Category:Presentazione candidati Lega Nord regionali Lombardia 2013, Pontida.jpg

Category files moved to correct category name (without .jpg extension). Please delete this category. Viscontino (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. --Jaqen (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Users by technology

This category shouldn't be part of the main category tree, it seems to me. Currently it's categorised under Technology and Categories by software. The same applies to its subcategories. ghouston (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, categories containing users shouldn't be in the main tree, here as it is in English Wikipedia, whence I copied this category. This category should only be in Category:Commons users. Category:Technology was added by Orrling (talk · contribs) in this edit. Category:Categories by software was originally added by the same user in this edit, removed, and readded by the same user. I have notified that user in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! :) Orrlingtalk 11:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did you have to go and put this cat in the main tree?   — Jeff G. ツ 06:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This user and this user in this edit and this edit as well as this edit by the very same user themselves are abusing the Commons Categories for Discussion institute and discrediting it. Here on Wiki we come to edit — to perform edits, not to open dramatic discussions every morning by the creation of brand-new pages rather than using one's immanent permission to perform constructive edits when there is not even a slight evident of disagreement anywhere concerning the subject newly opened. Engaging oneself in going starting a CfD upon a hintless, hallucinated "problem" while this feature is reserved for true, broad-scale problems causes the loss of editors' time and trust and brings to question the basic purpose of the initiator(s) in an environment that rather encourages one to edit, and the apparently-forcible avoidance from trivial and simple actions such as a removal/replacement of a parent category next to a built-in explanatory edit summary - substituted by putting that summary rather onto an external, new CfD page – points at nothing but at a user(s)'s improwess to make bold edits which is one of the pillars of participation in the Wiki. I couldn't see a trace of argument or disagreement on anything regarding this "theme" and failed to identify how starting a CfD(!) on it had ever any real grip of reality basing on the (non-)history of this category, ever. Orrlingtalk 15:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Orrling, I started this discussion because it's not just one category, but also all of its subcategories which have been linked into the main category tree. I didn't feel like changing them just to see somebody revert it back to how it was. From what you've written here, I'm still not sure if you will revert it if I do go ahead and remove these extra categories. ghouston (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

However, if I had noticed that it was you that linked them all into the main categories, I'd have asked you about it on your talk page instead of using Cfd. ghouston (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The 'risk' of having one's edit undone is inherent to being part of this project. Not being able or not willing to handle that thrill doesn't justify exhausting the free space of Wiki's servers; once your modification has been practically contrastd by means of an opposing edit that would be an understandable basis to initiate a CfD. Having less than 20 subcategories tagged consistently along the parent still doesn't turn the category into a broad-scale matter that merits an external assembly, when the category's backpage is itself still red. If your question intended to be more general and deal with the validity of attributing Wiki-community subcategories to general media circles, then the Village Pump should have been right for this - but resorting to a CfD is a last or next procedure after being objected elsewhere. My above comment bore absolutely no intention to indicate my possible views on the actual category whatsoever (but I can tell you that for the most, every category should have the potential of having more than one single parent, and here is not the English Wikipedia), so you might need to not look in it for any. I guess I'd rather expect co-editors here to carry out the edits they believe are most correct, with an edit summary such as "as far as I know linking this cat to the main tree is wrong". My criticism here was about the tone of the user who presented editing on Wiki as a piece of wonder that demands reports and special clarifications upon casual edits. Orrlingtalk 01:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other examples of adding "Wiki-community subcategories to general media circles", so I don't see any need for a general discussion, only for these particular categories that are now done differently. ghouston (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

They aren't "now done differently", I've long added the extra general-media parent to many single-parent subcats including most of those that concern Wikimedia(ns). But given that you only were aware of this one you could have, as in my above point, just fixed this cat and saved turning yet-another page with a header that reads nothing but "This category is DEEPLY disagreed about for a long time, come rescue us". So to put it very short, no, there can't be anything bad or wrong with "Commons users by technology" appearing at the very bottom of the list in Category:Technology. Have you noticed the special indexing in these entries, which tells them apart from regular media themes? Orrlingtalk 11:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it affects more than just this category. I found some others, e.g., Category:Users interested in law categorised under Law. I haven't noticed any in the users by language or location categories. I'll ask on Village pump. ghouston (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be thankful if you can remove the header badge from Category:Users by technology in the meantime. Orrlingtalk 01:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed, moved query to Village pump since it affects everything under Category:Commons users, not just this category. ghouston (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:People leaning agaist walls

misspelled, should be Category:People leaning against walls Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Renamed. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Biebrzański Park Narodowy: Geocoding overlays

category created by mistake, vot needed, I don't know how to delete it. Darekk2 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Walter and Eliza Hall Institute buildings

I just created this category and the title is wrong (some words are missing from the name of the institute; see Category:Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research buildings) instead). Schutz (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

 Delete. Requested speedydelete. --Passerose (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Has been deleted and is empty. Cfd closed. --Passerose (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fritz Kuhn

rename this one to Category:Friedrich Kuhn (bobsledder) following de:Friedrich Kuhn (Bobfahrer) in German Wikipedia. PanchoS (Diskussion) 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC) PanchoS (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Marcus! --PanchoS (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Devil's Tower, Wyoming

Can be deleted (Created by accident, correct category is Category:Devils Tower National Monument. Torsch (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Buildings destroyed by type

Ambiguous. Contents of the category suggest "cause of destruction", not "type" (type of ... of building?). Native English speakers, please suggest an appropriate name (if it's worth keeping at all). Kaluga.2012 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• suggest Category:Buildings destroyed by cause which is what the category seeks to provide Gnangarra 09:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I support Gnangarra's suggestion, makes better sense. Bidgee (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, "Buildings destroyed by cause" is better. Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Redirected to Category:Buildings destroyed by cause. There's a metacategory (Categories by cause) for this purpose. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Uniforms by War

Inappropriate name. The image may be placed to Category:Renaissance armour‎. Passerose (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, was a mistake. --Passerose (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Église Saint-Saturnin de Nohic

This category can be deleted Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Libro

Merge content to Category:Books, and turn into a redirect to that category. this was originally a category for the austrian bookshop Category:Libro (bookstore), but is obviously a really bad name for a category, as every spanish speaking editor is at risk of placing their book related images here. Side note: most of the images are likely copyright violations as modern book covers. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support makes sense, I just came across (and removed) an incorrectly categorized image here. JesseW (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, but I don't think a redirect makes sense, because then we would also need redirects from Category:Buch, Category:Livre, ... |FDMS (WP: en, de) 13:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. It doesn't really make sense to categorize media directly at the Books-Category, but that's not my problem. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in the Netherlands by location

Empty, and redundant to Category:Buildings in the Netherlands by city. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Napoleon's Egyptian campaign

Created this by accident, not realizing Category:Campaign in Egypt (1798-1801) already existed Andre Engels (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Delete. Requested speedydel. --Passerose (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Taivo had already turned it into a redirect. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fordson Major tractors

Contested speedy deletion. Should this commonly used name instead become a supercat for the newly-created Category:Fordson New Major E1 and Category:Fordson Major E27N tractors? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't mind but I do think in principle the flatter the cat structure the easier it is to find things within it. Your proposal amounts to (mild) obfuscation but who minds about Tractors of Yesteryear? I just wanted to see if what I thought was a good picture of an old Fordson in like new order should be banged into Wikimedia or not. As it turned out having been through the collection I thought it should and did so. Eddaido (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Flatter cat structures come about by people mindlessly deleting supercategories. If however we reinterpret your comment as "Commons editors are too fucking stupid to realise that", then yes, you have a point that the cut-down structure is thus less susceptible to ongoing damage by the policy-protected yet terminally stupid. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cathedral Marija Majka Crkve (Mostar)

There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to this discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cathedral in Mostar.jpg and result, all files from this category should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified location of bridges

The phasing of this category name is odd (is it good English at all?) and it doesn’t seem to make sense to have this as opposed to Category:Unidentified bridges (of which this is a child), since bridges are usually non-mobile structures — unknown location means uncomplete identification. I suggest deletion. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is only one photo here, b.t.w., which is also tagged with Category:Unidentified bridges. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete; redundant to Unidentified bridges. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Since I can't imagine a case where a bridge is identified, but its location is not, this is clearly redundant. Category is already empty and tagged as a redirect, so this should be speedy closed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:馬來人種

The category title "馬來人種" literally translates to "Malay race". The only contents are nothing more than unverifiable, unproven original synthesis. This category is largely unhelpful for the project: How do we detemine whether someone belongs to the "Malay race"? We don't categorize photographs of people in categories such as "Negroid race" and "Nordic Aryan race" either. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Per en:Malay race, the term is largely pan-nationalism based pseudoscience to begin with. It is a term used in nationalistic literature to form a unifying identity amongst various Southeast Asian ethnic groups. In regards to Wikimedia Commons, this is clearly out of project scope. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 14:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment:The Malay race is different from the East Asians race (nothern Chinese、Koreans、some Japanese). You can see the forehead, Malay race have a big forehead because their eyes are at a very low position on their face. Eyes of East Asians race are at a higher position on their face, and they have a very flat face. John Cruel (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

