working on a system in which category names change according to ones preferred language, but until then English is the rule. Mr.choppers (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Using this handy tool I found, I can see the category tree in its entirety. Clicking the pluses expands, and one can then see the entire thing. Entirely unfolded, the Polski Fiat 125p with all subcategories covers 294 lines - many of them repetitions and doubling backs. The VW Golf, a car which has been built for much longer, in an infinitely larger number of versions, is comfortably fitted into a category tree totaling 61 lines, with an absolute minimum of doubles.


Mr.choppers (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Spero che il traduttore automatico mi abbia consentito di comprendere il nocciolo del problema e consenta a voi di capire ciò che dico.
A mio parere credo sia opportuno creare le subcategorie per ogni nuovo modello (Golf I, Golf II, etc.), per alcune versioni importanti (Golf Variant, Golf Plus, Golf GTI, etc.), ma non per gli allestimenti (Golf MY 3p, Gof Comfortline 5p, etc.).
Le subcategorie della categoria "Polski 125" sembra si riferiscano a pochi modelli in molte versioni o allestimenti, senza rilevanti differenze tecniche.
IMHO, meglio creare poche subcategorie riservando le informazioni specifiche alla sezione descrittiva dell'immagine. Ad esempio, la "Category:Polski Fiat 125p MR'78/MR'79/MR'80/MR'81/MR'82 1500", se viene ritenuta necessaria per differenze tecniche, è meglio rinominarla "Category:Polski Fiat 125p 1500 (1978 - 1982)".
Buon lavoro.

[I hope that the automatic translator has allowed me to understand the crux of the problem and allow you to understand what I say.
In my opinion I believe we must create subcategories for each new model (Golf I, Golf II, etc..) for some major versions (Golf Variant, Golf Plus, Golf GTI, etc.), but not for the preparations (Golf MY 3p, Golf Comfortline 5p, etc.).
The subcategories of "Category:Polski 125" appears to refer to a few models in many versions or arrangements, without significant technical differences.
IMHO, better to create a few subcategories reserving specific information to the descriptive part of the picture. For example, the "Category: Polski Fiat 125P MR'78 / MR'79 / MR'80 / MR'81 / MR'82 1500", if it is deemed necessary for technical differences, it is better to rename "Category: Polski Fiat 125P 1500 (1978 - 1982)".
Good job.
]
--Ligabo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral My gut reaction is to consider some of the categories unhelpfully named, however I can find no clear existing policy on over-categorization. If it could be shown that many categories had just one image or were empty there may be a rationale that these should be merged, but on a sample test this did not appear to be the case and some categories are already sufficiently populated. If anyone knows of a policy with some existing guidelines for over-categorization related to Help:Category this might help. -- (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now linked Category:FSO 125p to Category:Polski Fiat 125p.
About your category propositions: Congratulations you made sarcasm to a fine art.
MR is part of a GIVEN NAME. GIVEN NAMES are not translated that is why we don't use APC-152 instead of BTR-152.
As I already said I want to work with you on this issue but first you have to stop working agaist me. That is not what we should be doing here.
I will now try to "improve" Polski Fiat 125p category tree so that you won't have any problems navigating it.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
There. All done. Are you happy now?
About Category:Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town Happy End (no. 0175). The reason I created this category is because Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town Happy End was produced in very limited quantities and thus it is only logical that each vehicle should have its own category.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Please check Category:Polski Fiat 125p for updated category tree and improved description.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not with me. You will notice that several conversations have been brought up by many users, and you have not listened to any one of us. Sure, you write responses, but you keep doing the exact same things that upset other editors. The following users have all been opposed to all or part of your new methods of categorization (AFAIK, sorry if I misrepresented anyone):

I have yet to see any editor give any support, at the most two or maybe three taking a neutral stance. Does this not mean anything to you? Consensus is important, which is why I haven't just gone and changed all the categories back without trying to start a conversation.

Until a few hours ago you have never budged an inch, although I see that you are now willing to contract the Škoda 742 category tree. I would love to work with you, but had so far seen no intimation that this would be possible. If it is, then please! Let's fix things. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: having a category for a single vehicle remains senseless, and all versions of the 126e (and the various special editions only need separate categories if there are too many photos to fit comfortably on a page) could sit on one page instead of sitting in sequence, which means a lot of clicking. I'll show you what I mean by making the edits. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I am happy to hear you finally decided to work with me towards a productive goal instead of working against me.
About your list: Have you've been seriously going through all my discussions and taking note of who disagreed with me? I am not sure what to say to that but I will say that it seems hilarious.
BTW you will notice that I have put back the Fiat 126 e category as I have some pictures of it that I am uploading right now that I made back in August but have not gotten around to uploading yet (I have hundreds other pictures that I have yet to upload).
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Category deleted a while ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Videos_by_display_resolutionEdit

Useless category. We don't categorize images by resolution either. Do a database query if you want to know that. This nomination also includes all the subcategories Multichill (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Creates only noise. --Foroa (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This category is important for the reproduction quality and the time for downloading. --R. Engelhardt (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • undecided -- some statistics on video resolution could be useful, and also on bitrate. Can this be extracted by database query, periodically? If categories were by width only, there'd be fewer subcategories. --LA2 (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess that this concerns typical categories that are created because we have no mixed category/tagging system. Other tags could be B&W/n bit color depth/nightview/resolution/screen ratio/sound included (mono, stereo, Dolby)/compression bit rate/compression type/3D/HD format ... Basically, if want to organise all that in a comprehensive category system, it will keep us buzy for a couple of generations. Once they are properly tagged, once could easily think of simple filtering extensions of search and display facilities, or query a database as interim solution. --Foroa (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, as per Foroa. --Túrelio (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as we have no replacement for e.g. that usecase: search for videos by catscan: all biology videos which are in fullHD. --Saibo (Δ) 15:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Even so, the category system is not well-equipped enough to handle such cases; generally speaking a database dump would be more apt to search for specific video display resolutions. A comparable category search for image resolutions would also only add clutter. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No consensus for deletion. No action taken. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


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

Category:Volvo_7000A_(Poland)Edit

The category name is misleading: Volvo 7000A (Poland) is a quite bad name for a category that contains buses that were manufuctured in Poland 80.187.103.62 19:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Volvo 7000A was built in Finland and Poland (Wrocław). Exist many categories like this:
Better category? "Volvo 7000A built in Poland"? (in discussion) "Volvo 7000A manufactured in Poland"? Marek Banach (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Punted into 2014. Now at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/06/Category:Volvo 7000A (Poland). Sven Manguard Wha? 07:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Bridge_playersEdit

Some bridge players are better known for their writing than their playing Newwhist (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ProposalEdit

Notable bridge people are comprised of those known (1) primarily for their play, (2) primarily for their writing, (3) primarily for their administration services, and (4) for more than one of these. In addition, photo images often include more than one such person. Since the universe of these people is relatively small in the scheme of life, I propose that for puposes of categorization and filing of images in Wikimedia Commons, Category: Bridge players be converted to Category: Bridge players, writers and administrators with the only subcategories being for each specific person by surname plus one subcategory for all 'Group' images.Newwhist (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Copied my proposal from the discussion page. New here, so: Why is there a discussion page on the main page which is a discussion page?Newwhist (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking why this page has a talk page, it's because Commons talk:Categories for discussion is to discuss the Commons:Categories for discussion page itself. Commons:Categories for discussion is to actually discuss the categories. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No consensus for any action. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)}}