Category:Glyphodes perspectalis

Same species in Category:Cydalima perspectalis. As written in [] (german) Cydalima perspectalis should be the official name. Category:Glyphodes perspectalis should be merged into this. Funfood ␌ 10:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Redirected. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Closed, the redirect should be kept, I think, as the other name is in use too. --rimshot^talk 21:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lucien Walery

Category should be renamed to "Photographs by Lucien Walery" Bensin (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Renamed -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:1979 in Milan

Empty category, delete Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There r lot's of files in it...--Sanandros (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, now there are. It was empty on 8th August...--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Kept, not empty now. --rimshot^talk 21:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hight Quality

Name appears to be a spelling error. There are no pages or files in this category. – Wdchk (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, bad name. --rimshot^talk 21:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Orders of the German Eagle

unused category! used one is this: Category:Order of the German Eagle Flor!an (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cimeteries in Stuttgart

there exists a category Cemeteries in Stuttgart Gerd Leibrock (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, bad name. --rimshot^talk 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Marine cap badges of Bundeswehr

Should be renamed to: Category:Navy_cap_badges_of_Bundeswehr Other Categories have English names as well (Category:Air force cap badges of Bundeswehr and Category:Army cap badges of Bundeswehr) Flor!an (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 Support--TUBS 13:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Commons policies

city or state 173.87.177.205 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Closed, no reason for discussion given. --rimshot^talk 21:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Tailfins

Should the files in Category:Tailfins be merged with Category:Automobile_tailfins? There seems to be redundancy more than enough with these. --Chrishelenius (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge - It would be appropriate to merge the automotive tailfins (except the sub category of aircraft tailfins). CZmarlin (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Merged to Category:Automobile_tailfins. --rimshot^talk 21:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:FCE AL 54

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 21:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:FS ALb 48

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshot^talk 21:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:FS 728

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:FS ALe 792/882

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshot^talk 21:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:FS E.453

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:FS R.212

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:FS R.302

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Kept, not empty anymore. --rimshot^talk 21:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:FdS ADe serie 300

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 21:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bahnhof Hasselbrook

delte! new category Category:Bahnhof Hamburg Hasselbrook Flor!an (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Warum ist diese Kategorie verschoben worden? Der Bahnhof heißt "Hasselbrook" und nicht "Hamburg Hasselbrook". --Mogelzahn (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Laut de:Bahnhof Hamburg Hasselbrook heißt er aber auch Hamburg Hasselbrook. Ich denk mal weil er (heuzutage) im Stadtgebiet liegt. --Flor!an (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ich schliesse mich Mogelzahn an, s Category:S-Bahn stations in Hamburg--Oursana (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ich verstehe den Verweiß auf die Kategorie jetzt nicht wirklich ... --Flor!an (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wenn Du dir die Kategorie ansiehst, kannst du noch fast alle umbenennen; dies soll ein weiteres Argument dafür sein Hasselbrook nur Hasselbrook zu nennen so wie Othmarschen und Blankenese etc--Oursana (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ich habs in Bahnhof Hasselbrook zurück benannt. Anmerkung: In Othmarschen ist jedoch nur S-Bahn Verkehr und in Blankenese oder Hasselbrook ist (oder war) auch Fern-/Regionalverkehr. Ich werden den deutschen Wikipedia dann auch in Bahnhof Hasselbrook (ohne Hamburg)umbenennen. --Flor!an (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Danke. Nur Hasselbrook ist Regionalbahn.--Oursana (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kept, as per discussion. --rimshot^talk 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Built in 2011 in New Jersey

Wrong name format. All US states have categories of this format, but they're always "Built in STATENAME in YEAR", not "Built in YEAR in STATENAME". See Category:Buildings in New Jersey by year of completion. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Built in New Jersey in 2011. --rimshot^talk 17:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jain art at the Badami Cave Temples

Only 1 cave falls in this category. Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 17:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Golan Polak

The name is incorrect. I've replaced it with Category:Golan Pollack, per w:Golan Pollack and use here: judoinside. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Golan Pollack. --rimshot^talk 17:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Poznański Palace

Please rename this category to Izrael Poznański Palace, because there's a different palace in Łódź called Karol Poznański Palace which is highly confusing. These are two different buildings (by the look of it), and only adding the first name (Izrael) to this category can clarify that. Poeticbent talk 20:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• One different? No, not only Karol's, but also Maurycy's, both sons of Izrael. Izrael's one is the biggest and best known, that's why name of owner is commonly ommited. Piastu (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe "Izrael" is commonly omitted in Łódź, I don't know because I don't live there. But the one and only Commons category missing the given name looks like a mistake leading to unintended duplication of the same place (either Karol or Maurycy's residence, while in fact it is the Izrael's residence). Poeticbent talk 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Izrael Poznański Palace in Łódź. --rimshot^talk 17:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Demonstrations and protests against the construction of the Abiadura Handiko Trenaren in the Basque Autonomous Community

Abiadura Handiko Trenaren expression is declined with -ren. This means that of is included. The translation of the title would something like this: Demonstrations and protests against the construction "of the of" high speed trail in the Basque Autonomus Community. Instead, I propose: Demonstrations and protests against the construction of the "Y vasca-Euskal Y". It's shorter and it's clear that the location is the Basque Autonomus Community. Joxemai (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

All files moved to "Category:Demonstrations and protests against the construction of the Basque Y in the Basque Autonomous Community", after correction of spelling. So, this category can be deleted. - Joxemai (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Demonstrations and protests against the construction of the Basque Y in the Basque Autonomous Community. --rimshot^talk 17:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Covers of Britain

This is a completely unnecesaary subcategory of Category:Covers of the United Kingdom and is empty because all images that might be here are already correctly in the parent category which is certainly not overpopulated. Ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Covers of the United Kingdom. --rimshot^talk 17:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Vitraux de la collégiale de Champeaux (Seine-et-Marne)

to delete, see Category:Renaissance stained glass windows of Collégiale Saint-Martin de Champeaux (Seine-et-Marne) GFreihalter (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Renaissance stained glass windows of Collégiale Saint-Martin de Champeaux (Seine-et-Marne). --rimshot^talk 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bosses of Collégiale Saint-Martin de Champeaux (Seine-et-Marne)

to delete, see Category:Corbels of Collégiale Saint-Martin de Champeaux (Seine-et-Marne) GFreihalter (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Corbels of Collégiale Saint-Martin de Champeaux (Seine-et-Marne). --rimshot^talk 17:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Kencot, Oxfordshire