  The 19th century phrenologists called. They'd like their skull-measuring calipers back, if you're finished with them now. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or rename. Category names should be in English, so regardless of whether the category's concept be acceptable, its name is not. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I've just discovered that it appears the creator of the category is exclusively using it to harass me cross-wiki. See this edit on the Chinese Wikipedia and this edit on Commons. 203.218.131.51 is an obvious en:WP:DUCK of User:John Cruel, because I can't honestly think of any other reason why that IP user would make such an edit on the same day as the creation of the Commons category, with less than 10 minutes timespan difference (Category created 10:15, 10 November 2013 by John Cruel, IP edit made at 10:09, 10 November 2013). If in doubt, a checkuser can confirm this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Meyssiès

This category should be named Category:Meyssiez, in line with the Wikipedia-articles. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Croquant (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Renamed. INeverCry 00:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chafariz no Largo do Carmo

Delete: All contents moved to better named, better categorized, and slightly older Category:Chafariz do Carmo. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Exchangeable image file format

Useless text content (a binary JPEG file), no files in category. The Yeti 19:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

 deleted. --McZusatz (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fiskbæk Kirke (Viborg Kommune)

Redundant - replaced by "Fiskbæk Kirke" Beethoven9 (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Aksyon ng Bayan Rosario 2001 And Beyond

Delete as redundant. Used to have files of the Rosario Municipal Hall which all are in the proper Category:Rosario Municipal Hall now. P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message, and I have no objection for the deletion, thanks. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Aerial views of Catalonia

delete as unused duplicate of Category:Aerial photographs of Catalonia. Same for mother Category:Aerial views of Spain. Kaluga.2012 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Steamships of Lithuania

Categories have terrible weaknesses for organizing content. There is no good mechanism for checking the former contents of an empty category. Ships still powered by steam engines are very rare, and the two images I encountered in this category were miscategorized, so I put them in a more appropriate category, Category:Type Moskvich ships in Lithuania. That is why this category is empty. Geo Swan (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Steamships might be rare today, but presumably steamships existed in Lithuania back in the day. Nonetheless, deleted as an empty category, without prejudice to recreation if appropriate content is found. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Arzamasova Elizaveta

Просьба удалить категорию, есть категория Category:Elizaveta Arzamasova Dogad75 (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Books to be classified

the naming convention appears to be Category:Unidentified books. "to be classified" is more often used for unclassified categories, not unidentified subjects. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mercurywoodrose, this category created in the past by myself as a kind of "working instrument" is indeed bad named, empty, useless, replaced by more suitable Category:Unidentified books and may be speedydeleted. --Bohème (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ashely car

Delete. Empty category. Passerose (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You could rename the cetegoria: Ashley Laminates Sports Cars. Look: --OppidumNissenae (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

 Fatto--OppidumNissenae (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In this case please put {{Bad name|Category:Ashley Laminates Sports Cars.}} into the first line of Category:Ashely car. As the creator of the category you can do this without a preceding discussion. --Passerose (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ashley car

Delete. Empty category. --Passerose (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Karl Liebknecht street

Delete. Empty category. Passerose (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:SVG logos of SYRIZA

Please delete; this was a bad idea of mine and in fact is overcategorization. Sorry for the inconvenience. PanchoS (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mcleod River

Misspelling of Category:McLeod River, into which the file it contained has been moved. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry about the mis-spelling.- Rather than deletion, why not make a redirect? Verne Equinox (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I recently inquired at the Help Desk about this. According to the advice I received there, misspellings and typos are not kept as redirects to Commons cats, unlike the practice at enWP.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Streets and Roads in Edmonton

Redundant to the preëxisting Category:Streets in Edmonton under Category:Transport in Edmonton; had very little content, which I have already moved there. I don’t think “and Roads” adds anything to the concept of city streets. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, only one category should suffice. 117Avenue (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed. Geo Swan (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Deleted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stas P'eha

Удалить категорию, дубликат категории Stas P'ekha Dogad75 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fourth Impressionist Exhibition

Its name (too generic) was a mistake. Sorry, It should be deleted. I have created an appropiately named "Fourth Impressionist Exhibition works by Mary Cassatt" in its place Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Billy’s Band

Удалить данную категорию Billy’s Band‎, дубликат категории Billy's Band Dogad75 (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Backfischfest Worms 2011

Overcategorization. An annual event of regional importance PanchoS (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Worms in 2011

author requested deletion: wrong name PanchoS (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 00:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:2013 in Cental, Hong Kong

Category to be deleted: empty with typo. The correct category is Category:2013 in Central, Hong Kong Millevache (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Folklorists from Belguim

typo, fixed Category:Folklorists_from_Belgium Grashoofd (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sergey Krylov (Singer)

Просьба удалить данную категорию Category:Sergey Krylov (Singer), так как является дубликатом категории Category:Sergey Lvovich Krylov. Dogad75 (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Rua do Arco do Marquês do Alegrete

All moved to correctly spelt Category: Rua do Arco do Marquês de Alegrete. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eating children in art

Grammatically should this be Children eating in art, not Eating children in art? Mjrmtg (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved all photos to Category:Children eating in art --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Deleted, as category name is unintentionally frightening. Thanks to Mjrmtg for pointing this out. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Bahnstrecke Kaufbeuren-Schongau

To be deleted. Contains a spelling error (hyphen instead of dash), all pictures and subcategories already are moved. Karl432 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I requested speedydelete. Files are in Category:Bahnstrecke Kaufbeuren–Schongau. --Passerose (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Egelsee am Wartberg

replaced by cat Egelsee (Stuttgart) Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Players of 1. FC Thun

There is no 1. FC Thun. Hence, rename to Category:Players of FC Thun. Leyo 20:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Sounds like the right call to me: I say go for it. Michael Barera (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Players of FC Thun. --rimshot^talk 00:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Buddha statues in Sri Lanka

"Ancient" is a subjective term, except when it means "relating to the historical period beginning with the earliest known civilizations and extending to the fall of the western Roman Empire", but this definition is not relevant for an Asian civilization. Consequently, I think this category is useless: Category:Buddha statues in Sri Lanka already exists. BrightRaven (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of Scottish national identity

Overcategorization. Δαβίδ (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say that it is redundant to Category:Symbols of Scotland and its existing content violates COM:OVERCAT. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Your statement makes no sense, so as you accepted the legitimacy of the Category:Symbols of national identity. In this case, your objection is that the Scots do not have the symbols of national identity. But this is not true: there is a Scottish national identity, and symbols of Scottish national identity shows in the article. This applies to other similar categories.

You are just a toy of user Δαβίδ, who is engaged in the Commons only vandalism and WP:Gaming the system. You can verify this by looking it up watchlist and User talk:Δαβίδ. This is a armenian user David1992, who blocked in Armenian Wikipedia. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please review COM:AGF. If you cannot engage in an adult discussion without resorting to insults, your comments on this topic will likely be ignored.

I never said that Scots do not have a national identity. I never "accepted the legitimacy" of Category:Symbols of national identity. Nor am I a "toy" of Δαβίδ. I have never encountered Δαβίδ before today, and I do not care about whatever issues it is that you have with him. Focus on the substantive issues, and please stop making assumptions and accusations. I'm happy to discuss the substantive issues with you, but not this nonsense. Let me know. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Where you see "You said that Scots do not have a national identity" in my comment? You said "Scots do not have the symbols of national identity". Or Im wrong? If you delete only this category, can I say: You said "Scots do not have the symbols of national identity"? In this case, in first delete Category:Symbols of national identity. If you not discussed and not delete it, you accepted the legitimacy of the Category:Symbols of national identity and say: "Scots do not have the symbols of national identity". Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say. You said "your objection is that the Scots do not have the symbols of national identity". That is not my objection, nor my belief, nor my rationale for deletion of the category. I believe that this category duplicates Category:Symbols of Scotland and its existing content violates COM:OVERCAT. Symbols of Scottish nationhood are well covered in the existing, better named category. And I can tell you that I have not "accepted the legitimacy" of Category:Symbols of national identity --- simply because I have not rushed to nominate it for deletion (and, instead, was waiting to see what came of this discussion) does not mean that I, or someone else, will not nominate it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted: Per reasons given by Skeezix1000. --McZusatz (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pumpkin, κολοκυθάκι

Empty category. Delete! Passerose (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Renault Clio Campus

Empty. Overcategorization. Delete! Passerose (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tamuin

moved content to better-named category Thelmadatter (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Watchman Recording Studios

all images moved to category:Watchmen Recording Studios, this misspelled cat should be deleted Alice Wiegand (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Watchmen Recording Studio

empty, right name is Category:Watchmen Recording Studios Alice Wiegand (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 01:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fritz Kuhn (politician)

rename this one to Category:Fritz Kuhn, and rename that one to Category:Friedrich Kuhn (bobsledder) per importance and precedence in all language versions of Wikipedia. PanchoS (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the status quo is fine, too, now that the other category has been renamed. Decide yourself. I'm fine with it either way. --PanchoS (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Kept, and Category:Fritz Kuhn made into a disambiguation category. --rimshot^talk 20:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hver 8. Dag

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RevisionDelete 69.181.197.118 10:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific about what you mean? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed, no reason given. --rimshot^talk 22:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Athabasca

Ambiguous term, see w:Athabasca. --117Avenue (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Would “Athabasca, Alberta” do, or does it need something more to indicate it’s a town? I was just about to add see-also templates for the lake, river, glacier, & mountain, and maybe for the tar sands as well. (Or are there disambiguation pages here?–I don’t recall coming across any.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Typically we follow the English Wikipedia name, "Athabasca, Alberta" is the town, "Athabasca" is not. 117Avenue (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguated, based on the disambiguation page at enWP. --rimshot^talk 21:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lisbon trams backsides

