This category title is not suitable. It is all capitals and the subject is too broad. Category:Arsenic and Category:Sanitation already exists. Also, the current files in it are not suitable for the topic. Alan Liefting (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope. --rimshottalk 00:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No, no, no. It shouldn't be definitelly merged, because it is not a duplicate but two different objects. Both of them are in Prague, however one (Category:Lobkovicz Palace (Prague Castle)) is a part of the Prague Castle and the second (Category:Palais Lobkowitz, Prague) is located in Malá Strana. What could be done, is renaming the second one... e.g. Category:Lobkovicz Palace (Malá Strana). --Daniel Baránek (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It's pointless to maintain a category which contains only one image; such categories should only exist to contain multiple images Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
And this category now contains multiple images, because it was nominated when I was actively categorising and uploading work. I'm incredibly disappointed at the carelessness Rodhullandemu has shown in nominating this and one other category when he could have either asked me what I intended to do with the category, or actually, if he had looked at my contributions, he would have seen I was active and in the process of categorising images. Nick (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Since it now has more than one image, I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Although the nomination is withdrawn, there is no policy based reasoning been presented to delete a valid category. Also troubling is that Rodhullandemu nominated the category for deletion an hour after it was created and without any prior discussion. But that's another discussion. russavia (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Closed by Russavia (2015-01-03), header+footer fixed by Be..anyone (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete - promotional. Alan Liefting (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep No promotional at all; It is a proper brand category under Category:Synthesizers by brand, even you removed it at 22:03, 3 January 2015. Note: I've maintained hundreds of guitar/synthesizer brand categories since several years ago, however, I've never seen this type of deletion request (i.e. removing proper categories, then claim it as promotional spam). --Clusternote (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
it is an empty category - there is another category of this cave with pictures - Category:Jeskyně Spirálka Jiří Komárek (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
According to Special:Contributions/IndareviewR there hasn't been one of these since 2011. No need to keep this specific cat any more, the normal license review is just fine. Josve05a (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
May as well have a cyber clean out and delete it. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This website was shutdown on 2013-09-30 (apparently) so there is no need for this specific license review category, a normal license review tag/procedure is just fine in case of a future image. Josve05a (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Should be deleted. This is a Bot created category that is vaguely defined and currently empty, as the species and diagrams formerly here have been properly categorized. I favor deletion rather than Redirect to Category:Herpetology or Category:Reptiles to stem redirect clutter and reduce ambiguous redirects. Animalparty (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that no redirect is needed and the correct term is of course Category:Herpetology. Alan Liefting (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
needs to be deleted as the descrpiton is not specific enough, it has been replaced by CCM Wiki Learning classes Spring 2015 Thelmadatter (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Fruity Loops was renamed to FL Studio in 2003 starting with version 4. This category should be deleted. Bif Jefferson (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
No, this category was originally created for pre-FL Studio related media. On Wikimedia/Wikipedia, several people want to delete historical information without enough consideration, however, historical information is also important on encyclopedia, etc, IMO. --Clusternote (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand that this category was orginially created for pre-FL Studio related media and I second that historical information is important, but how are the users supposed to know or understand that Fruity Loops was the former name of FL Studio and that the entry relates to the same software with an older version number, just because it's a subcategory of FL Studio? IMO This historical informationen should be/is provided in the media description and/or the FL Studio article and pre-FL Studio related media which relates to FL Studio as much as to Fruity Loops should be categorized to FL Studio.. --Bif Jefferson (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that you want to spread misinformation. You now created the "Fruity Loops users" category (instead of the FL Studio users category - which would be perfectly fine) and added three files to it. They are from 2009, 2011 and 2013 - but Fruity Loops was renamed in 2003 and chances are that the original file uploader already updated to FL Studio and just used the wrong name in the description, because with the life time free update - FL users (until v9 only the download version, now the boxed version too) can upgrade to a higher version for free. --Bif Jefferson (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I found an example upload/description which highlights this problem: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_experimental_sound1.ogg The uploader apparently uses "Fruity Loops Nine Producer Edition" - but there is no Fruity Loops Nine Producer Edition - just "FL Studio 9 Producer Edition". I expect more people to stick with the old name despite of that they are already using the newer versions. --Bif Jefferson (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
another example "Fruity Loops Studio 4" does not exist, the upload was clearly created with "FL Studio 4" --Bif Jefferson (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Although newbies may tend to dislike the use of old name in every field, old customers seem to prefer the use of old name, with the proud of their long loyalty since early version. (See media files under Category:Fruity Loops users: at least 3 customers use old name)
Also on Wikimedia Commons, considerable amount of media contributors seem to think that the old name "Fruity Loops" is easy to identify than the newer abbreviation, FL, with too various edition names. As a result, almost half of media found on Wikimedia Commons use the old name on these description field, and the rest use the new name. (Special:Search/"Fruity+Loops":13 media files, Special:Search/"FL+Studio":16 media files)
I think these cultural issues are not ignorable, and at least, it is better to keep the old name (on categories) as Category redirect. --Clusternote (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Using category redirects from Fruity Loops to FL Studio and from Fruity Loops users to FL Studio users is a solution I would support. --Bif Jefferson (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Fruity_Loops and Category:Fruity_Loops_users both redirect to their correlating pages now. Is this a solution for you others, too? --Bif Jefferson (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for your patient discussion. :) --Clusternote (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, too! Let's hope we're right and no one else complains.. --Bif Jefferson (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
this category is unrelated to Cartoon Network, and it has no files, only an empty category, it should be deleted!!! Duque Santiago (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Potentially ambiguous; Patricia Lake (Alberta) was created around the same time (by the same user), the duplication being most likely unintentional. There was only one file here until I moved it into the disambiguated cat. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not think there is much to discuss. The categories should be merged and Category:Karl Ferdinand Sohn spelling sounds just fine. --Jarekt (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I transformed the category into a redirect. --Leyo 23:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I created this cat as a temp sorting cat. I have completed the sorting process and this cat has now outlived its usefullness and can be deleted. ColonialGrid (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 07:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created this cat as a temp sorting cat. I have completed the sorting process and this cat has now outlived its usefullness and can be deleted. ColonialGrid (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete, you could just put a {{speedy|now unused temporary sorting/tracking cat}} or similar on it in the future, the D in CFD is for potentially controversial cases, cf. COM:REDCAT. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems a rather odd grouping. What next? Old men and politics? Babies and politics (for images of all of those politicians kissing babies)? But in all seriousness, there is no need to structure politics across specific age groups. Note that there is only one file in it. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete, the other cats (Biella Pride 2008, LGBT pride colors, Colorful wigs, Afro wigs, Adolescent girls in Italy) for the only file in this cat cover everything this cat could do. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, rather unmotivated intersection that hasn't manager to attract more than a single file in several years. --rimshottalk 23:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Die Abbildung Steinbach -neu gehört nicht zu Behamberg sondern bezieht sich auf die Ruine Steinbach in Niederwaldkirchen. 62.47.143.129 13:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