This category was created in the mistaken belief that there is more than one church in Kencot. There isn't. User:Tvpromo1 uploaded a photo of Broadwell parish church claiming it was Kencot parish church. User:Pa3ems then created this category to group Tvpromo's photo with those of the real Kencot parish church. This category is misleading and needs deleting. Motacilla (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, delete the category :-)

Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 06:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty. --rimshot^talk 17:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Details of paintings by Gerard van Honthorst

What is the purpose of this category? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply I sorted the Category:Details of paintings containing over 1400 files (now there are 474). If there were three or more files of details of paintings by the same artist, I created the relative subcategory, that I assigned to his painter (or to the paintings of this painter), and then to the general Category:Details of paintings by painter. For the details of paintings I think that is more useful to have subcategories by painter, rather than a single generic category in which are thousands and thousands of all kinds of files. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this category (Category:Details of paintings by Gerard van Honthorst) causes structural overcategorisation. And this probably goes for more categories in Category:Details of paintings by painter. But maybe we should be reviewing Category:Details of paintings. In my opinion the function of this category is not entirely clear. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion can be archived. The problem is much wider and does not concern this specific category but the superior category, so should be open a new discussion regarding that. --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Kept, open a broader discussion about Category:Details of paintings, if needed. --rimshot^talk 17:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pirelli Tower, Milan

Empty category, due to COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.167.13 15:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It will be created again and again, so we better leave it there empty. --Foroa (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pirelli Tower, Milan

Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose It will be deleted and created again and again. At least, it is documented. --Foroa (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Kept per nom -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pals embattled in heraldry

Mis-spelling - it should be "Pales" and not Pals. Kiltpin (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Pals is clearly wrong. OK to correction. --Massimop (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Pales embattled in heraldry. --rimshot^talk 23:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sharabha

sarabha shiv avatar 59.94.115.84 06:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Retain name Not only about the avatar, but about the animal in general. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done, no follow-up. --rimshot^talk 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Female toplessness in Bodypaint

We already have Category:Female body painting. In addition, incorrect capitalization. Leyo 09:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really see the need for a category intersection here. I'd put these in Category:Female toplessness and Category:Female body painting. If we really need this intersection category, then "bodypaint" should not be capitalized. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted as empty in January. --rimshot^talk 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Anti-icing

What is this category about exactly? Could we rename it to "Anti-icing equipment on aircraft" to reduce ambiguity? Ariadacapo (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to Category:De-icing of aircraft makes sense. De-icing of bridges, railroad switches, pantographs, ... might exist on Commons. --Foroa (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there is a slight difference between anti- and de-icing: You do anti-icing to prevent aircraft parts from becoming iced and you do de-icing to remove ice that has already formed (while of course anti-icing can include removing ice that's already there, see en:De-ice). In most cases though, you won't be able to tell from a picture if it's anti- or de-icing fluid that strange truck is spraying onto the aircraft, so two separate cats would probably cause confusion. So why not merge those two cats into Category:Anti- and de-icing of aircraft? --El Grafo (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Most items have been moved to Category:De-icing of aircraft, there is only one image left left in anti-icing. Combined names are always trouble, so why not leave it as is for that single image. --Foroa (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with El Grafo. Should we keep this category nevertheless, we need a less vague name. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of making a new Category:Aircraft anti-icing systems to contain those items that are installed on aircraft to either prevent or to shed ice build up on surfaces such as leading edges of wings, tailplanes, tailfins, rotors, etc. These can comprise inflatable rubber boots, movable shield surfaces, heaters, or distribution pipework for warm air or de-icing fluids. The two now empty cats can probably be redirected as required. (former aerospace fluid systems engineer) - PeterWD (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Great! I think we can safely delete the current category now. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No objections – tagged for deletion. --El Grafo (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

… and it's gone. I guess this can be closed? --El Grafo (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Works-by-year templates

Works is not the correct label for all that is included as subsets of this category. In fact, works. however differently worded, is a sub-category within this category. I do a lot of work on these "by year" hierarchies on the English Wikipedia, and it is clear that we have two, or three, main branches of which the proper name for a parent category seems difficult to come up with.

1. Establishments
2. Introductions
3. (Works)

This is a difficult scheme to delineate since works may be seen as introductions when they are books but a work of architecture, i.e. a bridge, is neither established not introduced.

In any case, "works" is not a term we can settle on for the present category that is to contain it all. meco (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion closed: moved from the current parent category and subcategorized under Architecture templates and Art templates -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Door friezes

Where is the frieze? What does Door friezes mean? Category to delete ? GFreihalter (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I marked the "friezes" in the photo. In all fairness, I don't have the least idea how that thing is really called, but it certainly has a name. It's like a frieze over the door, though it's not carved or painted, but a fixed panel. They all have distinctive shapes and decorations. It's a common feature on up-scale 19th century urban buildings in Funchal. Besides classifying this particular architectonic element, the purpose is to group the buildings which have that, so that it can be used to match against old photographs, or recent ones (like this one) which don't have a location, so that they could be identified.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I already know what this is. It's a Victorian architecture element used to disguise the rolling mechanism of blinds and Venetians. It's sort of a frieze indeed, but there should be a more proper name for it.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Venetian blind friezes, old category deleted (closed discussion).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Note (after closing): The correct name for those architectural elemente is Lambrequin, and they are now being correctly categorized in the proper lambrequin categories.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:M24 Chaffee near Spichern

The category name is very vague. It should be possible to find out the exact location of the tank, e.g. The exact village or town where this vehicle stands. 91.57.72.191 08:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The place where the tank is (49°12′15″N 6°58′10″E / 49.204284°N 6.96957°E / 49.204284; 6.96957) seems to be within the borders of Spicheren actually, so "M24 Chaffee Monument (Spicheren)" would do fine as category name. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Closed Per Rudolph Buch; Thank you for your help! --High Contrast (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Derelict buildings

Derelict buildings and Category:Abandoned buildings are the same thing. I suggest redirecting this to Abandoned buildings and also reactivating Category:Neglected buildings for buildings that are run-down but still in use. Ghouston (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Category:Neglected buildings is probably not worth maintaining. There would be far too many buildings eligible for the category, and it would be too subjective to decide which buildings should be included. . If looking for a neglected building, you'd be better off looking through Category:Buildings to find a suitable one. Ghouston (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that "Abandoned" is NOT the same as "Derelict" which means "damaged, heavily run down" - but can still be in use! Vice versa, a brand spanking new building can be abandoned.