Should be either Lisbon trams’ backsides, or Lisbon tram backsides, or Backsides of Lisbon trams. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it should be "Lisbon trams from behind", humans have backsides, trams don't. Liamdavies (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the anatomy lesson. Seems to me that the main difference is that many (most?) trams are bidirectional, while most humans are not. That is why "from behind" is unsuitable here, regardless of any playground connotations of "backside". Plse see the other discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "rear(s)" or "rearside(s)" would be more — ahem… palatable? -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile renamed to Category:Rears of unidirectional Lisbon trams, as discussed. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, as per Tuválkin. --rimshot^talk 19:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Athabasca Landing

The redirect here says: "Reason: Town was renamed in 1913." OK, so why can't that information be offered at the top of the category, which keeps all the images from prior to the name change? Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep as a redirect. It is the same town, Athabasca Landing never ceased to exist, only renamed. The only change in political boundaries has been for the growth of the town, if you're against that, you'd want to see a new category every time every city, town, county, etc., expands a little bit. 117Avenue (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep as a redirect, as per 117Avenue's excellent points. Moreover, we barely have enough content to justify Category:Athabasca, Alberta, let alone a second category for the same subject under a previous name. This category is unnecessary and creates a pointless category distinction between pre and post 1913 (and a notation at the top of the category will do little to help those categorizing through hotcat, or via bots, etc.).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep as redirect per others' comments above. Hwy43 (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Kept, as per discussion. --rimshot^talk 19:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Deceased persons by name

no use of this category 89.71.173.232 17:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Keep & comment: wow, another mystery guest "anonymous-ip" DR with a less-than-1-month history & only handful of edits (most of which have to do with this cfd). AND a somewhat limited ability in english. i wonder who that could be...?

now, if anyone SERIOUSLY doesn't understand the usefulness of keeping track of whether bio-subjects (by name) are alive-or-dead, then i weep for that person.

clearly, this is something that we HAVEN'T been doing, & just as clearly, it is something we SHOULD HAVE been doing, all along (not unlike chronological ordering, or by name by gender, etc.).

i'm just starting up the cats here, & i WILL be populating them. having looked into the history, the only arguement i can see against it is "it's too much work", & i disagree with that position.

we have people who spend(/waste) their time on wmc hunting down EVERY SINGLE DIRTY PIC, to DR it. we have people who lurk DRs. we have people who lurk FPC. etc. etc. etc....

we can bloody-well have some people spend a little time on designating living-or-dead.

it's not even HARD; most of the people we cover are already dead, & once a person becomes dead, they tend to stay that way...

& most newborns wont get a bio-cat (by name) until sometime later in their lives.

we can even get some of the blp fanatics @ wp/en to update statues; we could even BOT that function.

it doesn't have to be perfect, but it makes our database look like a joke if we don't make the effort.

especially with all the other minutely-differentiated categorizations that we have going on here.

now, if someone wants to suggest a rename, i'm open to that; but this was the best terminology i could come up with, at the time... :p

Lx 121 (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Kept, no reply to a host of objections. --rimshot^talk 19:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Living persons by name

no use of this category 89.71.173.232 17:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

{vk} & comment: wow, another mystery guest "anonymous-ip" DR with a less-than-1-month history & only handful of edits (most of which have to do with this cfd). AND a somewhat limited ability in english. i wonder who that could be...?

now, if anyone SERIOUSLY doesn't understand the usefulness of keeping track of whether bio-subjects (by name) are alive-or-dead, then i weep for that person.

clearly, this is something that we HAVEN'T been doing, & just as clearly, it is something we SHOULD HAVE been doing, all along (not unlike chronological ordering, or by name by gender, etc.).

i'm just starting up the cats here, & i WILL be populating them. having looked into the history, the only arguement i can see against it is "it's too much work", & i disagree with that position.

we have people who spend(/waste) their time on wmc hunting down EVERY SINGLE DIRTY PIC, to DR it. we have people who lurk DRs. we have people who lurk FPC. etc. etc. etc....

we can bloody-well have some people spend a little time on designating living-or-dead.

it's not even HARD; most of the people we have covered are already dead, & once a person becomes dead, they tend to stay that way...

& most newborns wont get a bio-cat (by name) until sometime later in their lives.

we can even get some of the blp fanatics @ wp/en to update statues; we could even BOT that function.

it doesn't have to be perfect, but it makes our database look like a joke if we don't make the effort.

especially with all the other minutely-differentiated categorizations that we have going on here.

now, if someone wants to suggest a rename, i'm open to that; but this was the best terminology i could come up with, at the time... :p

Lx 121 (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no problem with the category per se. My only concerns involve, first, how it relates to Category:People by name, which we place on every category related to an individual. Ideally, Category:Living persons by name should be a subcat of Category:People by name, so that a category need not be placed in both. Second, it would be great if we were consistent naming-wise in terms of usage between "persons" and "people". Finally, I nonetheless worry about the maintenance involved in routinely moving people from this cat to Category:Deceased persons by name, and whether this is sustainable, but perhaps my worry is misplaced (agree that a bot could, for example, be instructed to move cats from one to the other once a year of death cat is added). Someone taking on this task should be commended, however, not criticized, so please read my comments in that context. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Comment If/when we can get the name categories fully hooked up to the appropriate w:Wikidata entries, it should be merely (heh, merely) a bot task to sync a category on Commons with the corresponding w:Category:Living_people on en.wikipedia. And/or we could do it directly from wikidata. I'm not convinced that manually populating the category is a particularly good idea, but I don't think it needs to be deleted, either. JesseW (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Kept as per discussion. Maintenance of this category remains an open problem, however. --rimshot^talk 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Over

rename to Category:Over, Seevetal. scenes shot from "over" them are ending up here Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Done as proposed. --rimshot^talk 19:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Low

should be changed to Category:Low (musical group), as images keep getting placed here that are "low" (I havent removed the wrong files yet, as i want to properly recategorize each one. these flicker images get the worst categorizations, i wish i could stop that, its clogging up main categories) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Rename. I created the category. I'm fine with the proposal. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have created Category:Low (band) and moved the images there. I may afd Low now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguated, per Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/02/Category:Low. --rimshot^talk 19:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Largo do Boticario

Typo: Should be Category:Largo do Boticário. -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support --Amarvudol (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 Support --Fulviusbsas (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Largo do Boticário. --rimshot^talk 17:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:A Brasileira

Photos about the not less famous Category:Café A Brasileira (Lisbon) often get miscategorized. To avoid further confusion, lets rename this as Category:A Brasileira (Braga). -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support; also exists Category:Café A Brasileira (Porto). Category:Café A Brasileira (Braga) perhaps better for the sake of standardization. --JotaCartas (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Café A Brasileira (Braga) and redirected to the existing Category:Café A Brasileira. --rimshot^talk 16:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Torre Gabriel (Lisbon)

Needs to be renamed Category:Torre São Gabriel to match its twin, Category:Torre São Rafael. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Support, also matches the name in w:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Portugal. --rimshot^talk 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Torre São Gabriel, as per nom. --rimshot^talk 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bogor Agricultural Institute

{{move|Bogor Agricultural University|It isn't an Institute. Internationally, it is recognized as Bogor Agricultural University|2013-11-05}} Hysocc (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Bogor Agricultural University. --rimshot^talk 16:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour

No FoP in Russia. Cathedral is a new building, build 1990s. Images showing the cathedral from this category should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

 Keep Please read w:en:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. It's exact replica of old design. No new authorship is involved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I know history of this cathedral, not only from this article. I think there is no difference if this is a replica or not. Architects of this new builiding, (including Aleksey Denisov) has Copyrights. But I don't know precise how it looks like in Russia's law.

Copyrights for what? Sure, structural design may be different since new materials may be used during construction. But appearance is old design. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The author is en:Konstantin Thon, who died in 1881. Building a new building from old plans doesn't mean that you get 132+ years PMA of copyright. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep I'm inclined to agree with Eugene on this one. While there is no doubt creativity and talent involved in building a replica building, the elements we see in these photographs are replicas of Thon's work. I lean towards thinking this does not cross the threshold of originality. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Kept, per EugeneZelenko and others. --rimshot^talk 16:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:French Navy officers

Should be Naval officers of France Philafrenzy (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support - Agreed, category names should wherever possible follow the "[subject] followed by [modifier]" form. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- for consistency. Geo Swan (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Naval officers of France. --rimshot^talk 17:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Irmgard Adam-Schwaetzer

now simply "Irmgard Schwaetzer", therefore please move to Category:Irmgard Schwaetzer keeping a redirect PanchoS (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Irmgard Schwaetzer, which has been her name since 1991. --rimshot^talk 17:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:York, England

Unnecessary disambiguation, we've lived with this as it is for a long time and it just needs some attention. Disambiguating will not prevent automated categorisation by bots. It is unlikely to be confused with "New York", and the ships could be dealt with by use of {{Cat see also}} or {{For2}}. This new scheme doesn't make anyone's work easier, since bots will still add to the "York" category, then another bot will clear them out as best as it knows how. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not an issue with a few images of ships, the category was full of dozens of misplaced images of New York.