w:de:Schloss Steinbach (Behamberg) hat jetzt ein anderes Bild. Kategorie auf File:Steinbach-neu.jpg geflickt. M.W. kannst Du sowas auch ohne Login und ohne Diskussion selbst regeln, oder gibt's bei der Kategorie jetzt noch was zu bereden? –Be..anyone (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Be..anyone: Warum tun, wenn man es bereden kann? Danke für den klaren Hinweis, einfach zu handeln.--Hubertl (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Done, miscategorized image moved. --rimshottalk 23:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was categorised under Hijabs but the only picture in it is of a junior football team and I can't work out for the life of me how it relates to Tudong, let alone hijabs... (which category I removed as was obviously some kind of mistake). Should the one file be recategorised somewhere more appropriate and then this category redirected to Category:Tudung? Mabalu (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I recategorized the photo as Tudung and Tudong is equivalent. I would propose to set up a catredirect from Tudong to Tudung. Tudong is a linguistic variant in Bahasa Malaysia for Tudung. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that everything else in Category:Tudung seems to relate to the headscarf called a tudung, perhaps it is still not under quite the right category? Do we need a new category for Category:Tudung (headscarf) or similar? Mabalu (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You mean the photo of the school class where the girls wear the tudong? You can create a subcategory "People wearing tudung" but considering the actual size of the category, I don't think that is is really necessary. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are absolutely right. When I glanced at the picture, I only really noticed the boys and didn't actually notice the row of girls sitting in front of them until you mentioned it. Can't believe I completely overlooked them! Mabalu (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem at all; the discussion resulted in a good solution for the so far single photo in the category Tudung:) Go ahead with the catredirect please. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I propose to rename this Category to "SVG images with poor traced elements", Because it is unrelated whether the SVG is automatic or howsoever traced (nonetheless automatic tracing can also be very good). Compare also the English and German equivalent. ↔ User:Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Be..anyone Mainly for images that are not autotraced. Otherwise we need pointless more templates for every tracing-/drawing-technique… What I propose is the condition on deWP and enWP. You agree? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 17:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, mysterious differences between c: d: de: en: m: + mw: tend to confuse me. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Good and thanks for your response, so I'll start the move in one week. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Category contains one photo that was used in a television program broadcasted in the Netherlands. It seems like this category was created for personal use, it doesn't contain pictures that describe "Rail Away". Wrong way of using categories imo. Sjoerd de Bruin(talk) 21:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There does not seem to be anything in COM:COM about these sort of categories but In my opinion this is not the sort of thing that categories should be used for. The ownership of equipment used to create images is of no interest to Commons. Alan Liefting (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I received a message on this discussion and I made the Category in to a Hiddencat. I hope it's all right now Chenspec-WMIL (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That is an improvement but it is still a category creating an unnecessary (albeit small) overhead on Commons. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
If this category is useful to Wikimedia Israel, the overhead shouldn't be a reason to delete it. We're not supposed to worry about performance. I think the hidden category is a good solution. --rimshottalk 22:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think by performance you are thinking of server resources. I know that is not a problem. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned with things such as clutter, unneeded complexity, the need for ongoing maintenance, creating the thin end of the wedge (i.e. other similar categories may be created), etc. Alan Liefting (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I see your point now (I thought you were talking of server resources). There seems to be a need for Wikimedia chapters to organize files created with their equipment. As part of the purpose of Commons is to support the media part of Wikimedia, I think this category is in scope. The non-technical overhead should be negligible. --rimshottalk 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I am curious to know what this sort of category is used for. I see that you found some similar ones. I could not find that lot. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose they help showing the public where the donated money is going. I'm only guessing, though. The existence of several categories of this type is enough indication of usefulness for me. Still, it would be nice if Chenspec-WMIL could get back to us with information on what the category is used for. --rimshottalk 07:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, this category is used for tracking the quantity and quality of content added to Wikimedia projects following the acquisition of equipment. This category was created as part of our efforts to provide clear and accurate reports about our activities, which are published in this link. We thank you for your consideration and cooperation Chenspec-WMIL (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Withdraw as nominator. Thanks Chenspec-WMIL for the explanation but I am not really convinced of the utility of this category. Alan Liefting (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept as per discussion, after no new opinions in a month. --rimshottalk 07:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ok, but I still think it should be called Thinktank Science Garden. Not that it matters what it is called! Thinktank Science GardenEllrbrown (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please close with {{category redirect|Thinktank, Birmingham (Science Garden)}}, no admin needed for REDCAT. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine - although I'm not sure if the Kids' Park is part of the Thinktank Science Garden. And more part of Millennium Point or Eastside City Park Ellrbrown (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Similar procedure, populate the at the moment empty category as you see fit, add a note explaining the difference at the top, and close the CFD as not done.–Be..anyone (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Redirected; I'll leave someone else to close. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Ostensibly dealing with an Italian brand related to organic farming, this category seems to mostly attract photos for biographies and Wikipedia vanity articles. "Bio" is a disambiguation page on both Italian Wikipedia and on English Wikipedia. There does not seem to be an article for the brand, nor do we seem to have any media related to it. The category should probably just be deleted. Alternatively, it could be turned into a disambiguation category. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we close this discussion? This is category is for internal uses and consequently hidden. It's not a duplicate of the public Category:Collection Gugelmann category. Kelson (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Es existieren bereits die Kategorien "Historic signposts in Germany" und "Milestones in Germany" mit diversen Unterkategorien. Wie grenzt sich die Kategorie "Wegweisersäule" von den bereits bestehenden ab? Oberlausitzerin64 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Gar nicht, kannst Du umsortieren in Kategorien mit englischen Namen, und dann mit einem {{category redirect|Historic signposts in Germany}} zu category:Historic signposts in Germany per REDCAT abschliessen. Was da historisch ist, und was nicht, wäre eine andere Frage. Ein Spinner hat für ein paar Tage einen Teil der Januar-Diskussionen inkl. dieser verschwinden lassen, darum gab's keine Antworten hier. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we please consider renaming this category to South African Army? That is the name it is universally known by. For example the Australian Army has a cat called that, not Army of Australia Gbawden (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Incompleted nomination / originally made on 13 January 2015 by Pdg: wrong spelling1989 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Apogon apogonides is spellt wrong, it have to be Apogon apogonoides, category that exists already.--Pdg (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The missing "o" before the "i" seems to be a pretty common typo for this species , so a redirect might be better than a deletion. However, the accepted scientific name seems to be Ostorhinchus apogonoides (, , ), so we might want to move the correctly spelt category as well. --El Grafo (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Invent rules which category is for what, put notes in their intro, and sort following your rules. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Cherokee and/or its subcats. Plus, the term "Indians" is not correct for Native Americans. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
bad category name, many photos can go under Holiday Inn Express Hotel, not just photos of the one in Hong Kong. Mjrmtg (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Please can we consider renaming this category to Police motorcycles of Colombia? This wording reflects the style used by other categories Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Only useful when all categories in Category:Police_motorcycles_by_country are renamed. Problem is, that "of" categories mean posession and "in" categories location. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Request withdrawn - what Stunteltje says makes sense. Gbawden (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done, withdrawn. --rimshottalk 21:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
When I came across this category in Category:Focal length, I thought it would contain pictures of lenses ordered by their focal length. Instead it contains images of any subject ordered by the focal length of the lens used to shoot them (according to EXIF data, I guess). Hence, I propose to make this category a subcat of Category:Photographs (or Category:Photographs by lens) and rename it to Category:Photographs by lens focal length (or something like that). El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
PS 1: Please note that I'm not proposing renaming all the subcats in a similar manner as well.
This category is named this way due to the EXIF format, it says "Lens focal leght - x mm", just as "ISO speed rating x" and "F-number f/x". Josve05a (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As Josve05a stated the naming comes from EXIF data. I created the category with the hope that one day we would have a Boolean search in commons. With Boolean search you can i.e. search for Elephants shot with telephoto or Elephants shot with wide angle lenses. I still keep my hope and think sticking with EXIF naming standard would lead to less confusion. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Question do we have other categories that hold information from EXIF data? If yes, they should probably grouped together somewhere in a common (hidden) category. I can see the reason for the current naming, but I still think that this is confusing. What about something like Category:Lens focal length according to EXIF data? (just for the main meta category, I have absolutely no problem with the subcats). At the very least, there should be a proper category description.