I agree that "neglected" is very subjective, and probably should not exist as a separate category from "derelict" (i.e. move to derelict, then remove all that are just looking a little tired, but not broken down). Ingolfson (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wikionary say that derelict is a synonym of abandoned: , . Looking through what people have put in the two categories, I can't see any difference, and I wouldn't be able to give any advice on which one should be used for a particular building. In practice it can sometimes be hard to tell if a building is actually abandoned or not, since people will sometimes carry on using extremely dilapidated buildings. Most empty buildings are just untenanted, not abandoned. Ghouston (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's quite common for some "installations", particularly farms, to have one or more buildings that have become derelict, yet for the farm overall to be far from abandoned. Derelict is certainly not a synonym for abandoned, or even that close in meaning, even there is a considerable overlap in the instances of each. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case the building is abandoned but the land isn't. You see the same thing in cities where somebody has stopped maintaining a building but hasn't abandoned the land, they expect to sell it some day or demolish it and redevelop. I'm thinking that derelict/abandoned isn't a great name for a category, if it also has a legal meaning of walking away from the land. In the USA people have been abandoning perfectly good buildings simply because the value has gone down and it's not worth paying the mortgage anymore - the bank will foreclose and take possession themselves before the building turns into a ruin. So abandonment/dereliction tells you nothing about the state of repair of the building. Ghouston (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you also have buildings like File:The_Old_Brown_Jug,_Carr_Hill.JPG or File:Old_Odeon_Cinema_Building_-_geograph.org.uk_-_862320.jpg that people call derelict, but are still weatherproof and can be renovated and put back into use later - they've even gone to the trouble of boarding them up for protection. Any damage is relatively minor. Ghouston (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I see a sequence of conditions (it's not completely a logical progression, because decaying buildings can sometimes be still occupied):

• vacant buildings, in normal condition but currently empty, maybe available for rent
• mothballed buildings, which are still weatherproof
• decaying buildings, no longer weatherproof, these are also damaged buildings
• Ruins, no longer repairable, would need rebuilding from the ground up

Ghouston (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep without changes. Many abandoned buildings are also derelict, and vice versa, but the two aren't the same — if you keep using a building for a long time without maintaining it, it's going to be abandoned but not derelict, while a newly-abandoned building may not yet be derelict. One's a state of use, while the other's a condition. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No objection to leaving this category as it is, but perhaps we need something separate for mothballed buildings, for which I don't see a suitable category. For example, File:Seattle - 313-321 E Pine 02.jpg is a building mothballed in reasonably good repair, with concrete plans for redevelopment. I stuck it in Category:Abandoned buildings for lack of a better category, but it really doesn't seem right to me. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • How can a building that is still in use be described as abandoned, even if it's not maintained? Of the many files in Category:Abandoned buildings, how many examples can you find that aren't derelict? Perhaps my original argument that abandoned and derelict are synonyms can be questioned, since definitions do vary in different sources. However I'm still not sure that abandoned buildings forms a useful category, since an abandoned building in a good state of repair is photographically indistinguishable from a temporarily vacant building (and you'd expect most such "abandoned" buildings to be reclaimed for use sooner or later.) Perhaps if Abandoned buildings was renamed to Category:Disused buildings with the subcategory Derelict buildings for those that are no longer weatherproof? Then we still have the issue that some buildings look like they are on the point of collapse, but are actually still in use. --ghouston (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of the arguments above basically reverse Nyttend's statement, from "if you keep using a building for a long time without maintaining it, it's going to be abandoned but not derelict" to "if you keep using a building for a long time without maintaining it, it's going to be derelict but not abandoned". Then you can use a definition of derelict to mean "heavily run down" (by which I'd say no longer weatherproof). However with this definition, Derelict buildings should no longer be a subcategory of Abandoned buildings, as it is at present, they would only have a see-also relationship and share a parent category. However I'd still argue that Abandoned buildings is not a useful category and could be renamed to Disused buildings, so that it would cover the case of "mothballed" buildings, which are disused but not abandoned. --ghouston (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Although we then have the problem that most derelict buildings are actually disused, so they'd need to be added to both categories. Also it may be hard to tell whether a building is in use or not just from the photo. --ghouston (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Delete and merge into Category:Abandoned buildings. Not enough files to justify a very minor difference (difference which usually can't be seen). Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Keep It's actually a fairly large difference given the fact that "abandoned" and "derelict" are not synonyms and do not mean the same thing at all. Some derelict buildings are abandoned, others are not. Not all abandoned buildings are derelict. Prefer "derelict" to "neglected" as the latter is subjective and a non-derelict building can arguably be neglected. This category should actually be removed from Category:Abandoned buildings. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Keep like User:Skeezix1000--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Since this discussion is somewhat inactive, and several people wanted to keep the categories separate, I'm closing it with no action. --ghouston (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Teatro Victoria Eugenia

Merge with Category:Victoria Eugenia Antzokia. Both names are official (basque and spanish) so the name for the category should be: Victoria Eugenia Antzokia-Teatro Victoria Eugenia Joxemai (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Composing names as you propose is the best receipt to hide it for most users. Why we tend to follow the en:wiki to avoid such discussions. When you document it proprely, at least people will find it back easily. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep es:Teatro Victoria Eugenia gets 400 visits a month , whereas eu:Victoria Eugenia antzokia gets one tenth that . So, the Spanish category name is more likely to be used. The Basque category name can remain as a redirect. DrKiernan (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 Disagree - It doesn't seem to be a stable criterium to calculate the visit number from each wiki, to put the suitable name. The name for the theater must be the official name of the institution, because the institution (and the government behind this) wants to be like that. For example, Spanish statistics agency is "Instituto Nacional de Estadística". If english wikipedia gets most visits, must the name be "National Official Institute (Spain)"? Clearly, not. The official name is "Instituto Nacional de Estadística" and it must be kept. On the other hand, composing names is the usual way to name in Basque Autonomous Community as it's a bilingual community, so it's not as strange as you say (example: Donostia-San Sebastián). - Joxemai (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Category names don't follow official usage, they're generally in English per Commons:Categories#Category names and Commons:Language policy. However, I'm still inclined to think that in this case the Spanish name for the theater is more widely accessible and more likely to be searched for in a worldwide multilingual project than an English, Basque or composite name. Apart from the statistics I've already provided, compare google hits: 3.5 million for Teatro, 645,000 for antzokia, 42,500 for theatre, 37,600 for theater. DrKiernan (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Category is now at Category:Victoria Eugenia Theater –⁠moogsi (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Demonstrations and protests against transport in the Basque Autonomous Community