As I explained at talk page - I made this move as part of cleaning up the category - due to excessive miscategorisation from a variety of "New York" related topics. In my experience adding a disambiguation page does prevent bots from spamming the wrong category - in the worst case the will spam the disambiguation category - which is a fairly good place to place images that need looking at even if it is technically wrong.

What needs to be avoided is the spamming of an already full category Category:York, England with stuff that doesn't even belong in subcats - that really is a pain.

The disambiguation is not unnecessary if dozens of images are being placed in a non-disambiguated category. Unlikely as that may appear - that is what was happening - that is why I disambiguated - based on evidence, not opinion. Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I support this disambiguation, I had also noticed the York Category was full of misplaced images from New York, I considered making a disambiguation such as the one that has been applied myself, but in the end I couldn't be bothered and just left the mess for someone else to sort out, So am I glad someone has seen fit to tackle it Oxyman (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The issues with New York are not a good reason to disambiguate York, as if dumb bots really think 'New York' == 'York' then those bots should be tackled. Ideally the category for the English York, regardless of its location, should be near empty with all its content diffused into subcategories. If this is done, spamming of incorrect files would be easy to detect and correct, so again isn't really pertinent to disambiguation.

What does matter is the ambiguity with all the other Yorks, its not just the two ships, but the dozens of towns in Australia, Canada and the US, there are far too many to handle with {{See also}}s - it would need a link to a dab category. The most serious conflict is that between the settlement and the unitary authority of York. None of the three terms ("York", "York, England" and "City of York") really distinguishes the city of York from the City of York. That enwp convention is bad enough there, but export it to Commons where language issues are more likely get in the way?

To me, that suggests disambiguation is needed, but York, England isn't enough. More, presumably in the form of parentheses, is needed to truly disentangle two major meanings.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support disambiguation - As I sit here in Toronto (formerly named York), with a suburban area to the north of me officially named York Region/Regional Municipality of York but nonetheless commonly called York (with a population 5x the corresponding locale in England), I agree with Nilfanion. We do not have a system of plain titles/primary uses the same way they do over at en.wp, and when there is doubt or problems we disambiguate.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Against disambiguation. Ninety per cent of the files that are erroneously categorized in this parent category refer to York, England. The rest is referred to some else York in the world. The category has become overcrowded because of this useless disambiguation. We'd better rename York, England --> York and put {{Catseealso|York (disambiguation) in it. Simply we cannot mantain all that bunch of data that are being dumped into a disambiguation category. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Problem solved: Category:York becomes a redirect to Category:York, England; create disambiguation category Category:York (disambiguation) and listed all the occurences of the category name York. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you can't comment one day, and then the next day declare the problem solved and close the discussion, ignoring the comments above. There is no consensus to change Category:York from being a DAB category. Nobody has explained why we would jettison our normal practices on Commons in this one case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is this discussion about Category:York, England, as the nomination says, or about Category:York, as the rest of the discussion implies? The situation as it is now seems perfectly reasonable: a disambiguation category with links to a number of categories of like-named topics. I only wonder why there is no link to Category:York, England at Category:York. --rimshot^talk 17:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't even notice that. It's now been added to the DAB.

Sergio and I had a brief discussion last week. His concern, and it is a good one, is that bots in the past have dumped images into the Category:York DAB page, and most seem to relate to the English city. Thus the desire to have Category:York redirect to Category:York, England. My question, assuming this is still a problem, is why we can't reprogram the bot(s) in question bot to do so. This is not a York-specific problem - bots should not be dumping images into DAB categories at all. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bot problem if bots put files in disambiguation categories. Do you know which bot is concerned? I think disambiguations for categories is a newer concept compared to category redirects, that's why a bot might not be programmed to know it. It should be easy to change that, though. --rimshot^talk 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be fixed. We should keep an eye out on Category:York, and we can follow up if a bot starts dumping files into it.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Kept, the bot problem may or may not be fixed, but should be solved by fixing the bot, not renaming the category. --rimshot^talk 20:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:LivingPaths

Both Category:LivingPaths and Category:Living Paths exist for the Llwybrau Byw – Living Paths project. I suggest merging the two under the title Category:Llwybrau Byw – Living Paths. Ham (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ham. You're absolutely correct: they both need to be merged. I would be happy with the default language on Commons (Category:Living Paths) in this instance, just to keep things simple, or as Ham suggests in both lingos! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I still prefer the bilingual category as it is the official title of the project. Perhaps Category:Llwybrau Byw could be set up as a category redirect too, so that users being trained by this project could add either Llwybrau Byw or Living Paths as a category and it would redirect automatically to the bilingual category title? Ham (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 and I have been discussing this off-wiki and we've decided that the title Living Paths would be best. Could the categories please be merged now? Ham (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As we're both in agreement I'll go ahead and try to merge the categories myself using HotCat. Ham (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:CCFL fleet series 1-10

This is not a series, rather a special fleet set, distinguished only by service and livery+fittings, according to an ahistorical look devised in the 1960ies. N.os 1 and 2 are completely different (w/ clerestrory), N.o 10 is a bogie car, and the rest (3-9+11) is currently made up of Series 541-585 units which retain (unseen) their real fleet number. Even the 1-10 range is incorrect as in the late 2000ies a n.o 11 was added. This should be renamed Category:Lisbon red tourism trams. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) (corr.: -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC))

 Done after 5 months waiting for opposition that never come. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Lisbon red tourism trams. --rimshot^talk 21:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Buildings by Alexey Shchusev

Alexey Shchusev died in 1949, and there is no FoP in Russia. IMO, the photos of all his buildings in Russia, or in any "noFoP countries" like Ukraine or so, including the Lenin Mausoleum, should be deleted Jebulon (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything built before 1918 is free and must be tagged by {{PD-RusEmpire}}--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Kept, no reply to objection. Individual files that might not be free should be nominated for deletion. --rimshot^talk 21:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Beauty Queen

upmerge to Category:Beauty pageant titleholders, the proper name for these women Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Beauty Queen is the name of this airplane, apparently. Given the capitalization as a proper name and singular, maybe that should be the redirection target. --rimshot^talk 16:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:G-VSXY (aircraft), as the aircraft images were the only remaining images in there. --rimshot^talk 21:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:User nerdspeak

Useless, only some user's private category without any sense. Please note that only one user is applicatec to this category since its creation 188.104.98.218 10:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, it is completely wrong in the babel category Category:Users by language. There it doesn’t belong in any way. Since I don’t find another Category – also Category:User categories seems not to be the right place –, I also think, the category is without any sense and doesn’t belong into the category system. So please delete it after already 4 months of discussion here. The user can put his own template onto his user page without this category. --October wind (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. As per discussion. --High Contrast (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:2012 Romanian protests

Unneeded intermediate layer. The parent Category:Demonstrations and protests in Romania in 2012 is just fine and follows established conventions. PanchoS (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Demonstrations and protests in Romania in 2012 as per nom., after no opposition in several months. --rimshot^talk 21:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Screw bits

"Screwdriver bits" seems to be much more common. Google claims 2210000 hits for screwdriver bits, 134000 for screw bits. Nikola (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Screwdriver bits. --rimshot^talk 21:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Rosia Montana Roman Gold Mines

Please rename to Category:Roşia Montană Roman Gold Mines for reasons of orthography and consistency with parent category. PanchoS (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the rename. Thank for the request.--Codrin.B (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Roşia Montană Roman Gold Mines as per nom. --rimshot^talk 21:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Minerals of Rosia Montana

Please rename to Category:Minerals of Roşia Montană for reasons of orthography and consistency with parent category. PanchoS (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Minerals of Roşia Montană as per nom. --rimshot^talk 21:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Burj Khalifa fountain

Reasons for discussion request:

I incorrectly created this category. My fault. There is already a category Category:The Dubai Fountain which properly contains fountain images. This one is filled with pictures of people, not of fountains. None of the images in the category are of en:Burj Khalifa or of the en:The Dubai Fountain. Thanks, --Soranoch (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted, empty after non-fountain images have been removed. --rimshot^talk 17:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Images conducive to amorous reverie

Images "conducive to amorous reverie"? REALLY? No clear idea of what it's meant to be, no parent cats. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support, same for Category:Locations conducive to amorous reverie and Category:Objects conducive to amorous reverie. These are also the only Google results for "conducive to amorous reverie". --rimshot^talk 17:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted as per nom. --rimshot^talk 21:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:United States Navy officers

Should be Naval officers of the United States Philafrenzy (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support - Agreed, category names should wherever possible follow the "[subject] followed by [modifier]" form. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Move requested at User:CommonsDelinker/commands, which will take a while as the category is huge. --rimshot^talk 17:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose: Maybe too late for it on this one, but: "United States Navy" is a specific organization. If it were to be subject + modifier, it probably should be "Officers of the United States Navy". There are no "naval officers of the United States" other than "officers of the United States Navy" as far as I know; I assume that U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Marine officers would correct you if you called them "naval officers". And "naval" is neither the most common form in English nor most likely search term when looking for U.S. Navy officers. --Closeapple (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're very slightly too late, actually, the bot moved the files just today. The discussion has been open for a few months, though, so there was plenty time to oppose, which no-one did. Is the current (new) state fundamentally wrong? It does keep Category:Naval officers by nationality consistent. --rimshot^talk 20:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Naval officers of the United States, as per nom. --rimshot^talk 17:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dreißigjähriger Krieg