Comment Yes, of course. Since someone added Exposure time as category to some of my images, I begun to add the four category types for ISO speed, lens focal length, Exposure time and F-number. They all depend to the EXIF data. Additionaly I'm using camera and lens from EXIF data. --XRaytalk 16:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I know about Category:Telephoto lenses etc., but since (for example) a 50mm lens is considered to a have "normal" field of view on a "full frame"/35mm film camera while it acts as a shot telephoto on APS-C, I think an additional classification by the physical focal length might be a good idea. --El Grafo (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's a problem. The crop factor is missing. IMO this is a minor problem, a crop may be done manualy too. --XRaytalk 16:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The physical lens focal length... Just an example: A camera has a crop factor of 2 and a lens with a focal length of 200 mm. The vendor said, it's 400 mm compared to full frame. This is wrong, it just looks like (!) 400 mm. It is physical still 200 mm. So the value in the EXIF data is 200 mm. The image is cropped because the sensor has the half size of a full frame sensor - the factor of 2. So the image is cropped and not the lens focal length increased. (Sorry, it is a little bit difficult for me to explain this in english.) --XRaytalk 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Is this category of any use? Alan Liefting (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
IMO it is. It's a (hidden) technical category like other technical categories in Photographic parameters.--XRaytalk 11:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
What would it be used for? Alan Liefting (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Why do we need technical informations? Good question. For example if look for effects depending to 18 mm lens focal length. I'm not sure, but IMO this kind of category is useful for only a few people. May be it is good to ask the creator of Category:Lens focal length: @Nevit: . He created Category:ISO speed rating too.--XRaytalk 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I know we are all volunteers here but we still should be doing cost-benefit analysis on the work we do. If someone creates a category that is of little use why should we maintain it? All of the time spent discussing a category of little use means that the Commons:Backlog is neglected. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I doesn't spend any time for these categories. It was a minor change of my bot working for me (and my images). The bot checks my image descriptions, formats information and adds all the technical driven categories. I spend much more time checking galleries and categories for useless changes of other users like adding useless sortkeys or removing useful templates. So let's do the more useful work. --XRaytalk 06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I am making a general statement rather than question individual editors. Alan Liefting (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete including all subcategories, unless someone can put a good case forward for keeping them. The ongoing maintenance overhead (updating, checking, etc) probably makes it an ineffective use of Commons and out time. Can this sort of thing be replace by a search of EXIF data? Alan Liefting (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
We have several similar categories that sort photographs by technical properties such as lens, camera or film used (see below), so I guess they're not completely useless. On the other hand, with Commons:Structured data in the making, categories like this may become obsolete soon(-ish), since EXIF metadata will be included there. I don't have a strong opinion about whether to keep or delete this category, but we should make a common decision for the three other categories mentioned below. --El Grafo (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like we should just put this whole discussion on hold until Commons:Structured data is up and running. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ok, turns out we have several similar categories, so it's probably best to think about them as a package:
Since all those (sub-) categories in question here are about properties of the photographs they are containing rather than properties of the things shown in the photographs, they should probably be put into the Category:Photographs subtree as well.
The categories for exposure time and F-number also contain files illustrating exposure time/F-number (as opposed to sorting photographs by exposure time/F-number). Here, the name of the main category and the EXIF-name happen to be the same, so imho the creation of Category:Photographs by F-number and Category:Photographs by Exposure time would be necessary.
Keep and follow El Grafo's proposal.--XRaytalk 12:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that just because a certain type of category exists there no reason for that type to be extended. Sometimes editors make bad decisions in creating pages. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Done: XRay as original author agreed to it, so I've moved the categories according to my proposal. @Alan Liefting: If you still think the Categories should be removed completely, please feel free to file a new CFD for the new ones. --El Grafo (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My Bad--apologies - this category was prepped for uploads from a group of nearly 1500 pics to process and annotate... Found one folder with 17 of these this morning, need to locate the text file with cut and paste categories and pre-readied description comments, then will upload. Apologies for there is a Museum in Coaldale which has more pics as well.
User:Fabartus: It's been a few months. Have any suitable files turned up? --rimshottalk 21:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Ahhhhh! A timely reminder. I've got a rainy day preventing yard work so I'll make finding the prepared text parts file for those uploads a to-do task and then get them up. Best regards, FrankB 17:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Shuvaev (talk·contribs) has added a number of images to the category, making the rationale for deletion moot. Choess (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Only one of its type and only one file in it. Delete until there is enough for a series, if indeed it ever happens. Alan Liefting (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Please just be patient, it's a very recent creation. - Olybrius (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Now 3 subcats containing 40+ files. --Achim (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action. --Achim (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The only two images in this category were of tangeritin, and have since been moved to their own category. Jynto (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
So, upon looking around in the parent category, I can now see the purpose of this category scheme. I quite like the way they are numbered to denote the number of oxygen substituents. So I would suggest renaming them rather than deleting them, since normally when a category is named after a specific compound, it contains images of that compound, and only that compound. The usual exception is when the category is named as the plural of that compound (e.g. Category:Benzamides, Category:Xylenes, Category:Anisoles), which means the category is for variations of that compoundand the compound itself. So I'd suggest perhaps renaming this category to Category:4',5,6,7,8-Pentahydroxyflavones, and likewise with the other subcats in Category:Flavones. The name's still a bit clunky though. What do you think? In the mean time I'll try not to mess up the existing category structure with my disruptive editing. - Jynto (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok you are right. While creating this category I thought in german where "...flavone" ment the plural form. English plural "....flavones". mfg --Drdoht (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Correction: According to Category:Flavones there is no special name for this molecule known. So I named it "4',5,6,7,8-Pentahydroxyflavone". Please don't change into the plural form "... flavones". --Drdoht (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete The category is now empty. As of today, the two files that were in this category depicted tangeritin, which is different than 4',5,6,7,8-pentahydroxyflavone, so I moved them to Category:Tangeritin. The category is now unused and unnecessary. If someone does create images for 4′,5,6,7,8-pentahydroxyflavone, a category for them could be easily recreated if desired. Ed (Edgar181) 22:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. --Leyo 09:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete - a poorly named category of unkown use containing one user test page. Alan Liefting (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Aristeas: , bitte abräumen falls nicht mehr gebraucht. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Done – sorry for being so late. I must have missed the ping somehow, sorry! IMHO we can delete that category. AFAIK I have not used this category actively, it was used on my page just by some bad template magic ... --Aristeas (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 1 August 2015. --Achim (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Merged and redirected to Category:African American history. The spelling is apparently contentious, but either variant is technically correct and the hyphenated category is much older. --rimshottalk 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Most of the files in this category assert free licenses on the basis that they are "own work" SVGs. But the SVG files are derivative works of official designs. These appear to be very widely used across multiple wikis, and worthy of careful consideration and documentation in the files' metadata. Are the original designs public domain? Pete F (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Closed, no reply in a year. The CFDs are not a good place to discuss copyright questions. If you have general questions, it's best to ask at the copyright village pump. If you think that the files should be deleted, you can open a deletion request or mass deletion request. --rimshottalk 17:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Feel free to add the ones I missed. --rimshottalk 15:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:Police_handling_traffic is different to Category:Traffic police, since the former could be any kind of police handling traffic while the latter could be specialised traffic police units not necessarily handling traffic. --ghouston (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems OK to me then. --ghouston (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Police_handling_traffic and redirected, child and parent categories cleaned up as per discussion. The original problem (the word cops) should now be solved. --rimshottalk 20:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
de:Porträt#Nach Anzahl der Personen: Bei einem Doppelporträt werden zwei Personen in einem Bild dargestellt…Zwei einzelne Pendant-Bilder, meist von Ehepaaren, sind kein Doppelporträt.