There is no protest against transport but against environmental impact related to transport. Joxemai (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: the subcategory in question is "Category:Demonstrations and protests against the construction of the Abiadura Handiko Trenaren in the Basque Autonomous Community". The files relate to protests against the construction of a high-speed rail in the Basque Autonomous Community. These are protests both against the environmental impact of the rail as well as against the building of the rail, so the subcategory belongs in both the parent categories "Category:Demonstrations and protests against environmental problems in the Basque Autonomous Community" and "Category:Demonstrations and protests against transport in the Basque Autonomous Community". Anyway, even if it is felt that "Demonstrations and protests against the construction of the Abiadura Handiko Trenaren in the Basque Autonomous Community‎" should not be a subcategory of "Demonstrations and protests against transport in the Basque Autonomous Community" (which I disagree with), that isn't a sufficient reason for deletion of the latter category. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made the changes needed in the categories inside this category and I finally agree with the other discusser, so I retire the discussion banner in the category. - Joxemai (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Choess (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Flaming pales in heraldry

The three files in this category do not contain any pales, flaming or not. Kiltpin (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
These are not pales, but rather "pile reversed wavy". They should be removed from Flaming Pales (which would then be empty) and be recategorised as Piles in heraldry. Kiltpin (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. The pales flaming are charged over the mountains. Please, read the blazon. --Xavigivax (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't just make up names for heraldic ordinaries. They are NOT pales, but they are "piles reversed wavy" If the blazon calls it a pale, then the blazon is incorrect. It matters not, what it is called in Catalan or Spanish, in English it is a "pile reversed wavy". You cannot just translate it into English and hope for the best. I would like to read the opinion of another heraldic Spanish speaker, because I really do not believe that that the Spanish Heralds don't know the difference between a pile and a pale. Kiltpin (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference between a pile reversed wavy and a flaming pale is that the second touch the top of the area (shield or charge) however, the pile reversed ends before. It's a bit confusing, and I agree with you that the heraldist who redact the blazon had not choose the best option (in my opinion). --Xavigivax (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Xavigivax - We can go round this forever, but the fact remains that they are not 'Pales' and they are not 'Flaming'. Any herald seeing them would call them piles reversed wavy, which by the way, can reach any part of the shield if the blazon says so. Any herald seeing the blazon only of 'Flaming Pales' would draw 'a pale rayonny', which is totally different.

We do not have consensus, nor do I believe we ever will on this matter. Kiltpin (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As always in heraldry, we cannot judge from the drawing but have to stick to the blazon. According to the Encyclopaedia heraldica, the Spanish term for pile[s] is "cuspide[s]" , whereas the English pale is a also a "pal" in French which I'd say corresponds to the Spanish "palo". Note also that there is no entry for "flaming" or "flamboyant" for that matter but the Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences writes that "there are also cometed, and flaming Pales, which are pointed, sometimes waved, etc." . The latter does also not limit the size of a pile and the Encyclopaedia heraldica shows some piles reversed that arguably do reach the top of the shield (plate LII, figs. 28, 29). And this modern glossary doesn't even make any distinction between a "pal flamboyant" and a pile reversed wavy at all. So if one takes the original Spanish blazon like "palo flameado" there is reliable evidence that it may be translated to a "flaming pale". The two problematic files in this category, however, are the versions of Escut de Rialp. Here, the blazon is just a "río ondado", literally a wavy river, which is just descriptive and even pretty liberal when it actually comes to drawing the shield.

To sum it up, I think we should at least recategorise File:Escut de Rialp.svg and File:Escut de Rialp THV-ES.svg to Category:Rivers in heraldry. De728631 (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree De728631, but I would go further and add File:Escut de l'Espluga de Francolí.svg as well. That is the most river-like depiction one could ever find! But that would bring us back to the fact that we would have an empty category. We are blessed and cursed with the convention that all Heraldry and Heraldic categories must be written in English. The fact that something is a foreign charge and the blazon is written in a foreign language is of no consequence. We are given two different blazons for the same thing - "palo flameado" and "río ondado". Should we have two different categories? An English speaking herald would blazon what we are seeing as "a pile wavy reversed" and not a "flaming pale". We have a convention - we should stick to it. Kiltpin (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Three files above recategorized to Category:Rivers in heraldry, leaving this category empty. Deleting as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country, Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes from Australia

Related CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:Athletes

Related CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:Paralympic competitors

Related CfD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:2004 Summer Paralympics athletes

Although the term "Athlete" is both used to refer to people practicing athletics but also in a broader way for sportspeople taking part in the Olympics, using "athlete" here leads to some confusion. It would be much better if the term sportspeople was used to designate all people taking part in the Olympics and athletes was reserved to athletic people. An example of the problem is that currently Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes from Australia is a subcategory of Category:Athletes from Australia which contains only athletics people. So swimmers are now athletes?

Although I have started making this change, I will wait until the end of this discussion to see whether I'll continue with the 2008 Summer Olympics categories. Badzil (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose There is no confusion possible, to my knowledge it has always been used that way for the Olympics (even swimmers are atheletes at the Olympic games). The IOC web site page about the competitors is called atheletes. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Support I support Badzil's proposal and share his concern. It is irrelevant how the IOC uses the term "athlete". The IOC is using the term for a completely different purpose and is presumably not using it in the context of building a media repository category structure. On the Commons, we routinely choose category names, and make distinctions in terms of words, in achieve the best category structure, even though on many occasions there are people and organizations out in the big world who use the words differently than we do.

  As best as I can tell, we distinguish between athletes and sportspeople in our categories, with the former representing sportspeople involved in athletics (track and field, javelin throwing, etc. ) and the latter being the parent category (sportspeople including athletes, hockey players, coaches, sumo wrestlers, etc.). IIRC, this is a more British (possibly Commonwealth) approach to the word usage (in American English, I believe the terms are largely interchangeable). While it might be appropriate to reconsider this approach, given the ambiguity in the use of the terms, that is a bigger discussion to be had elsewhere.