Inappropriate name. The image may be placed to Category:Renaissance armour‎. Passerose (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Thirty Years War: Category names are supposed to be in English. --rimshot^talk 20:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Oaxaca, México

repetive and unnecesary Thelmadatter (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What does it repeat and how is it unnecessary? --rimshot^talk 17:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There already is Category:Oaxaca to cover the state and Category:Oaxaca, Oaxaca for the city. One of the students working with me created the category by mistake. I have since moved the photographs here to the previously existing two categoriesThelmadatter (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are still 18 files in there. Are those for the state or for the city? --rimshot^talk 07:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Oaxaca, after the remaining files have been removed. --rimshot^talk 06:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Largo do Terreirinho

Rename it Category:Largo do Terreirinho (Oporto), because exists also at least another one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps better Category:Largo do Terreirinho (Porto). --JotaCartas (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguated as per nom. --rimshot^talk 06:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Views of Igreja de Sao Domingos, Lisbon

Rename to correct spelling "São". -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Concordo. José Luiz ^disc 01:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Renamed to the correct spelling ("São"). --Stegop (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Igreja de Sao Domingos, Lisbon

Rename to correct spelling "São". -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Renamed to correct spelling. --Stegop (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Interior of Igreja de Sao Domingos, Lisbon

Rename to correct spelling "São". -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Concordo. José Luiz ^disc 01:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Renamed. --Stegop (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Exterior of Igreja de Sao Domingos, Lisbon

Rename to correct spelling "São". -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Concordo. José Luiz ^disc 01:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Renamed to the correct spelling ("São"). --Stegop (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Gifford

Either this should be merged with Category:Gifford, East Lothian or vice versa; although other places called Gifford exist, from a quick survey of the gallery all the files here appear to belong to the Scottish town & surrounding region. (I have removed a few Category:Images from the Gifford Photographic Collection.) —Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Gifford, East Lothian. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems uncontroversial, so I’ll be merging the current contents to the longer name WIGATI. I hope it’s not improper to do so before this discussion is formally closed.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Gifford, East Lothian, as per nom. When other Giffords get categories, this can be made into a disambiguation category. --rimshot^talk 19:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Graffiti in funiculars in Lisbon

Should be Category:Graffiti on funiculars in Lisbon. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 renamed to even better Category:Graffiti on Lisbon funiculars. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Universities and colleges in Ludwigshafen

Please move to Category:Universities and colleges in Ludwigshafen am Rhein. Sorry for creating this category with a name inconsistent to the rest of the tree. PanchoS (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Moved to Category:Universities and colleges in Ludwigshafen am Rhein –⁠moogsi (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Limestones

Category was wrongly moved by User:Foroa some time back, along with others such as this one, and all of these moves appear to display a lack of familiarity with applicable English usage. "Limestone" is a non-count noun (like "deer" and "fish"), so like Category:Shale and Category:Sandstone, we should name this category for the type of stone, rather than giving it a plural form that's never used in real life. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support - Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support: while “limestones“ can be a count noun, meaning types of limestone, or geological formations consisting of limestone, I agree that the singular mass noun is more appropriate here, considering both consistency with other cats and the range of its present contents. (I notice a couple of subcats that should probably be dealt with at the same time, Limestones in Malta & Limestones in Ukraine.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Has been moved back to Category:Limestone in 2014, so I guess we can close this now, right? ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Jean skirts

What’s more correct? Category:Jean skirts or Category:Denim skirts? -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's denim skirts. The word 'jean' doesn't exist, exept as a girls' name. --Judithcomm (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think a "jean skirt" (or "jeans skirt") is a skirt that was made from an actual pair of jeans, as opposed to just being made of denim. We may not need that distinction. Also, not all the images in Category:Jean skirts look like they were made from actual pairs of jeans. FWIW, the English Wikipedia article en:Denim skirt calls the term "jean skirt" erroneous (although it doesn't say why). --Auntof6 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets close this, then, and kill the "jean" categories. When we have 1000 photos of denim skirts (which would be already by tomorrow if most photos weren’t undercategorized), then we can split it — one of the possible cleft lines being "by style", with one its subcats being Category:Skirts made from jeans. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing: Resolved in 2014 … --El Grafo (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Denim skirts

What’s more correct? Category:Jean skirts or Category:Denim skirts? -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing: Resolved in 2014 … --El Grafo (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Tudor Buildings

Fits awkwardly with Category:Tudor_houses and Category:Tudor style architecture (also incorrect caps). Jarry1250 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted, empty after the files have been re-categorized to Category:Tudor_houses and other categories (they weren't all Tudor style). --rimshot^talk 22:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Former Lisbon trams in Sóller

Beter name would be Category:Former Lisbon trams in the Sóller - Port de Sóller tramway, so that it clearly doesn’t mean the exact location along the line but service in this system. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Since no one’s against, I’ll do the move. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Done by User:Tuvalkin. BMacZero (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Photos by Pedro Simoes

Correct spelling: "Simões". -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Correct spelling as per author's name. --FlávR (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Photos by Pedro Simões as per nom, after no opposition in a year. Original category kept because of the special character.--rimshot^talk 22:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dialog Arena

This category should be named Category:Stadion Zagłębia Lubin Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No opposition in over 2 years. And English Wikipedia article is at current proper name en:Stadion Zagłębia Lubin. Moving to Category:Stadion Zagłębia Lubin - Themightyquill (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Old Polish Books

old is subjective, i also brought up Category:Old books Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete - As per discussion in CFD related to Category:Old books. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No opposition in two years. "Polish books" also doesn't clarify if the language is Polish, the book is from Poland, or the book is simply in Poland. Deleting, but moving files to Category:Old books for now, because it hasn't been deleted (yet). - Themightyquill (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Coalition of Radical Left (SYRIZA)

Please rename to Category:SYRIZA, as the subtitle has changed a few times (and is no more "Coalition of Radical Left") while "SYRIZA" (which used to be an acronym) is what the party remains being referred to both in Greece and worldwide. PanchoS (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

+1. --Komischn (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

PanchoS & Komischn: The English wikipedia article is now at en:Syriza. Should we be capitalizing this or not? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, for consistency reasons. Subcategories should then be mixed-case, too. --PanchoS (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No opposition in over 2 years. Moving to Category:Syriza (with redirect) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Electric lamps with emergency exit pictograph

Bad named, no lamps, the accurate categories for those safety lighting devices are Category:Luminous emergency exit signs and Category:Emergency exit pictograms, under parent Category:Emergency exit signs Bohème (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

*1) They leave being Luminous after empty battery (3...4 hours after energy missing);

*2) Standarts provide electric illuminant as luminous source, so construction of those devices implies redundant-powered electric lamp with pictograph of emergency exit on lampshade. Dmitry G (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dmitry G: I don't understand your explanation. I support deleting this now empty category. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Drigadnyj Podryad (band)

Переименовать категорию Drigadnyj Podryad (band) в Brigadnyj Podryad (band) (ошибка названия) Dogad75 (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Brigadnyj Podryad (band) by Butko 2 October 2015. --Achim (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Esplanadi

The name of the category, Esplanadi, refers to a non-specific entity, a narrow park between two streets, but the contents of the category refer to three separate locations; Esplanadin puisto, the actual park named so in the core of Helsinki, and its bounding streets Pohjoisesplanadi and Eteläesplanadi. I propose that the contents of this category should be divided into three separate categories, one for each entity. The name of the category for the park is still open to debate, as it appears as in the forms "Esplanade park" and "Esplanade" in equal measure.

Same in Finnish:

Kategorian nimi Esplanadi viittaa epämääräiseen käsitteeseen, puistoalueeseen kahden tien välissä, mutta kategorian sisältö kuvaa kolmea eri aluetta; itse puistoa, ja sen rajaavia teitä Pohjoisesplanadia ja Eteläesplanadia. Ehdotan että tämän kategorian sisältö jaetaan kolmeen osaan koskemaan Pohjoisesplanadia, Eteläesplanadia ja puistoa, erillään toisistaan. Kategorian nimi puistolle täytyy sopia erikseen, koska muodot "Esplanadin puisto" ja "Esplanadi" esiintyvät samoissa määrin. Nelg (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, at least the park and the two streets should be categorized separately. Subcategories to this? - Samaa mieltä, ainakin kadut ja puisto pitäisi olla eri kategorioissa. Pitäisiköhän aluksi tehdä alakategoriat tähän?--Htm (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think there should be three sub-categories:

• Category:Esplanadi, Category:Esplanadi Park or Category:Esplanade Park, Helsinki (per http://www.visithelsinki.fi/en/see-and-experience/sights-and-attractions/esplanade-park; Category:Esplanade Park already taken for the park in Singapore) for the park
• Category:Eteläesplanadi for the street
• Category:Pohjoisesplanadi for the other street.

––Apalsola ^{t • c} 15:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for more than two years, and there is a clear consensus about splitting this category. So, I created the following new categories:

• Category:Esplanade Park, Helsinki (That is the name used by the City of Helsinki in English web pages, and according to COM:LP and COM:CAT#Category names, category names should generally be in English.)
• Category:Eteläesplanadi
• Category:Pohjoisesplanadi.