I agree, but I don't think very many people have an opinion on this. I would just go ahead and create the category. Maybe the category page should only hold gallery pages, or do you want to stuff each set of pendants into their own categories? Jane023 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thx for your encouraging. I only want to rename the cat, the pairing as now can be done by sort keys --Oursana (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Not useful for anything. Mind the description "maintain a list of pages [...] for the sake of the list itself" and the talk page: "A kind of catch-all category?" Rillke(q?) 01:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That used to be rather clear enwiki and meta cats, e.g., templates doing what parser functions did before parser functions were introduced. Of course attracting pointy additions. I didn't know that the cats were renamed (2007+2012). Meta now has an almost unused Intricate templates following the same five years older idea on enwiki. The category here should be renamed, to simplify transwiki from/to enwiki+meta+mediawikiwiki. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Who decides what intricate is? It largely depends on the evaluator's familiarity with the subject. Something demanding for specific improvements that can be objectively evaluated would be of help. -- Rillke(q?) 21:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It's in the eye of the beholder, don't take it too seriously. The {{template category|tracking}} header already indicates that this is some kind of "original research" wrt "ontology". Actually the header should mention "tracking category populated by {{Esoteric}}" to explain the "tracking" attribute.
It's a fair warning that the template depends on multiple complex features, and any plan to change it from scratch to works (again) could take considerably longer than one year to grok all technical details. In the meantime (between scratch and works again) an undetermined—if not shown on MostTranscludedPages—number of pages depending on a working incarnation of the intricate template will be broken. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The template, its English documentation, and the category are now redirected to {{Intricate template}}, {{Intricate template/doc}}, and category:Intricate templates to mirror common practice on enwiki and Meta. The auto-translation stuff still uses base=Template:esoteric or similar, please fix this—or not, it actually still works, but might be too {{Esoteric}} for users planning to add a new translation. The old category should soon fix itself leaving only hardwired entries not based on {{Esoteric}} for manual fixes. I've already removed about 20 user pages not belonging into the old or new template category.–Be..anyone (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Redirected, as per Be..anyone and now empty. --rimshottalk 22:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Merged to Category:Longhushan, same place 578985s (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they should be merged, but I think Category:Mount Longhu is the more easily understandable name, and it matches en:Mount Longhu. --Zolo (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment, ten files with Longhushan in their name, two with Longhu Shan, and zero with Mount Longhu. Apparently photographers agree with 578985s. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I meant understandable for readers and in this context, it may make a difference: "Mount Longhu" is English, so easier to understand for most Wiki users, while "Longhushan" is a tranliteration from Chinese, so probably more intuitive for a Chinese speaking uploader. Anyhow, as long as we keep a redirection, that really does not make any difference. --Zolo (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Toss a coin and make it so, COM:REDCAT + close CFD. The original proposal would be less work.–Be..anyone (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Longhushan, as per nom. The other direction would have been just as fine. --rimshottalk 22:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This category could be deleted because is not used The Photographer (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be surprised if there are not any files that would be suitable for this category. It is a large city, no doubt with local government. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, me too, I will try fix it in the future --The Photographer (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Now being used. Closing as keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose the deletion. We use categories to group similar pages, so other can find them. All pages in those categories still need to be categorized. Your arguments suggest you do not like the category name, but if you do not like the name and want to rename the category than you should suggest a name you would like to replace it with. If you come out with more clear name, I would support the renaming. --Jarekt (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
CommentCategory:WikiProject France is not a place which will be subcategorized under Category:Paris. Also I have no clue what "WikiProject" is. We do have categories like Category:WikiProject Racibórz but they mostly hold images related to the location in the name. I have no idea what is the purpose for them. --Jarekt (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Category:WikiProject France is not a place which will be subcategorized under Category:Paris but any Commons maintenance categories would be categorised under Category:WikiProject France. With all due respect you cannot comment on WikiProjects if you do not know what it is. Go to w:Wikipedia:WikiProject for information. WikiProjects are well developed at the English Wikipedia. They are essentially a set of pages relating to a specific topic that editors can collaborate on. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If Wikipedia does it that way that is great, but we are talking about categorization on Wikimedia Commons. They are different projects and often use different approaches to the same problems. --Jarekt (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are different projects but there are similarities. Since there is already a collection of WikiProjects here on Commons we may as well use the system for geographical topics. So do you want to retain the status quo or would you want to propose something else? Alan Liefting (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose the deletion. Same advice than Jarekt. OK for rename if necessary. --Tangopaso (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
bad category name and usage (grrrr, I typed out lots of other stuff to put here but lost it because of finger trouble) Alan Liefting (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with you that that categories you mention should not be in Category:London. Any major topic on Commons tends to get a whole series of these maintenance categories. Even though WikiProjects are underutilised on Commons I think we should mirror any Wikipedia WikiProject and then use them for Commons maintenance (which is what they are used for). They can then be cross linked and hopefully generate editor interest. There is a w:Wikipedia:WikiProject London so I propose that a Commons:WikiProject London is set up. Alan Liefting (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
A Commons:WikiProject London sounds like a good idea to me. I have not edited Wikipedia for some time so I am unaware of how things work over there Oxyman (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
StrongOppose "mirroring Wikipedia" without broad consensus, if you mean dewiki or enwiki. Just saying "wikipedia" without stating which is unclear here, the biggest might be ruwiki, and I can barely read the script. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is another way to put it: Wikimedia Commons has a collection of WikiProjects so why not add Commons:WikiProject London? No point reinventing the wheel. WikiProjects work so why not use them? I can't think of any alternative solution. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering, now that Category:Geographical WikiProjects by city exists with 14 subcats is there still opposition to moving this Category to a Commons:WikiProject London? I am personally neutral over whether we "mirror any Wikipedia" or not. But as it seems that other cities and commons users have used WikiProjects I see no reason to treat London differently. Oxyman (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
As no one objected I moved this category inline with those already existing Oxyman (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
This category was created for a non-notable person after all the images uploaded by the same user were nominated for deletion and then deleted. This category will have no use after the last two images will be deleted Lady Lotus (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
why did you hijack the category Jonathan Tucker, and pursue this deletionist campaign against this poet? it is not merely a place for only wikipedia related items, although that is what is it becoming. by your conduct you prove yet again that commons is a morally broken place. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Because the category for Jonathan Tucker is of the actor. Not just people named Jonathan Tucker. Lady Lotus (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
it was for the poet, until you deleted the category from the poet's photos without notice, and nominated for deletion, but you missed a couple, so now a second round. this is not how disambiguation works. this kind of bullying is not cool. you realize there are only less than 10 people taking photos of living writers? why would anyone want to? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 02:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
No. The category was for the actor. And I removed your images from the category so it wouldnt cause confusion to users searching for other images of the actor. How is this bullying? They obviously are outside the scope of project which is why they have been deleted. And what does 10 people taking pictures of living writers have to do with anything. You sound like a fan or a friend of this guy which means your judgement is a conflict of interest. Like I said before, the images have no legitmate use on here. That's a pretty legit reason. Lady Lotus (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
you could have split the category. when you do not interact except to template spam my talk page, and now CfD a category not a week old with no discussion, that is bullying. how about the photo of the actor and the poet? i am no one's fanboy. when he is notable then i will undelete these photos. i am now working with the smithsonian institution; i will advise them not to upload their scanned content here, since i can not trust you to know what educational is.