  The immediate issue is the Olympic categories, and Badzil is correct. Under our current category structure, it is incorrect to be categorizing non-athletes under parent categories that are limited to athletes. It is also inappropriate to be using terminology for one set of subcats which conflicts with usage practices used for the larger category trees. Both approaches are confusing and unhelpful to Commons users. Even if we ultimately decide, in a separate discussion, to abandon the current sportspeople and athlete distinction, it is highly unlikely that the word "athlete" (which is understood in many parts of the world in a more limited sense) would be chosen over the term "sportspeople" for the parent categories, so there is no need to wait to move these Olympics categories to use the sportspeople wording. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  (Added because I kind of lost the plot at the end of my comment above. Sorry.) These categories can remain (we have a well-established and well developed Category:Olympic athletes category structure, but limited to athletes in the current limited sense that we use the word here on Commons, and as subcats to the appropriate parents in Category:Olympic sportspeople. That's how it appears to work for every other Olympics category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  Why not Sportsperson ? To me sportspeople is ambiguous, because people means so many different things. Sorry but I stand by what I've said Athelete is totally correct in english and at least in french too.--PierreSelim (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  Seriously, who cares whether or not there is another correct usage. We make word choices for our categories on Commons, and need to do so, regardless of the fact that there may be alternate correct usage of the words. There are lots of things in this world that have multiple words used to describe them, yet for the sake of consistency and ease of yse, we typically choose one word for the category structure here on the Commons.

  We have an existing category structure, both for the Olympics and for the broader sports world, which distinguishes between sportspeople and atheletes. If you don't like it, that's a separate discussion to be had on a higher level. It isn't an excuse to hapharzardly treat a small number of subcats differently than the rest of the Olympic category structure.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  we dont make up terms or call things other than what they are, using terms that arent used elsewhere makes it impossible for people to find our content. The IOC calls all competitors atheletes irregardless of the event, the issue of placing Olympic competitors in general atheletes categories is the issue individuals should be in their national sport category and an Olympian category as two seperate structures not one general athletics category Gnangarra 07:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pro. Athletes only for athletics, all the other will be sportspeople (including coaches and other staff). --Florentyna (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose all Olympians are referred to as athletes irregardless of their event, we should never be making up our own terms. As stated above IOC uses the term athelete irregardles of event therefore if someone is coming here to find images of Olympians they will be looking for athelete not sports people. The only acceptable alternative to athlete is using Olympians but that would mean the categories would be something like 2012 Summer Olympians from Foo and "2012 Summer Para-Olympians from Foo". Gnangarra 00:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  I think that Olympians would be a better option than both sportspeople and athletes. Badzil (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pro This category is for Athletes i.e. track and field competitors. There is no confusion. In common English usage that is what Athlete means. Somebody who competes in Athletics. The fact that the IOS has its own terminology (based on marketing) is their problem, not Wikimedia's. The parent category is Sportspeople. That could be renamed Competitors. If you really want to eliminate all the ambiguity and have lots of spare time you could rename all references to Athlete to Track and Field Competitor. But who cares ?Rcbutcher (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I was exploring more how the categories for Olympians were organized and this is the result:
  • We have 2 different organizations for Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics. Summer Olympics consistently show that the top category is named Category:.... Summer Olympics sportspeople and Category:.... Summer Olympics athletes is always a subset of this category (see Category:Olympic sportspeople by year). This tends to support the change that I have been asking for.
  • For Winter Olympics, it is a different story. All the sportspeople categories are named Category:.... Winter Olympics athletes and are subcategories of Category:Olympic athletes. Badzil (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment There is ambiguity. I have no access to corpus tools right now, but the OED mentions the meaning 'somebody who competes in athletics' as British English; the first mentioned for 'athletes' meaning is 'a person who competes in sports, e.g. Olympic athletes'. Also, 'athletics' means any kind of sports in the US, while it's restricted to track and field in the UK (see en:athletics (U.S.) and en:athletics (sport). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I do understand the ambiguïty, my oppose was based on the fact athletes could be the right meaning and there was IMO no need to fight for such things. Now if we want to be consistent, we should be consistent with the winter olympics categories too as there are no athletics in winter games. (I've striked my opposition, we need to move on, this is really not an important matter). --PierreSelim (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Support Badzil's proposal: inserting intermediate athlete categories with a meaning that is country specific is asking for troubles. --Foroa (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Athletes use to mean (still does in dictionaries which are slow to update the change of meanings) someone whom competes in athletics, today it is widely used for all competitors in elite sports. Although if we were to use the dictionaries meaning, then why are we deleting athletes when it could be populated with track and field competitors? I'm leaning more towards Gnangarra suggestion if I where to support an rename as "Sportspeople" is far too broad. Bidgee (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  "Although if we were to use the dictionaries meaning, then why are we deleting athletes when it could be populated with track and field competitors?" This has never been suggested, what is suggested is that "athletes" categories should contain only track and field competitors. So what exactly are you opposing to? Badzil (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  Bidgee is opposing using a term "sportspeople" when there is a term "Athletes" thats been used for 100 plus years, its useage is the definition of term, its the term used by the IOC in both french and English but most importantly its the term that anyone looking for Athletes at that 2012 Olympics will use to search for that media, the only alternative term they may use is Olympians. "Track and Field" anthlete should be in "Track and Field Athlete" categories not Athlete categories thats where the problem is. Gnangarra 23:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  Bidgee, sorry I didn't make myself clear–the first meaning mentioned by dictionaries *is* sportspeople. The specific meaning (track and field athletes) is mentioned by some dictionaries (OALD, ODE) as a British English meaning; it isn't mentioned at all in the OED. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  From reliable dictionaries I've seen in my local library, none of them even had "sportspeople" in them, got to find it rather amusing that the English Wikipedia has the word "athlete" in the Sportsperson article. Bidgee (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Support: OED states that sportsperson is "a person who participates in sport or athletic activities; a sportsman or sportswoman", and indicates a usage from 1909: "You may perhaps have caught some bird, maimed by a sportsman..and may have seen that it would be merciful in you, not a sportsperson at all, but a sentimentalist, to make a quick end of it." (W. de Morgan, It Never Can Happen Again, ch. xxxix, p. 506.) Thus, it isn't a made-up word. I suppose I do not strongly object to the use of athletes to refer to all sportspeople and track and field athletes to mean sportspeople engaged in track and field sports, but at the end of the day I think that the possible confusion over the meaning of athlete indicates we should prefer a more neutral term like sportspeople and confine athlete to track and field sportspeople. Or, perhaps, to be extra clear we should use sportspeople and track and field athletes, and avoid entirely the use of the term athletes without any other identifying adjective. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If we cannot live with the top level sportspeople name, then we have to find another one and change all subcats in Category:Sportspeople and En:Category:Sportspeople. --Foroa (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Any other comments on the issue? Can we move to a close of the discussion now? Badzil (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus ? --PierreSelim (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I count 5 people supporting the usage of "sportspeople" for the high-level category and "athletes" for the track & field athletes. 2 people oppose it. Is this enough for a consensus? Badzil (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