––Apalsola ^{t • c} 18:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Athabasca Landing, Slave River

Nonsensical title, Athabasca Landing (now known as the Town of Athabasca), is not on Slave River. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that there was a talk page. The source for the images that were in this category mentions a route from Athabasca Landing to the mouth of the Slave River, which would have been along the Athabasca River. The category mentions a 16 mile portage to Fort Smith, which would have been from Fort Fitzgerald, also known as Smith's Landing, the category for that is at Category:Portages between Fort Fitzgerald and Fort Smith, on the Slave River‎. 117Avenue (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment -- and the new name you are suggesting would be? Are you suggesting Category:Athabasca Landing, Athabasca River? Category:Athabasca Landing, Alberta? Or just Category:Athabasca Landing? Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  As I indicated above, both the title and the caption didn't make any sense, so I didn't know what it was supposed to be for. You have since changed the caption to be about Athabasca Landing. In that case Category:Athabasca Landing, Northwest Territories, Category:Athabasca Landing, Alberta, or simply Category:Athabasca Landing would work, but all of which have been renamed to Category:Athabasca, Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  •  Comment OK, we are agreed that my original schema description was in error. Are we agreed that my amended description is accurate?

This leaves the question as to whether Athabasca Landing and Category:Athabasca, Alberta merit two separate categories. I think the do, even though they both are for the same geographic space, they are for two separate historical eras.

I suggest we leave Category:Athabasca, Alberta for all images after the community was renamed, and I suggest Category:Athabasca Landing, Slave River should be renamed to one of the names I think you have agreed is appropriate: Category:Athabasca Landing or Category:Athabasca Landing, Northwest Territories; or Category:Athabasca Landing, Athabasca River; or Category:Athabasca Landing, Alberta.

I believe the actual category renaming -- preserving contribution history, requires someone with administrator privileges. Geo Swan (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need two categories, it's the same town. 117Avenue (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "Athabasca Landing" depicted in the photos in this category qualify as a town. Let's move to Category:Athabasca Landing, and put that category in Category:Athabasca, Alberta. One depicts the port (?) and the other modern town. Does that work for you, 117Avenue? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean it doesn't qualify as a town? What do you expect a newly settled riverside town in 1900 to look like? We could create subcategories in the Athabasca category for places around town. I don't know what's a more appropriate name though, "Athabasca Port" or "Athabasca harbour", since it doesn't really exist any more. 117Avenue (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@117Avenue: I guess I'd expect a town to have houses or dwellings of some kind. If there are some in the photos, I didn't see them. =) But anyway, you understand my point - "Athabasca Landing" was/is a location in (near?) the current town of Category:Athabasca, Alberta, so it can have its own category if there is media for it. Wouldn't Category:Athabasca Landing (as in Landing (water transport)) be more appropriate than either Category:Athabasca Port or Category:Athabasca harbour? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've always considered Athabasca Landing a settlement. Being landlocked I'm not familiar with port terminology. Googling it a bit more it looks like in the early days the landing and the settlement were synonymous. 117Avenue (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I think using "X Landing" to describe both a port and the settlement around it is quite common in Canada. See en:Flindt Landing, Ontario, en:Bliss Landing, en:Mansons Landing, en:Carr's Landing, en:Okanagan Landing, etc. Anyway, 117Avenue, are you okay with moving to Category:Athabasca Landing as a sub-category of Category:Athabasca, Alberta to contain files of the port and the historic settlement around it? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree on the move, it being a subcat, and containing files of the port. But I don't like categorizing things as "historic", it's ambiguous. There's no date that a historic town became a current day town. 117Avenue (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, in this case, there's the date the name was changed, no? As of 1913, it was no longer a town, it was a former/historic town. Anyway, I'm fine with it being in just Category:Athabasca, Alberta and Category:Ports and harbours in Canada, but you were concerned with it being recognized as a settlement in its own right, not just a port. If you want to put it in Category:Populated riverside places in Canada or Category:Former populated places (whichever one applies), that's fine with me too. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have it backwards. I do not want Athabasca Landing to be recognized as a settlement in its own right when we have Category:Athabasca, Alberta. They are two different names for the same town. The Town of Athabasca Landing never ceased to exist. 117Avenue (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@117Avenue: Are you okay with the proposed arrangement or not? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. 117Avenue (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Athabasca Landing. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Paintings in the Alte Pinakothek (flat list)

I don't think this category is needed. Flat list categories don't belong in the middle of the hierarchy, and this one isn't even populated. ghouston (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks pretty populated to me. Are we sure that all the items are adequately categorized for the AP without it? Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• query: "adequately categorized for the AP" -- what is "AP" in this useage? searching commons gets me nothing useful. Lx 121 (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Somebody has populated it in the meantime. It's not even a list, it also contains 777 images. If there's some need for this category for maintenance (I have no idea what that would be), it should at least be marked as hidden and removed from the main category heirarchy. --ghouston (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Keep -- if we had a TOOL for ordinary users to seamlessly flip-flop between flat lists & nested categorization, then we WOULDN'T NEED ANY separate "flat list" categories. however, UNTIL we get that, flat lists serve a useful purpose, & NOT just for "maintenence" or "experienced editors". Lx 121 (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So we should require every category that has subcategories to also have a (flat list) subcategory? How many categories would a single image here need to be added to? We could start with:

Category:Interior of the Alte Pinakothek (flat list)

Category:Alte Pinakothek (flat list)

Category:Art museums in Munich (flat list)

Category:Museums in Munich (flat list)

Category:Museums in Upper Bavaria (flat list)

Category:Museums in Bavaria (flat list)

Category:Museums in Germany (flat list)

Category:Museums (flat list)

--ghouston (talk)

•  Delete As per nomination. I'm hard-pressed to see a useful purpose to this category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete No need. Flat list must be only for categories. For files it's possible to make galleries or virtual catalogues like for these italian museums or for these old photographers. --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Also the tool requested by Lx 121 now exists with FastCCI. There's no reason to keep the category. --ghouston (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Move to Category:Paintings in the Alte Pinakothek by name and remove the individual images, leaving only the categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Agree with Themightyquill. --DenghiùComm (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
(post scriptum) : there is another category with a wrong (flat list) name here.

I think that rugby union one is less problematic, or at least, there's no easy way around it if you want a category listing all the matches, instead of sub-categorized by year. I guess it could be Category:Rugby union matches (flat list) but I think it's less problematic than the one under discussion here. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think more that the correct category name must be Category:Rugby union matches by date and then to create all subcats by date (e.g. Category:Rugby union matches in 2013 or Category:Rugby union matches (2013)). --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Delete --Allforrous (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Rename per Themightyquill. BTW, I have just removed the individual files from the category and added a {{Catcat}} template. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Renaming to Category:Paintings in the Alte Pinakothek by name as suggested. --ghouston (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Decorated vehicles

Seems redundant to parent Category:Art vehicles. Suggest deletion and upmerging of all entries to the parent cat. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmmh. I'm rather tending towards the opposite direction. You can decorate a vehicle without making it "Art" (e.g. putting some flowers on the hood of a car as it's often done for German weddings). Painting a pin-up girl on the nose of a Spitfire during WWII was later called "nose art", but that doesn't really make the airplane an "art vehicle", does it? --El Grafo (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think both categories are full enough that neither needs to be redirected. Many art vehicles are simply "decorated" normal vehicles, but some (like those at Burning Man) seem to be purpose built. And as El Grafo suggests, there are certainly decorated vehicles that aren't art vehicles. I'd suggest leaving things as they are. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No consensus. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Fachhochschule Ludwigshafen

I propose moving this category to Category:Hochschule Ludwigshafen am Rhein which since 2012 has been the new name of this school. PanchoS (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Moved to Category:Hochschule Ludwigshafen am Rhein via COM:CDC. --Achim (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

Move to Category:Cardiff Metropolitan University Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Disagree: people who graduated from the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, in the daughter category "Category:Alumni of University of Wales Institute, Cardiff‎" do not automatically become alumni of Cardiff Metropolitan University. I suggest creating "Category:Cardiff Metropolitan University" and making "Category:University of Wales Institute, Cardiff" a subcategory of it. New files created on or after the establishment of Cardiff Metropolitan University should of course go into that category, but files relating to the former University of Wales Institute should continue to be placed in that category. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Already done December 2013. --Achim (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pictures of the male nude by Arno Roca

Does an ordinary flickr user deserve a category? I arno roca is no notable photographer and this category brings this person in spheres were only established photographers are bundled 188.104.100.218 16:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whether he "deserves" anything: categories are bundles, not awards. Having scores and scores of images of his cluttering the main category "Male nude" was very unconvenient, so I created it. If you can find any name to bundle them, please go ahead, I don't mind. But sub-categorisation is meant to keep in order the main cat, not to appoint or deny an award to a contributor. There is no implicit judgement in the choice. Otherwise we should ask ourselves whether every and each artist "deserves" a category of her own: not all of them are great artists... Love - --User:G.dallorto (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally: Roca is not an "ordinary flickr user" but an established professional photographer regularly published in fashion magazines:

• http://www.kaltblut-magazine.com/human-waiste-by-arno-roca/
• http://www.thefashionisto.com/thyddi-ferrelli-arno-roca/
• http://www.nssmag.com/velum/3312/santi-waine-by-arno-roca
• http://www.itsabouttheman.com/murilo-tonha-arno-roca/
• http://cometoisland.blogspot.it/2013/09/model-spotlight-fagzine-johnny.html

I think we should encourage professional photographers to contribute us their work, rather than dismissing them, possibly out ot envy, as mere "flickr users". --User:G.dallorto (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We need good gay photographers, not amateurs!