the point about 10 people taking pictures of living people is that i am 1 of those 10. i have taken pictures of over 100 living people now in their articles, but why should i, since i can rely on you to farm flickr. why would i want to upload anything here? i see the trend here. i will now upload my work to flickr and english wikipedia, where it is safe from you. and when people try to move it here i will stop that. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't template spam your talk page, it does it automatically when a file is nominated for deletion. And this is the discussion for the deletion of the category. If I were in the wrong then the admin who deleted the pictures would have said they weren't on the grounds for deletion but as you see, they are all deleted. And when I nominate one image for deletion and the rest of them fall under the same basis of reasoning then of course I'm going to nominate the whole lot of them. Nobody said you couldn't take pictures of living people, but if they aren't notable and serve no purpose, educational or otherwise then the file will be deleted no matter how "notable" you find the person to be. There is nothing bullying about this, I have not bullied you into anything, I have not been aggressive with any of the deletion processes except to tell you that it's out of the scope of the project. Just because you upload it to flickr doesn't automatically mean it'll be ok to upload to here. And same for Wikipedia, they have the same grounds for images as the Commons does. Lady Lotus (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
i welcome the new spirit of deletionism as "uneducational". try on all the p0rn and personal bullshit like this and if you won't then you capricious lack of principle is proven. when i take things to flickr it is precisely to keep them away from wikicommons. what education do you have? have you graduated high school? have you ever taken a picture? what qualifies you to make any judgement about photographs or education? i am sick and tired of the parasitic "digital maoism" that can't actually do anything, but will fight to the death to throw rocks at everyone else's work. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh no trust me, I've tried to get a lot of the pointless porn on here deleted but it's an endless battle. And I've looked into the 50p a pant and I'll contact an admin about it since the page is protected. Actually I was a photography and graphic design major but I'm sure that doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the "quality" of the image, other than one or two were blurry but it has everything to do with the fact that it has no use on here or wikipedia. It won't be used, and it serves no educational purpose, meaning it's not going to be used to "educate" anyone. If he had an article or was mentioned in an article and the images were of a good quality, you bet I would use them but there is no use so they were deleted. That's all. I'm not saying don't upload pictures, just understand what qualifies and what doesn't. Lady Lotus (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
So long as we have multiple images of this poet, we should gather the images in a single category. If someone wants to nominated the images as out-of-scope, they can do so. If the images are deleted, this category can be deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Most of the Tanzawa Mountains is included in Kanagawa Prefecture, however, Doshi and Yamanakako Village(Yamanashi Pref) and Oyama Town(Shizuoka Pref) also included slightly.
For example, entire mountain of Mount Ton-no-mune(鳥ノ胸山 とんのむねやま map) is located in Doshi vill. Mount Oobora(大洞山 おおぼらやま map) is located on Shizuoka-Yamanashi prefectural border.
Since the mountain of Tanzawa that does not contain any in Kanagawa Prefecture exists, I think better, including ''Category:Mountains of Yamanashi prefecture'' and ''Category:Mountains of Shizuoka prefecture'' in ''Category:Tanzawa Mountains''.--Σ64 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It is true that almost all peaks are in Kanagawa, whilst a few peaks belong to Yamanashi or Shizuoka. But adding the "Category:Mountains of XXX prefecture" to this category will be problematic, because:
By the way, I doubt if this is the most suitable place for this sort of thing. Categories for discussion is for discussion about controversial renaming or whether a category is needed; for discussions about contents or categorisation, talk pages are generally used. JFYI Yasu (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way, about Category:Hakone Mountains. In case all peaks of Hakone Mountains are located in Kanagawa prefecture, Category:Hakone Mountains may be put in Category:Mountains of Kanagawa prefecture, but should not be put in Category:Mountains of Shizuoka prefecture. Also Category:Mount Maru (Kanagawa and Shizuoka) and mountains located in both prefectures may not be in Category:Mountains of Kanagawa prefecture, but should be put in Category:Mountains of Shizuoka prefecture. (箱根山・箱根の山域において、すべての山頂部が神奈川県にあり、一部の山が静岡県との県境にあるとみなせる場合、丹沢山地の場合と少し違う状況のようにも思えます。)--Alpsdake (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
[[Talk:Category:Tanzawa Mountains]] can't be created. Talk:Tanzawa Mountains may be another talk page. So I push the left side button (カテゴリを議論する) on page of Category:Tanzawa Mountains. Then this page was created.--Alpsdake (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice, Thanks you. My first language is spanish and I could be wrong with my category names, thats the raison why I try copy anothers category name The Photographer (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This cat is rarely used, if ever. There is no need for this specific license review category, a normal license review tag/procedure is just fine Josve05a (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
So what's your suggestion? Lupo 14:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete this cat and subcat. Josve05a (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
And what about template {{Ipernityreview}}? And change flinfo? What for? At least keep the template and its interface, but make the template categorize somewhere else, then. I Oppose any change that requires me to change the code of flinfo. Lupo 14:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I see, they do not have the same parameters. Lupo 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
How many images are we talking about that is using fileinfo for images from this website? Any idea? We can make the template categorize in the normal lr category, even though I doubt that it will be that many, if any at all. Josve05a (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I presume you mean "flinfo" when you write "fileinfo". Flinfo doesn't keep logs, so I don't know how frequently people use flinfo to transfer images from ipernity. Making the template categorize into the normal license review categories is an approach. Just make sure the few hundred file description pages using this currently don't get broken. Once that template has been changed properly, then the ipernity-specific categories (but not the template) could be removed. Lupo 19:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
inaccurate identifier, the media in this category are in country categories they are actually just unsorted by country in the monastery category trees as such should be in a category that reflect being unsorted rather than unidentified. Gnangarra 02:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
When unsorted will be sorted this category will contain only unidentified. But it doesn't matter. I agree with name Category:Monasteries unsorted by country. --Butko (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Butko seems to have been moving a very large number of files in a similar manner to "unidentified countries" categories. Previously, one would go through e.g. Category:Buildings and move files into correct country categories, or into Category:Buildings in unidentified countries if and only if the country could not be identified. Now these more difficult cases that someone has actually looked at and the files that simply haven't been the subject of any attempts at meaningful categorisation are all mixed together. Unless there's been any discussion about this operation, I'd like to see Butko fix this whole mess, not just for this category, but for all such categories. Unidentified does not mean unsorted. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Closing - category has now been deleted because it was empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This category could be deleted as the main category is the one called "Category:Cosplay of Towelie (South Park)". Kigsz (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep, parent cat of sub cat. -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Having this intermediate cat isn't helpful because the only thing in it is the subcat. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Not educationally useful: private party photos Takeaway (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful! A viewinto th eprivate life of a for the most people of the world unknown area! You better should start to think and stop to frustrate other Wikimedians. There is more than your view under the world! Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
These images, and others that I had tagged as being out of scope (for instance File:201412041222c (Hartmann Linge) Wat Chetuphon.jpg and File:201412041215b (Michelle von Bärlin) Wat Chetuphon.jpg) but have been "kept" by Marcus Cyron, clearly fall under what is mentioned as not educationally useful in Commons:Deletion policy#Out_of_scope. Similar holiday snaps of the same users had already been deleted, with a clear consensus, earlier last year (see here and here). As Wikimedia policy itself says: "There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere." - Takeaway (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
These images, and others that were tagged as being out of scope, are not all "simple holiday snaps". In one case they document wikipedians/wikimedians at work, in the other case they document the way thai people celebrate their parties on red-letter days. In a third case (last year destructions) they had documented the art of praying at buddhist sanctuaries. A fourth case (last years vandalism too) is, that I have learned in my profession to take the next best human being as a scale if the proportions on photographic documents are not obvious. Maybe I should better have documented the dishes I ate on my travel or other dead things, but preferably without living people on the pictures. I am so tired to fight against simple horizons, feeling like Don Quixote ... --Hartmann Linge (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You apparently didn't noticed that I did not nominate the few images where indeed a person is used as a reference to the scale of things. I only nominated those which as their main subject show either you or Michelle prominently. For photos such as these there is Flickr etcetera.
The category under discussion here, that shows Thai people celebrating a private party, might be somewhat useful. Even then Wikimedia policy states that "examples of files that are not realistically useful include: Private image collections, e.g. private party photos...". Then there might be a problem with personality rights as these people were photographed in a private setting (a tourist resort is not a public space).
As for the "art of praying", I remember those photos and it not so much showed the art of praying at Buddhist sanctuaries, it showed a tourist posing in an attempt to emulate the way Thai Buddhists pray. Of course that too can be viewed as educational...;-)
You seem to insist on uploading large amounts of photos of yourselves as "Wikipedians at work". Is there an overwhelming need here on Wikimedia to have so many images of the both of you or is that need more your own? - Takeaway (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me sleep one or two hours and after that I'll think about it;-) --Hartmann Linge (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
1) O.K. I'll check this years and last years pictures again by this criterion and will act proportionately, delete or restore (may take some time by the amount of last years deletion).