May be, even though I'm not totally convinced, but I don't know what we/you can do to improve this :) --PierreSelim (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a vote or a poll. I don't know why people don't look at how others will see it, just because the OED says this doesn't mean it is correct it the current useage, fact that media, IOC, Olympic teams (Australian Team used athlete on all of its uniforms for the Olympic competitors) ect, use athlete to discripe someone whom has competed in the Olympics. Sportsperson is far to broad and people looking for people whom have competed in the Olympics will not understand and will search "Athlete" and not "sportsperson", though Gnangarra's suggestion is far better and neutral . Bidgee (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the usage of sportspeople as a top category and athletes as a subcategory has long been in place (since August 2008) and that a majority of people tend to think that it is an OK-way of doing things (although not the best), I am going forward with moving non-athletes in the sportspeople category. Badzil (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't you wait till an administrator closes this discussion? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion about changing nothing has been opened for more than a month now, and my request to unblock Category:2012 Summer Olympics sportspeople from Australia is essentially asking administrators to close this discussion. Badzil (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@Badzil: - Just to be clear, is this discussion complete? Can I close? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Support [Not yet, Themightyquill: the discussion is on for only 4 years all in all :) ]: we might as well rename "athletes" in "track and field athletes" to avoid any ambiguity. "Athlete" is like "Footballer" which itself doesn't mean anything or better means different things according to the geographical context. So it's better not to use it alone on Commons. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, Blackcat. I think we've got consensus at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:Athletes for moving to "Athletics competitors" because of the ambiguity of "athletes." "Summer Olympics athletes" (which is just for track and field events) would become "Summer Olympics athletics competitors." It's just a matter of finding the time and energy to make all those changes. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The question, Themightyquill, is: shall we move any occurrence of "Athlete/s" to "Track and field athlete/s" or transform "Athlete" in a disambiguation category? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:Athletes, we'll move "X athletes" and "Athletes of x" to "x athletics competitors" and "Athletics competitors of x", and then convert Category:Athletes into a disambiguation category. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Moving to Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletics competitors by country and Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletics competitors from Australia, etc. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Latin writing

This category (and several similar) promulgates a confusion between Latin language and Latin script – see subcategories. Since usage of the script for Latin texts and terms constitutes only a tiny fraction of all modern usage of Latin script, this has to be fixed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed Category:Latin alphabet (which I assume is about the western alphabet now used spread to many modern languages) from Category:Latin writing (which I assume is about the language specifically), and Category:Palaeography from Category:Latin alphabet, to untangle some of the craziness. --Closeapple (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi and @Closeapple: Has this issue been resolved? Can I close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I'd say there's agreement that the categories are messed up, but it hasn't been fixed. I haven't done any more untangling since 2013. It appears that several of the categories under Category:Latin writing should be moved to Category:Writing in Latin, and then notes should be put on both specifying that "Latin writing" is for the Latin alphabet used by most of the western world, and and "Writing in Latin" is for the specific language associated with the Roman Empire. Want me to try to take a shot at it? If you'd like to instead, that's fine. --Closeapple (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Closeapple: You seem to have a much better grasp of the broader organizational scheme and the problems with this part of it. If you don't mind taking a shot at it, please do. It would be great to close this old discussion - Themightyquill (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think I've gotten it separated, at least at the category level. There are still some files directly in Category:Latin writing that are in the Latin language specifically and should probably be moved to Category:Writing in Latin. --Closeapple (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you, Closeapple Now both these categories have clear definitions posted, and you've properly sorted out the sub-categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing as resolved - Themightyquill (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cyclamor in heraldry

There is no such thing in English. It should be Annulet in heraldry. Kiltpin (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that the English is the only language that is used in commons? The annulet where is alone is named cyclamor, also in English. Search in google books the book, "A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry" and search cyclomor inside it. It says "A single large ring, not used in English arms". Cyclamor in heraldry is correct. --Xavigivax (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that we have a convention that as far as Heraldry is concerned, English and English terminology will be used, except when blazoning in a different language. Has that convention changed? In English heraldic terminology, the charges should be called annulets. Neither dictionary.com, nor our own Wiktionary give a listing for Cyclamor. Which heraldic tradition uses the word Cyclamor? As for Google Books and "A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry" - can you provide a link? I have searched all the Google Books with that title and can find no reference. In fact, I can find no reference to the word anywhere else except for this category. What is the point of having a category that no one will ever search for? Kiltpin (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kiltpin, I don't know if someone will search for this category. However, if it not exists, will be impossible to find it. You neither know if no one will ever search for this category. I only know that the correct way to say the annulet when it is big and alone, is cyclamor. May you don't know this word because in English heraldry is not used. Here you could find the link: . The mates of the French Wiki has an article: . Another link in English: . Anyway, your reason is not coherent. You said that cyclomor should be changed because is not a word in English, but you propose "annulet" that neither is an English word. Annulet and Cyclomor, both came from French. In Spanish we say "anillo" or "anillo ciclomor", in Catalan we say "ciclomor", in italian they say "ciclamoro", in Nederlands they say "ronde binnenzoom", in German: "grosser reif" and in French, this figure is a "cyclamor". The English language take this specific word and also say "Cyclomor", but this will be very strange for you, because it not exist in the English armorial. A cyclamor is a big annulet. The category should exists and it must be inside in the category "Annulets in heraldry", then if someone like you don't know this word, he will learn a new heraldic term. Regards, --Xavigivax (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I can only refer you back to my last comments, which you have not addressed. It really does not matter what it means in Spanish, or French, or Catalan, or German, or Dutch or Italian - the title is in English. And in English it is an Annulet.

By your reasoning we should have a category called "anillo ciclomor" and another called "ciclomor" and another called "ciclamoro" and another called "ronde binnenzoom" and another called "grosser reif". What about Portugal, you seem to have left that out and what about Poland and Lithuania, they have a long heraldic tradition - why aren't they included?

Lets not forget the Balkan states and the whole of Scandinavia - lets have a category for every country in the world!