Interesting. Where this rule is stated in Wikipedia statement of scope? Please show me. And, I suppose it is you who will be telling the difference between "good" and "amateur", won't you? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Keep

 Done: Kept: No consensus for removing this cat. --Achim (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Particle experiments

Contains no files and only one single subcategory. IMHO the contents shall be moved to Category:Particle accelerators and the category shall be deleted. Passerose (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are now 6 categories and 9 files. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Passerose: Now that the category has more things in it, do you still think it should be deleted? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No! I withdraw my removal request. --Passerose (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing as kept. Nominating user withdrew request after the issue was addressed. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of Jewish national identity

Overcategorization. There is already category about symbols of Israel Δαβίδ (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Not all Jews identify with Israel, even if they identify as Jews. The two are not synonymous, so their symbols naturally aren't either. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Animals in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

An older category, Category:Animals in Guantanamo, was systematically emptied when its elements were transferred to this new category. The older category was then speedy deleted on the grounds it was empty. This always bugs me. Maybe a discussion would conclude Category:Animals in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was a more appropriate name -- or maybe it would't. It is not in line with some earlier categorization. In any case I don't think these kinds of actions should be taken without discussion.

Why Category:Animals in Guantanamo? Guantanamo is not just the name of a base, it is the name of a Bay, a city and a Province. The base only takes up the outer half of the Bay, the inner half is Cuban. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if I was hurry but the 3 subcategories are all related to animals in the US naval base and it was the appropriate name. I've requested a deletion for some reasons: Category:Animals in Guantánamo (with the accent) would be the proper name related to the city, an eventual Category:Animals in the Province of Guantánamo... related to the province. And categories by province for animals in Cuba (or elsewhere) are still not existant... and btw this name was not technically correct. Would it be a redirect to the province, to the city or to the base? Anyway, I left the history of the original category in category's talk, as I do when I make this kind of moves. Just to note, a category by city for animals in Cuba exists but Guantánamo (city) is a different thing from Guantanamo Naval Base. Sorry for technical problems. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just another note to explain the tech problem: The US naval base is entirely bordered by the Cuban municipality of Caimanera, not Guantánamo. So, a possible category related to animals in the city (or in its municipal territory) would not be a subcategory/main category of this one. At least a disambiguation. And btw I've simply followed the proper categorization form of subcategories related to the Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, that for almost all the categories chose the name as precisely as possible. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Another example: The Category:Nature of Punjab was deleted and its content (evidently all Indian) was moved to the Category:Nature of Punjab, India. Because the Punjab may refer to Indian or Pakistani one. In the same way... due to the fact that all the pictures come from Gn. Bay Naval Base; general categories as Nature of, Animals in, People from etc, preferably chose this style. An example is the Category:Domestic cats at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base‎, and not "Domestic cats in Guantanamo", created by you. I'm sorry for my length, explaining the facts, but it's just to explain the technical nature of this categorization. Again, regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

DerBorg's explanation seems reasonable to me. Geo Swan, are we okay to close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No furter interest in over a year. Closing as stale discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Microsoft web logos

We should have sperate categories, like Category:Bing, Category:Internet Explorer. taxonomic point of this category is low, so remove this. Rezonansowy (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep Hi. There are two reasons for keeping it:
  1. I just added more items to this category. More are expected to come. In fact, why not merge Category:Bing into it? It only has three logos and one screenshot that, if survives deletion, can make home elsewhere among screenshots.
  2. This category is a sibling of Microsoft certificate logos, Microsoft company logos, Microsoft hardware logos and Microsoft software logos. Deleting it would disturb harmony. In fact, let's make Microsoft logos a meta-category, now that it is empty.

Now, Category:Internet Explorer logos does not contain any of Microsoft web properties. (IE is web-related, but it is a computer program.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomic point of this category is confusing to me. There's no nothing like Microsoft web, can be Microsoft software, Microsoft hardware logos, so I don't understand the sense of it. --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. There is something called Microsoft web property which refers to websites, web services and web applications. Microsoft web logos is logos used to identify these properties but not logos merely used on them. For instance, Hotmail logo identifies Hotmail. But Hotmail uses Facebook logo too, but that logo does not represent Hotmail. (It represents Facebook.) So, Hotmail logo goes to Microsoft web logos but Facebook logo does not. Now, let me add a more difficult example: Microsoft logo does not go to Microsoft web logos because it represents Microsoft, the company, not one of its web properties. (That logo goes to Category:Microsoft company logos.

I hope these made sense. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion, but why other users do not speak? --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rezonansowy I agree with Codename Lisa, but perhaps the category should be renamed Category:Logos of Microsoft websites to match with Category:Logos of websites (the parent category where I think this belongs). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill:  Support This solution looks good to me. --Rezonansowy (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Logos of Microsoft websites. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Gilberto González

Self promotion, See deletion request https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GILBERTO_GONZ%C3%81LEZ_O._M%C3%BAsico_Contempor%C3%A1neo_-Pian%C3%ADsta-Organ%C3%ADsta-Teclad%C3%ADsta_Profesor_de_m%C3%BAsica_contempor%C3%A1nea,_moderna_y_folcl%C3%B3rica._Nacido_en_Maracaibo,_Edo._Zulia,_Venezuela.jpg The Photographer (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@The Photographer and Ellin Beltz: So long as we have the images, it makes sense to keep them in a single category. I can't see the original image, so I'm not sure why you decided this was self-promotion. If the uploader HUGOJOOL is Gilberto González, however, then these images can't claim to be "own work" (they aren't selfies). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My self-promotion comment was because I lived in Maracaibo (Small city) for a decade and I was close in the musical area, I never heard of this person. --The Photographer 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There were multiples of same image. The ones that are left are all very small and different - except for the content being Mr. Gonzalez. None of the images has metadata. None are in use. I can't find that he's notable on en:wiki or es:wiki calling the COM:SCOPE of all these images into question. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Police of Washington, D.C.

There is something odd here. Washington DC has several Police departments, including Category:Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and independent Police Departments for Congress, and for the Parks within the city. The category Category:Government of Washington, D.C. has Category:Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia as a member, but Category:Police of Washington, D.C.. Shouldn't Category:Police of Washington, D.C. be a member of Category:Government of Washington, D.C. with all the Police departments included in it? Geo Swan (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me, but my knowledge of U.S. police and government is very limited, so I don't have any strong opinions. --Sebari (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good question, but not necessarily. Two issues:

First, Category:Police of Washington, D.C. is already a subcat of Category:Emergency services in Washington, D.C., which itself is a subcat of Category:Government of Washington, D.C.. Placing Category:Police of Washington, D.C. directly in Category:Government of Washington, D.C., without instituting some sort of larger reorganization, would create an COM:OVERCAT problem.

Second, and although we are very inconsistent in our approach to this on the Commons, Category:Government of Washington, D.C. seems to refer to the government of the district, not to all government in the district. So while the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia‎ would seem to belong to Category:Government of Washington, D.C., a congressional police force (just to use an example) would not necessarily full under the rubric of the district's government (but rather the larger federal government).

Sorry, but I feel as though I have just possibly made this more complicated. Sigh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Geo Swan and Skeezix1000: Another layer has been added by the creation of Category:Law enforcement in Washington, D.C. but this seems to follow the pattern for U.S. states. I don't see any problem with the way things are laid out now. Can we close? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No further discussion. Closing as keeep. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of Armenian national identity

Overcategorization. There is already category about Armenian symbols. Title is original resarch. Δαβίδ (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Δαβίδ: Expanded to a discussion on national symbols at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Symbols of national identity. Closing and archiving this entry. Josh (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Fossil Lichida

As all Lichida are extinct, there should be no difference in content between this cat. and Category:Lichida, so I propose to merge its content into the latter category. --Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Keep As has been noted before the distinction is between life restorations and fossils, with actual actual fossils/casts of fossils getting categorized into this category while and illustrations/drawings/c.g. animations of "living" specimens being placed into Category:Lichida. See the Category structuring in vertebrate fossil areas to see a more dramatic example of the separation.--Kevmin § 18:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Theoretically this is a nice argument. However, the use of categories in this way is counterintuitive. Practice shows it is not how the categories are being used. Images become dispersed over the one, the other and both categories. If people think it is necessary to categorise photo's of fossils from drawings and animations, my suggestion would be to create subcategories for those, and not subcategories for the real thing. Besides, categories like Tilobite linedrawing, Trilobite whole external body views with legends, Trilobite anatomy and Trilobite cladogram are already in existence. -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje and Kevmin: Stale discussion, no consensus to delete, seems some cleanup was done since this discussion anyway. If needed, can be re-opened in the future referring the current names and structure. Josh (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Fossil Agnostida