2) The location where the party took place is a semi public area. Everybody can enter not only guests of the resort. The permissions by the pictured people were given.
3) see 1)
4) After the last years mass deletion there were no longer photos of this category , ,:-( And yes, I need more than nothing, indeed;-)
re 2) I'm not sure how the permission thing here on Wikimedia is supposed to be registered. It's not something I looked into. Shouldn't it be mentioned in some formal way in the image description if it's not in a fully public place?
I created Category:Tourists in Thailand and many of its subcategories. I also put in most of the media. Why am I supposed to look at it? - Takeaway (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Example for "useful" tourists?
Because there is no difference between the pictures in this categories and the pictures of last years and this years deletions...!? Most of the pictures in this categories are "not educationally useful" by your definition. So who decides which tourist is "useful" and which tourist is not? What are the criterias? Age, gender, prettiness or what? --Hartmann Linge (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with having this example file deleted too.
I don't know what the reasons were for the other people who weighed in on last year's deletion round which was initiated by Weissbier (see [here), but for me it was the sheer quantity of "not educationally useful" images that had as their main subject either yourself, Michelle von Bärlin, or both. There were some 100 images of the both of you in subcategories of Category:Sukhothai, and some 40 others in a few other Thailand categories as far as I know of (approximated these numbers from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hartmann Linge in Thailand and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Michelle von Bärlin in Thailand).
This year's new deletion request of 11 similar out-of-scope images (see here and here) was immediately shot down by admin Marcus Cyron after you posted the following on his talkpage: "Entweder diese stalkerei hört auf, oder es gibt von mir künftig nicht einmal mehr Fotos vom Dreck unter meinen Fingernägeln." (translation: "either this stalking stops or I won't even post photos of the dirt under my fingernails"). Why this indignation? You knew after last year's deletion round that photos like these were viewed as personal holiday snaps and therefore out of scope per Wikimedia policy. As admin Marcus Cyron's writes on his talk page after shooting down the latest deletion requests: "Habe die Bilder jetzt behalten - es ist ja völlig normal, daß Wikim/pedianer sich auch mal zeigen dürfen. Diese Bilder sollten allerdings von begrenzter Zahl bleiben." (translation: "Have kept the images - it's completely normal that Wikim/pedi-ists should be allowed to show themselves. Though these images should of limited numbers."). I have no problem whatsoever with this. But how many images still pass for "limited numbers" or in other words: "a few"? For the ruling admin, 11 images are apparently "a few". For me personally, I'd put the amount at around 5. It's not really based on anything, it's just a feeling of what I would consider "a few". - Takeaway (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
So long as the images exist on commons, it makes sense to keep them in a single category. Takeaway, I would urge you to batch nominate these for deletion. If they are deleted, so should the category be. If not, we keep the category. If they are not nominated for deletion, we should close this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Themightyquill, I was kind of new-ish to DRs back then. I thought I was nominating these images for deletion when I put up the category for deletion. It seems as if those who chimed in also viewed it as such? In any case, admin Marcus Cyron seems to be against having these images deleted so I guess a close would be in order. - Takeaway (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: not done. Category useful to illustrate celebrations in Thailand. Ruthven(msg) 07:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Photographs of São Paulo city by genre" is more descriptive The Photographer (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The suggested title is needlessly lengthy and it is incorrect grammar. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you could visit this and make a better name --The Photographer (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment There are many, many categories named like this that are used the same way. The category name doesn't describe it well, but these categories use the {{Photos}} template to explain what they're for. If one is renamed, all similar ones should also be renamed. I'd have no objection to that, but is it worth the work? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I created this system of gallery inside a category for a better choice of sub-categories. Because it helps users to use a right sub-category instead a crowded mother-category. Especially for non-English speaking users.
For me, the better example is Category:Eiffel tower. There were hundreds (thousands?) of photos in this category. And more and more every month. With this gallery, it is easy to choose a sub-category to use. And the mother-category is now cleaned.
I applied this system to some of the categories that I am following, but other wikipedians do the same in their categories (at least, 6 wikipedians). It is efficient:
Once admitted this principle of galleries inside a category, it is convenient to gather these categories with gallery. So I created the category we are speaking about. To see galleries created by other wikipedians and take good ideas. And to find other categories where a gallery may be added.
That is why I think that the present category should be kept. --Tangopaso (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The system that you are using is not the way that categories where designed for. Categories are a navigational tool with the text and image content generally kept to a minimum.
If images were all correctly subcategorised and we had a better compliment of gallery pages the problem that you are addressing would not exist. Also, a picture says a thousand words so in theory having an image is a good way of illustrating what is in a subcategory but in practice it does not seem to work. The ideal is that every topic should have a gallery page for every language but that is quite some time down the track. If you are interested in gallery pages please join the Commons:WikiProject Gallery pages which I recently set up. Alan Liefting (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Are there cases where the community concluded that "using images to illustrate concepts" on category pages hasn't worked? Where may I see the discussions? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that there are no such discussions. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I think it may be useful to have a hidden category for these things, but would a better title be "Categories with navigational galleries"? The purpose of the galleries is actually a form of navigation so having this new title would make it much clearer. As I stated on the other page, I agree with what User:Paris 16 said about these navigational galleries being useful for non-English speakers. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
That will not address User:Tangopasos concerns about those who do not understand English. Alan Liefting (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment I was not speaking about people who do not understand English at all, but people who do not well understand English.--Tangopaso (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The navigational galleries have the external purpose of assisting those who do not understand English. The category has the internal purpose of organizing/keeping track of the navigational galleries. I have already added flag and AIGA pictogram symbols to categories to help illustrate them. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep For the above reasons and I find these galleries aid quick and simple navigation and are better at doing this then a gallery page whose main purpose is just to display images. Oxyman (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not true that "a gallery page .... main purpose is just to display images". Gallery pages should have the images as well as captions, section, links, etc. Alan Liefting (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It is made implicit by calling these pages galleries that the central purpose of them is display. As navigational aids they fall short especially if you have to leave the Category system, go to a gallery page then return to the category system. An unnecessary use of extra navigating that removing these category based galleries would impose upon the user. That's assuming the gallery has been designed and maintained in order for the user do do this. Most users here will know that the contents and quality of gallery pages varies massively. You may say you intend to improve the galleries but there is a mammoth task to do to get them up to a consistent quality and I doubt that this will happen anytime soon. It is stated at the top of this page that "There is a strong consensus for deletion (Of the category based galleries)" but just saying that doesn't make it true and I do not see that on the links provided at the top of this page or in the discussions on this page. Oxyman (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the quality of the gallery pages is really poor, especially the under-development, but I am thinking longer term to when the gallery pages are better developed. If this discussion deems these categories to be unneeded we should make the member categies at priority for creating galery pages. Alan Liefting (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I am skeptical that there will ever be enough interest in developing the galleries and even if there was they would still not be as useful as the category based galleries in aiding quick and easy navigation. Oxyman (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
When thinking about en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Commons_questions I think I am in favor of Keeping these navigational aids. One of the complaints is that one has to go too far deep into the categories to get the necessary images. Having navigational aids may make it less necessary to have to dig down so far every time. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep: It’s useful to characterize and list together categories where this alternative way of chosing subcats is used. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 14:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep: If someone wants to enhance categories this way, he should be allowed to do so. (Maybe we have a better solution in the future but in the meantime I'm for keeping these.)--Zaccarias (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Kept per clear consensus. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This category should be deleted with all its subcategories (including Category:Словарь русских слов and all its subcategories).
The main category violates project scope - Commons is for files, Wiktionary is for dictionaries. It is an incomplete (so inferior) duplicate of Category:Russian pronunciation.