You are choosing just one language - French. Why not just choose, English - like all the other categories? Kiltpin (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you ask for reference of the heraldic term cyclomor in English? I give to you two references in English that explain that the annulet where is big and alone is called cyclomor and you ignore it. My reasoning did not say that I want a category in each language. But English has a lack of vocabulary that not recognize some charges that are not used in English arms, like the "bordure of pieces?" or the "mount floury?" that you can watch here: File:Escut d'armes dels Montsuar.svg. The cyclomor is not used in English arms and may be you don't know what it is, but it is not a reason to delete the category.--Xavigivax (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I invite to some users of different countries that seems to have knowledge about heraldry. I ask them their opinion. I think that this would be good for this discussion. You can read my invitations watching my contributions. --Xavigivax (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've been invited by Xavigivax. As far I as I know, knowing better French, Dutch and German heraldry of the end of the middle ages and early modern age, I have never seen such thing as a "cyclamor", but acording to Anne Behaghel Dindorf (french author of a linguistic PhD about medival balzoning), it is something like a large annulet or a circular orle. The word seems to be seldom if ever found in french, and mainly in tardive blazons. German and dutch say "ring", whatever the size the ordinary. In french, we have "anneau" for a large one (and sometimes whatever the size and number) and "annelet" ("anneau" with the suffix "-let" used to designate smaller things), for smaller ones. But the ring (geometrical meaning) being mainly used as a small and multiplicated ordinary, even "anneau" is rare. Personnaly, I think it would be much more comprehensive and simple to name the category "1 annulet in heraldry", and to add the classical polyglotic header. Katepanomegas (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've been invited by Xavigivax too. Personally, I agree with user Xavigivax, this is a heraldic term used in different regions and countries, moreover France is a core area in the beginning and development of the heraldry, so in my opinion in this case the use of this term is revelant even for English speakers.

On the other hand I understand the arguments of user Kiltpin and his opinion is solid too. The consensus should always be the most important. I think User:Katepanomegas has given a possible solution the use of the expresion Category:1 annulet in heraldry and I add another idea: It would be useful to put a template or infobox at the beginning of the category where users could read that 1 heraldic annulet in French is "cyclamor", in Spanish "anillo ciclomor", in italian "ciclamoro".... and redirect the Cyclamor in heraldry to Category:1 annulet in heraldry. Heralder (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Invited too by Xavigivax to participate in this discussion, I've noticed that the French word cyclamor (also used by Spanish, Catalan or Italian heraldic tradition) is somewhat obsolete in English nowadays, but it's useful to describe the annulet when it's alone and occupying the whole field, a charge that seems not to be used in British heraldry but existent in other traditions. Then, I'd say that 1 annulet and cyclamor would be synonyms, and on the page about category 1 annulet it would be right to include that when the annulet covers the whole field can be named also with the French name cyclamor. --Enfo (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Cyclamor (french) - (german) großer, flacher Ring" --

Source 1: Herold - Verein für Heraldik, Genealogie und verwandte Wissenschaften. Wappenbilderordnung (1990-1996). Symbolorum armorialium ordo, hrsg. vom Herold - Verein für Heraldik, Genealogie und verwandte Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Bearb. von Jürgen Arndt und Werner Seeger, 2 Bde, 2. ergänzte u. berichtigte Aufl., Neustadt a. d. Aisch 1990-1996 (kurz: WBO). Bd. 1.: Wappenbilder; Bd. 2: General-Index.
Editorische Notiz: Zugleich Neubearbeitung des Handbuchs der heraldischen Terminologie von Maximilian Gritzner (Einleitungsband, Abt. B des Neuen Siebmacherschen Wappenbuches, Nürnberg, 1890). Band-2: S. 87 --

Source 2: J. Siebmacher's grosses und allgemeines Wappenbuch, Einleitungsband, Abteilung B: Grundsätze der Wappenkunst verbunden mit einem Handbuch der heraldischen Terminologie (Maximilian Gritzner). Nürnberg: Bauer & Raspe, 1889. S. 222. --Arthur Diebold (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I come back to my original argument - do we have a convention that the titles for Heraldry and heraldic related topics will be written in English? If the convention exists then we should adhere to it. By all means add info boxes giving translations in other languages, but please let's stick to the rules we have. Kiltpin (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done: per Heralder, as "Cyclamor" is used, the category has been kept and transformed in redirect to Category:1 annulet in heraldry. Ruthven (msg) 14:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Construction sites

I don't think that this category works very well, as a subcategory of Category:Construction. Both categories contain the same kind of images, and it would be somewhat arbitrary to decide which ones actually show sites. There are plenty of more meaningful subcategories available under construction, including location, type of structure, year and material. ghouston (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Constructions could be also smaller thatn construction sites so i think that's ok how we have it right now.--Sanandros (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

But isn't a construction site just a place where construction is taking place? So every photo of "construction" is also a photo of a construction site? Even if you try to make the "smaller" distinction, it's completely arbitrary about exactly how small it needs to be. ghouston (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it easy to categorise construction pictures in London, since they go in Category:Construction in London or in a subcategory for the building project. But according to the top-level scheme there should be a subcategory Category:Construction sties in London, and presumably the same for each of the subcategories of individual building projects. But I really have no idea which photos would go in which category, and what purpose it would serve. ghouston (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, construction sites are clearly different for me than just construction. A construction can be just a small wall being built in my garden, when a construction site means : construction cranes, fences, formwork, portable toilettes, etc. i.e. a large organisation. So I think we should keep both categories. Lionel Allorge (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that "construction site" implies any particular size or complexity. If you are building a wall in your garden then your garden is the site where you are constructing the wall, i.e., a construction site. Anyway, the category isn't set up with that distinction, it's for images that "do not focus specifically on one aspect of work only. Images should generally be wide-angle or from a greater distance." But how does that fit with images from a particular construction site, e.g., Category:Construction of Shard London Bridge.? ghouston (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

To my mind "construction site" means more broad photo showing cranes etc. "Construction" just shows construction, possibly with builders. --217.21.43.22 12:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I should probably close this discussion, since it seems nobody agrees with me. I'd still be interested to see how the photos for the Shard category should be divided into "construction" and "construction sites". Presently they are all in a subcategory of "construction". --ghouston (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing, no consensus for change. --ghouston (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:2012 Summer Olympics Chinese badminton players

+Category:2012 Summer Olympics Chinese divers

This is the first category of its kind: by olympic games, by sport and by nationality. Is this really a granularity that we want to have?