All Agnostida are extinct, so there should be no diffence in content between this category and Category:Agnostida, so I propose to merge the contents into that category.--Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Keep As has been noted before the distinction is between life restorations and fossils, with actual actual fossils/casts of fossils getting categorized into this category while and illustrations/drawings/c.g. animations of "living" specimens being placed into Category:Agnostida. See the Category structuring in vertebrate fossil areas to see a more dramatic example of the separation.--Kevmin § 18:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Theoretically this is a nice argument. However, the use of categories in this way is counterintuitive. Practice shows it is not how the categories are being used. Images become dispersed over the one, the other and both categories. If people think it is necessary to categorise photo's of fossils from drawings and animations, my suggestion would be to create subcategories for those, and not subcategories for the real thing. Besides, categories like Tilobite linedrawing, Trilobite whole external body views with legends, Trilobite anatomy and Trilobite cladogram are already in existence. -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje and Kevmin: Stale discussion, no consensus to delete, seems some cleanup was done since this discussion anyway. If needed, can be re-opened in the future referring the current names and structure. Josh (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Fossil Asaphida

All Asaphida are extinct, so there should be no difference in content between this category and Category:Asaphida, so I propose to merge this cat. into the latter. --Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Keep As has been noted before the distinction is between life restorations and fossils, with actual actual fossils/casts of fossils getting categorized into this category while and illustrations/drawings/c.g. animations of "living" specimens being placed into Category:Asaphida. See the Category structuring in vertebrate fossil areas to see a more dramatic example of the separation.--Kevmin § 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Theoretically this is a nice argument. However, the use of categories in this way is counterintuitive. Practice shows it is not how the categories are being used. Images become dispersed over the one, the other and both categories. If people think it is necessary to categorise photo's of fossils from drawings and animations, my suggestion would be to create subcategories for those, and not subcategories for the real thing. Besides, categories like Tilobite linedrawing, Trilobite whole external body views with legends, Trilobite anatomy and Trilobite cladogram are already in existence. -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje and Kevmin: Stale discussion, no consensus to delete, seems some cleanup was done since this discussion anyway. If needed, can be re-opened in the future referring the current names and structure. Josh (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hunza Valley

Deletion Request: Cat is redundant with Category:Hunza. I emptied it by recategorizing the files accordingly Rupert Pupkin (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The cat is being refilled right now. Well, I don't mind. We can keep the Cat Hunza Valley, but then we don't need the Category Hunza. One of them is superfluous. (And Hunza Valley had less entries than Hunza so I chose that one for deletion) Ohter opinions? --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

• Comment - Sorry! I added more files to Category:Hunza Valley before I realized what was going on. Please forgive. Since Hunza is a valley, could it be named with "valley" included, since it is a geography feature? When cats have one name (which could be city, mountain peak, etc.) it's very hard for me to figure things out. But you are a better judge I'm sure than I am of cat names, since I find them very confusing. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have only basic knowledge about categories on commons. I look after (and for) images related to the Karakoram mountain range from time to time. And so I came across this category Hunza valley. Because it had not many entries and had only one master-category (i don't know how to call "higher" categories), i chose this one for deletion. I don't see any objections to my opinion that one category is enough. But I think you're right about the appropriate name. It should rather be Hunza Valley as all the files are about the valley. But I'm struggeling with the Category Hunza as a political division. Hunza is categorized under Hunza-Nagar district and within this district-cat next to the tehsils. But the valley spreads over different tehsils, so that does not fit so well... This is hard to find out. See for example the first sentence in category:Hunza, follow the link city of hunza to the english wikipedia and see what you find there... This is so confusing.--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep the Hunza Valley category. My reasoning for supporting Hunza Valley is the following: According to en:Hunza Valley, the Hunza is a mountainous valley in Pakistan. The article distinguishes Hunza Valley from en:Hunza (princely state) which was a princely state until 1974 when it was dissolved, the article says. There is also Category: Baltit Fort; according to en:Baltit Fort, this fort is in Hunza Valley. There is also Category:Minerals of Hunza Valley‎ which are in Hunza Valley and Category:Hunza River. The en:Hunza River article isn't very helpful but it seems likely the river is also in Hunza Valley. According to en:Hunza (princely state): "The area of Hunza now forms the en:Aliabad tehsil of en:Hunza–Nagar District. It's very confusing, I agree. Best, Soranoch (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on the text at Category:Hunza, should Category:Hunza Valley be a subcategory of Category:Hunza? The text implies that the Hunza Valley is in some kind of Hunza region. BMacZero (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@BMacZero, Soranoch, and Rupert Pupkin: According to en:Districts of Gilgit–Baltistan, there is now (since at least last year), a "Hunza District", half of the former en:Category:Hunza-Nagar District. I can't tell for sure, but it seems to be roughly equivalent in area to the Hunza Valley. Hunza District is further broken up two en:tehsils: Category:Gojal tehsil‎ and Category:Aliabad tehsil. Hunza valley also contains Category: Gojal Valley. There was also a princely state, en:Hunza (princely state), in existence until 1974, in roughly the same area as Aliabad tehsil.

I would suggest we create Category:Hunza District and Category:Nagar District and put them in Category:Districts of Gilgit-Baltistan. Hunza District can contain Category:Gojal tehsil‎ and Category:Aliabad and hopefully little else. Unfortunately, not only do we not have an up-to-date map of the districts and tehsils of Gilgit-Baltistan, it seems Google Maps and OpenStreetMaps haven't updated their borders either, so it won't be easy to figure out where things need to go. I guess Category:Hunza should be a disambiguation page. Category:Hunza Valley should hold all the natural geographical features like throughout the valley like Category:Hunza mountains‎, Category:Hunza River‎, Category:Minerals of Hunza Valley‎ but not human settlements/buildings? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: time has naturally sorted the matter. Category:Hunza is now a dab category. --ℯxplicit 00:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Heritage streetcars in Seattle

Category:Heritage streetcars in the United States had no entry for Seattle. After starting Category:Heritage streetcars in the United States I came across Category:Streetcars in Seattle (historic). I anticipate some people will think the new category should be merged with the older related category. But "heritage" systems refer to older systems that are currently in use. Thus I think there should be two categories, and I am seeking endorsement. I may move a couple of the images from the old category to the new. Geo Swan (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• That's a very important distinction (heritage systems vs. historic systems) and thanks for pointing that out. Category:Streetcars in Seattle (historic) is terribly named - it should be Category:History of streetcars in Seattle, and ideally subcategorized by the models/operators/systems that used to exist in Seattle. You are correct that there should be two categories (although Category:Heritage streetcars in Seattle could arguably be a subcat of Category:History of streetcars in Seattle, in much the same way that Category:Monuments and memorials in Seattle is a subcat of Category:History of Seattle). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I've renamed to Category:History of streetcars in Seattle as Skeezix1000 suggested, but now I'm stuck trying to find a solution for Category:Tram tracks in Seattle (historic) and Category:Power plants for streetcars in Seattle (historic)‎. Maybe the main category could move to Category:Seattle Municipal Street Railway (as per en:Seattle Municipal Street Railway, and the latter two could be moved to Cateogry:Seattle Municipal Street Railway traicks and Category:Seattle Municipal Street Railway power plants ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Seattle Municipal Street Railway is correct for 1919-1941, but not really for 19th & early 20th century before consolidation. (From 1941 until the 1980s there were no streetcars in Seattle, that was why the "Streetcars in Seattle (historic)" distinction, the pre-WWII ones vs. the modern ones). So I think we'd still need a different name for pre-1919. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Why do you say, "until the 1980s" ? I can't find anything between 1941 and 2007. Any chance you made a mistake? If there wasn't anything during that period, we could divide by century? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Waterfront Streetcar was active in the 1980s and '90s (maybe early 2000s, too, I can't remember), and was indeed "heritage" streetcars. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted; Category:Waterfront_Streetcar was the only member of the category. I put Waterfront Streetcar into parent categories instead; deleting now empty category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Lamp posts, Category:Lamp poles & subcategories

These seem too synonymous with Category:Street lights. JesseW (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

See the redirects to w:en:Street lights -- both of these phrases are redirects. JesseW (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JesseW, a lamp pole is a utility pole. Meanwhile a lamp post is often a historcial and/or ornamented light support. Both are only one of several components. They are topped by the light source/lamp and its housing/lantern. A lamp post bracket is required for suspended lanterns. Whether you call them lamp poles or lamp posts, they hold not necessarily street lights, but all kind of park lights, garden lights, porch lights, courtyard lights, harbour beacons, they are beside promenades, footpathes, waterbodies, on piers and footbridges ... Sometimes they are lost in the countryside. For all those the Category:Lamp posts is absolutely indispensable. --Bohème (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps explain the intended distinction. Could you add that to the category pages? I'd do it myself, but I'm still not sure how best to phrase it. JesseW (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lamp poles has since been renamed Category:Light poles, but no clear explanation has been added to the categories. If street lights are purely for lighting on streets (but not in parks, courtyards, etc), then the French and English category description shouldn't read "Public lighting." The category tree should also be logical. How are these things related? I've tagged Category:Lamp poles and Category:Street lights to encourage further discussion here. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Themightyquill, Bohème, and JesseW: The current categories are Category:Lamp poles and Category:Street lights it would seem. A street light is a compound item combining a lighting fixture and a utility pole which is intended to illuminate ways. A lamp pole is a utility pole intended to support a lighting fixture. It would therefore seems that Category:Lamp poles should be a sub of Category:Street lights for files depicting the utility pole portion of a street light. If one wishes to subcat to Category:Ornamented street lights or such that would be fine. Josh (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: stale. Category names have shifted in the 6+ years this went unresoled and ultimately requires fresh nomination to sort it out. --ƏXPLICIT 03:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)