I'm wondering if this is overcategorization, dividing a Year in City up into months. What do others think? Mjrmtg (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Was just trying to remove the clutter of displaying 12 separate cats in an overall Miami by year cat which will develop and grow with further work. Ardfern (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I just don't know how beneficial it is to have photos in Miami (or any other city) divided up by month/year, especially when some months only have a few photos. --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete@Ardfern: I agree with Mjrmtg on this. This starts in 2008, and in every case that I checked, it ends up replacing a single category with ~100 images (for that year) to a category with 12 sub-categories, each of which usually has less than 10 images. An unnecessary complication. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. These by-month categories aren't serving any useful purpose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
@Themightyquill: Now the category is empty. @Rimshot: Dissociation is a concept, so it's possible, that we don't have any files yet.--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kopiersperre: I'm not sure if I misunderstood or you did. The images I linked to are ones uses on wikipedia to illustrate Dissociation (chemistry) and related articles. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
As we seem to have files for the chemistry meaning, but none for the medical meaning, a rename (with redirect) to Category:Dissociation (chemistry) should be enough. Once we get files for the other meaning too, Category:Dissociation can be made into a disambiguation. --rimshottalk 23:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: We can do a disambiguation page, but "dissociative disorders" are not "dissociation". The category tree is a big ontology, but a not an associative "see also" structure.--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Sorry, I'n not a native speaker. I mean't, that there are indeed no arguments against a dab page, but this might only lead to files placed in the dab category. Without the category, people would get suggested "Dissociative disorders" when typing "Dissociat.." in HotCat.--Kopiersperre (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It's pointless to maintain a category which contains only one image; such categories should only exist to contain multiple images Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
This category will shortly contain multiple images, I'm actively categorising images from around Dundee, identifying listed buildings and other buildings of interest where no photos exist and uploading material from Flickr or my own collections to rectify gaps in our coverage. Nick (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I think almost twelve months is long enough to populate a category, if it is to be *actively* populated. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nick: Over two years later, the category contains only one image. Is it really necessary? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm disappointed it hasn't been further populated. I'll have a look and see if there are any more images available. Nick (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
And having looked to see, there's still no more freely licensed images available. We can always re-create the category but for now, moving the one image back to the parent category will be sufficient. Nick (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This category should be deleted. Its concept is completely absurd - what is so Polish about all these groats photos? You cannot say what is the country origin of the photographed groats seed, plus what would be the benefit? Groats from every country looks the same. Even the name of the category sounds idiotic for me. Would a piece of groats cooked by a Russian on the Polish country territory belong here? What's the sense?
Subcategories like "Polish porridge food" should belong to appropriate categories like "Polish food" or something like this. Derbethtalk 06:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The use of German for the category name to be out of place; per Commons:Categories#Category_names, it would seem that the English equivalent for the depicted self-rescuer devices in the category would be more appropriate. (The Google Translate service translates Filterselbstretter to "Filter self-rescuer" in English, but it is likely that a better translation could be done by a user who understands both German and English.) Gazebo (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
According to DIN 58647-7 it should be named as "Respiratory protective devices for self-rescue" or if you want to follow the appropriate standardisation working group NA 027-02-04 AA, it could also be named as "Occupational respiratory protective devices" --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
(copied from talk page)
This is a no doubt to be heated discussion about whether this should be deleted. I propose it should. I would argue that given it has always been the ecclesiastical parishes which help set boundaries in those areas without civil parishes, whether a place has or has not got its own (very limited powers) civil parish council is by-the-by? I have often argued successfully in en:wikipedia that places should be grouped, unless a breakaway with lots of amenities has taken place, by ecclesiastical or civil parish. However once again everywhere has one of these, so all is not lost if you don't have a CP, in fact I understand it means you don't pay a small council tax surcharge known as a precept every year.
Ward boundaries are unsatisfactory as electoral and change every 8-12 years to equalise electorate to prevent malapportionment. Post towns are often a whole level above and large numbers of people are in the outskirts or particularly a major hub of a big one, such as in parts of Liverpool, Leeds, Bath, Leicester or Manchester) accordingly we do not categorise those here. So I am not proposing a substitute. England is a complex patchwork of perhaps over-administration like Germany and France but it is not satisfactory to entrench that situation further.Adam37 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you are saying. When setting the council tax all areas get a rate- the majority are unparished- the minority have a CP, but when the document is published more paper is wasted on the individual CPs than the general figure. When changing civil ward boundaries- then those boundaries are set in stone- you can't equalise numbers by shifting the parish boundary, but can join different CPs to make a ward. The strongest boundary is that between CP and unparished. Identifying eg Chatham as unparished stops the user searching for a non-existant CP. It tidies up a large corner. (Dormant canine principle)
What use they are to as a classifying tool though beats me- how you would use them to search for anything is beyond me. Subdividing a cat like Buildings and structures in Medway- into each of the wretched parish councils seems to make it more difficult to find the image you need. To look for a good image of a Norman Church on the Hoo peninsula- involves looking at St Mary's Hoo, and Grain and Hoo St Werburgh+3 more. No doubt it is helpful in some subcats in a rural county- but I don't edit there.
Why do you want to rm it- what good will it do? --ClemRutter (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment I do not really understand the original post here - (what is the objective? is it to get rid of this category specifically, or civil parish (CP) categories as a whole? A few comments:
Commons does not care about the administration, or taxation, of England. All we care about is providing a systematic way of identifying where something is.
CPs are a convenient subdivision of local authorities, and have relatively stable boundaries. Furthermore, they are used for subdividing districts into manageable areas for searches (for instance by English Heritage). That is precisely the sort of thing we need to handle the millions of Geograph images. Therefore Category:Civil parishes in England is a valuable category.
CPs are distinct from modern ecclesiastical parishes, which are only really relevant to Church of England material (eg RC parishes also exist)
As said by the OP, electoral wards are too unstable for categorisation. Post towns are not useful either - they are obsolete, and do not respect county boundaries, so could cause unnecessary confusion.
County-level subject categories (eg Category:Buildings in Kent) should not normally be subdivided by parish. By town/city, maybe yes (regardless of if its a CP or not), rural parish no.
A significant proportion of England does not have CPs (mostly urban areas). These areas are often referred to as "unparished areas" within local government (example. It makes sense for us to label non-CP areas in a parallel manner to the CP tree. As ClemRutter says, it could prevent time wasted looking for a CP.
One concern is identification of "unparished areas". Some areas that are unparished consist of several adjacent towns. For example in Medway, there is one contiguous unparished area which contains Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham. Should that be treated as one area or three? Fort Darnet is in the same contiguous area - but its hard to justify placing it in any of the towns - so where should it go? The point is Chatham is unparished, but is Chatham an "unparished area"?
I'm not sure how to define membership of this category - and maybe there is a better way of saying "this place is in England, but not in a CP" than to try to say "this place is an unparished area".--Nilfanion (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't make it worse by bringing in the concept of a rural parish! A city and a town council can be a CP see: List of civil parishes in Herefordshire for a totally parished modern county. Civil parishes in Greater Manchester gives explains what a CP area is and that in GM 94.8% of the population live in Unparished areas. I would like to say that CPs have been useless since 1930- but in Ross-on-Wye the council and the mayor is very important. The only way it applies to classifying images is in the negative sense I have described. But you can't just decide to ignor a level of local government because it is too big to be a CP which is notable- so must be not notable. Good luck, I have never used the cat myself and will stubbornly continue that practice. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Rural parishes are both easy (readily determined on maps, long term stable borders etc) and useful (they are ideal for subdividing up the rural landscape). Urban parishes have the same properties where they exist, though they can be less stable - the parish boundary is the town boundary in many cases. These are positive reasons for using CP cats - how else could you objectively say where this field except by saying what administrative units cover it?
Unparished areas are more problematic, because all that means is the absence of a parish. It does not mean a single unparished area is a single entity - administratively or practically.
For instance, consider Bradford: Its mostly unparished, except for a single parish. That Parish (Trident) contains half a dozen estates SW of the city centre. "Bradford" is a logical unit. "Trident CP" is a logical unit. "Bradford minus Trident CP" is the unparished area, but is a completely useless area to consider.