Currently, for every year, we have a list of sportspeople by sport. We also have a list of olympic sportspeople by country. This is simple enough to allow for easy categorization of the pictures, and to get intersection of these categories using a tool like catscan_rewrite. Badzil (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I found that Category:2012 Summer Olympics sportspeople from China was not really organized. At least ten badminton-related categroies could be grouped, and this is not a small number. So I created this sub-category with the reference of Category:2008 Summer Olympics Chinese divers, for better organization. But if you prefer simpler structure and want to cancel this category, I'm fine with it.-Wongpong (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting categories and upmerging. Classifying these people by country of origin, and olympic sport, and year of olympics all in one category seems unnecessarily specific. Creation has okayed such a deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado in works undercoat

This is photographic grey (with painted name and number), not merely an unfinished paintjob in undercoat. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I know you said you're not participating in commons anymore, but I thought you might be okay with recommending an alternative (or just merge down?). No one has disagreed with you in 3.5 years, so I think you can call it whatever you want. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Closed due to lack of interest and no proposal given. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Ricklinger Masch (Hannover)

Kat soll verschoben werden nach "Ricklinger Masch", da unnötiges Klammerlemma Nonoh (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Kann man machen, wenn es keine weiteren Ricklinger Maschen gibt. Unbedingt nötig finde ich es nicht. Grüße --Losch (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ja ist wirklich ein kann aber kein muss... mach doch einfach ein cat redirect.--Sanandros (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Ricklinger Masch. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Reflections by country

I can see that many (but not all) of the Reflections in <country> categories have been put in the corresponding Nature of <country> category (Category:Reflections in Canada is an example; Category:Reflections in Belgium is a exception). But a reflection in a specific country doesn't necessarily have anything to do with nature in that country (unless you by nature also mean anything produced by the animal 'human being', in which case "nature" kind of loses its meaning). The reflection can be a building reflecting in the glass of another building, with no nature at all in the photo (File:Church-Ilia Kursk.jpg is an example of a reflection with no nature in it). So the Nature of <country> category should instead only be added to the concrete instance where Reflections in <country> is added (if it is a reflection of nature or a reflection occurring in nature). The Nature of <country> categories are simply too broad categories to add generally to all Reflections in <country> categories. --Jhertel (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the categorization of this categories <country> subcategories is bad. I however already opened a different talk for this category at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Reflections by country because separating this physical phenomenon by country doesnt seem to make any sense. There is no national or regional difference in a physical phenomenon. Other categorization matters. E.g categorization by reflecting surface such as mirror, water, etc., or by reflected wavefront such as light, seismic waves, etc., or by other external conditions. --Martin H. (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No consensus after 4+ years. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Battle dress uniforms of Bundeswehr

The Categories Category:Air force battle dress uniforms of Bundeswehr, Category:Army battle dress uniforms of Bundeswehr and Category:Marine battle dress uniforms of Bundeswehr should be migrated to this Category (Category:Battle dress uniforms of Bundeswehr) because there are no differences between the "battle dress uniforms" of the different services in germany. (as it is for other countries e.g. US) Flor!an (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 Neutral--TUBS 14:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Category:Marine battle dress uniforms of Bundeswehr has been redirected to Category:Navy battle dress uniforms of Bundeswehr.

@Flor!an: Are you sure this is the case? These categories now seem to have quite different images in them, particularly the navy category. - Themightyquill (talk)

 Neutral Actually the uniforme is the same, but just the "basic" battle dress uniform. There are existing "special" uniforms e.g. for pilots (they are not dress uniform) or for blue/khaki colourd uniform for the navy. But because there are only a few photos present in most of the categorys a merge is not that bad. --Flor!an (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Closed as stale discussion. Nominator is neutral. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Categories by alphabet

At the time I started this deletion request there were six "specialized alphabetical" categories placed at this really strange topic-category. By now there are happily only three two left, and I request your agreement on agreeing together to be rid of them too, and of the larger idea of "by alphabet" and "by name"-cats. Everything is defaultively "by alphabet" and "by name"! Subcategories are to be extracted down a tree only for non-nominal sorting arrays (thematic – that is). I understand some users use to take benefit in 'flatlists'. Getting a flatlist encompassing the full set of subcats at one outlook should be technically arranged from within each very cat-page, as a toggle-optional feature which may upon click turn the viewing fashion from deep to flat list and back without constituting a separate page - and thus cater for both desired fashions of viewing categories on Commons.
At this point:

• Category:Lakes of New Zealand by alphabet – Dismantle category - with items moved to father category:Lakes of New Zealand - and delete it
• Category:People by occupation by alphabet – Simply delete this shockingly inconsistant duplicate, after assuring that all tenants are tagged back to mother Category:People by occupation.

I'd be happy to learn more regarding this issue. Orrlingtalk 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note that I can change all of the categories with AWB if necessary. I'll need to request access. I think the by alphabet categories are useful; however, I would be completely supportive of getting rid of them if there was an alternative way to search by category. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note that there are a lot of pages in those categories so I'd need to put in a bot request for Ryan Vesey Bot. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ryan Vesey: This category now only has two subcategories (Category:Inscriptions by alphabet & Category:Letters by alphabet) which really do sort by alphabet, rather than by letter, (e.g. Category:Cyrillic inscriptions & Category:Arabic letters). I think it makes sense to leave these alone. Anyone opposed to me closing this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Vacuum triode circuits

Overcategorization, merge files back to Category:Vacuum tube circuits. All basic vacuum triode circuits (like common cathode stage, cathode follower stage, push-pull output stage etc.) will work with tetrodes and pentodes. These circuits are drawn with triodes for convenience alone (example: C battery is a C battery regardless of tube type - triode, pentode, anything that has a control grid). Retired electrician (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Vacuum triodes contain mainly photographs of different triodes and shows how different types of triodes look like. Category:Vacuum triode circuits consist circuit diagrams and abstract circuit symbols of triodes. That is not the same. In my opinion it is a good idea to keep this to categories separated.--Wdwd (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wdwd: , if I understand this correctly, @Retired electrician: doesn't want to move the diagrams into Category:Vacuum triodes, but into Category:Vacuum tube circuits. The diagrams could be used with pentode tubes, since the extra connections to the screen/suppressor grids are trivial. --ghouston (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification. A move into Category:Vacuum tube circuits should be fine.--Wdwd (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Blast from the past! It's hard to recall what these categories looked back then... Today I'd rather keep current structure, and move most of currently vacuum tube circuits to appropriate subcategories. Anyway, the majority of tube schematics are scattered somewhere else. The chaos always wins. Retired electrician (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well that's fine too, we can do nothing for now and just close this. I thought your 2012 reasoning made sense though. --ghouston (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm closing it as inconclusive. --ghouston (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)