So how would the unparished bits of Bradford get included in this category? Category:Bradford does not belong (because it is not wholly unparished). Should the individual elements of Bradford get included? How is that helpful? The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to Delete this, while retaining the CP tree.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Playing devils advocate- I looked for a difficult case on the Frindsbury/Frindsbury Extra border ( a ward border we could not change due to CP boundaries being set in stone). This is an image I found. A classic case of wanting to Cat-a-lot into.... where... Unparished areas of Gillingham, while others in Category:Frindsbury Extra could be dropped into Unparished areas of Chatham. A point- just using the map tools- it is difficult to visually find out the boundaries of the CP- which certainly would be useful.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Um, that image is nowhere near Frindsbury? Only reason its in the Frindsbury Extra cat is the poor quality of the bot guess work. As Gillingham and Chatham are unparished in their entirety there is no need to have the two categories you mention, they are redundant to the main cats for the towns.
As for using map tools: Don't use OSM or Google, but click on the coordinates to bring up this list. Bing UK, StreetMap and OS Get-a-map all provide the 1:25,000 scale OS map series - which have the CPs marked. Further down, MaPit provides a lookup to all current areas containing that location (the bench is in Hempstead and Wigmore ward).
I've also added {{GeoGroupTemplate}} to Frindsbury Extra, as this makes it easier to see. All the ones south of the Medway are wrong, while the ones north of the river are correct. The exception is this which is in Hoo St Weburgh.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying Nilfanion and for all of the useful tools. You can see the undercurrent in the majority of counties, which is a connotation. Unparished areas in Hampshire makes them sound inferior in my view. Particularly in the context of the fact they do of course have ecclesiastical equivalents covering them and, a fortiori, RC (and other) church rival parishes. Of course I do not propose any categorising by church parish, this is the 21st century, however a little disambiguation (such as non-parished (CP) areas in ...) might be a workable solution. I am sure this sounds like an estate agent, however there is much to be said for remembering that everywhere (bar tiny little pockets of land) had a parish and to be unparished was a great problem. Indeed it made people suspect, often transient and (more well-known) it led to everywhere parished in the 19th century. I was always taught by a headmaster it is not so much what words denote, but what they connote. Adam37 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of connotation- I am sure most local government officers at district and county level regard 'Unparished' in the same light as 'Unrestricted' or 'Un-encumbered'- if you look at parish council membership- the same names keep coming up with a 'feudal' regularity- and are often co-opted rather than elected as no-one could be persuaded to stand. I don't like the term 'Rural PC' as it has no meaning in law- though RDC and UDC did have meaning- and the UDCs were more likely to have got the laws passed to de-parish their patch. To me Unparished areas in Hampshire means sucessfully de-parished area in Hampshire! But back to the future: Are CP useful for classifying photos? Yes. Are Unparished areas useful for classifying photos? It depends on the County- usually no. Is a classification system that only includes 50%/ 30% of the area of a county- logically complete? Well no. Is there a better system? Probably not.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. I see the nuisance you mention in the last point Clem. Tandridge DC for example actively promote the parishes and their (albeit limited) activites on their rural website. Quite typically but in more development-friendly authorities and outside of the Green Belt particularly you are correct, parishes are regarded often with hate by the officer class, mainly in that their consultations and large votes can and do persuade the Planning Inspectorate often not to allow urbanisation or indeed much-lobbied for infrastructure. But we are descending into whether small level localism is a good thing. The point is unparished is such a grating term to those aware of any history or even intuitively with that horrible sound 'un' being unqualified at all.Adam37 (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
IMO, I see no need to clarify what we mean by "unparished". The term is used for areas not covered by CPs in legislation, and it is certainly a commonly used term. "Extra-parochial" is used by CofE to describe areas outside its parishes (eg Westminster Abbey).
My concern is how to identify the areas. A CP is a well-defined subdivision of a larger unit. In contrast, unparished areas are merely the bits left over after parishes are removed. That area only has any meaning if its the entire district. That means unparished areas are likely to be meaningful and well-defined, precisely when that parish-level information is irrelevant (ie in districts with no parishes). eg The "unparished area of Gillingham" and the "unparished area of Chatham" are meaningful but poorly-defined (where is the boundary?), while the "unparished area of the Borough of Medway" is well-defined but meaningless.
Another factor to consider are charter trustees. eg The Charter Trustees for the City of Chester cover the all of the electoral wards of the city, and is the natural label to label "Chester". That area is not unparished, as it includes Chester Castle CP.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd keep it simple to 'non-civil parished areas in Kent'. Fire and so on are kept Kent. The idea that we emphasise unparished with everywhere I have actually highlighted with Surrey, it looks a ridiculous list of everywhere from Great & Little Bookham through to Woking being unparished and suggests totally lacking any history which could not be further from the truth in respect of everywhere!Adam37 (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Opposethat. "Unparished area" is the most commonly used term by a significant distance. I can't see how calling something "unparished" is at all perjorative, nor does it imply a lack of history. By necessity some counties will have a lot of locations in that list (mostly conurbations without town councils), while others have none at all.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The present unparished areas were created by the local government changes in 1973. They almost entirely relate to former municipal boroughs, county boroughs and urban districts which were considered by the then Conservative government to be "too large" to be civil parishes". Many have subsequently been parished (such as Hereford, Shrewsbury and Salisbury). There is little doubt that people still retain an affinity to the former borough, rather than to a larger district, and in the Medway examples quoted, I suspect you will find that people think of themselves first of all living in "Chatham" or "Gillingham" rather than "Medway". And if you are searching for an image of Chatham, do you really want to have to look through hundreds (thousands?) of irrelevant images of Gillingham or Rochester to find them? The former borough/urban district boundaries are mapped at Vision of Britain Through Time, which can be accessed from the map links page that Nilfanion highlighted. You need to input the area you are looking for ("Chatham") in the search box. At the next page choose "Units and statistics" from the left-hand menu, then at the next page under "Units named after this place" select "Chatham MB" (standing for Chatham Municipal Borough). This will take you to the page for the Municipal Borough of Chatham, where you can select "Boundary map" from the left-hand menu. The map will then display with the former borough's area highlighted, and can be enlarged to provide more detail. It takes a little getting used to, and you need to be careful to select the pre-1974 authorities rather than somewhere that was abolished in the 1930s, but you soon get the hang of it. If unsure, go back to where you selected "Boundary map" and at the top of the page select the "Relationships and changes" tag, which will show you that the Municipal Borough of Chatham was abolished in 1974.
Incidentally Clem, ward boundaries can (and do) cross civil parish boundaries, but a separate civil parish ward must be created for the area transferred to the "foreign" district ward. As these can be extremely small, they are generally not favoured and are often used as an interim measure until the civil parish boundary can be changed, as happened in Cannock Chase a few years back. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep, as parishes cover most rural land but often not urban land. Where land is parished the pages are categorized under the parish (or further still if needed, for example Category:Nedging-with-Naughton, where a parish includes other settlements). Where the land is not parished e.g. Category:Borough of Ipswich the pages can be categorized under the ward (and under further subcategories (for the settlemts for example)). I think that this should be kept as would be useful in determining what pages go where and so that it can be clarified what areas are parished. Because of the fact that these have official boundaries (due to the parish boundaries) then they are officially recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep, at least for the present. Valuable finding information, that I want to move into Wikidata. Jheald (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Just an extra layer of categories. We don't generally have "STYLENAME buildings" categories; buildings go in "STYLENAME architecture" categories directly. See Category:Greek Revival architecture, for example. This could be renamed "Empire architecture by building type" or something of the sort, but Empire architecture is small enough already that it doesn't need a meta-level category. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Unlike the name suggest, this category links actually free screenshots with Wikimedia Trademark. Is better to rename this category to one that request the removal of non-free elements of free screenhots, and use this name for actually Non-free screenshots that are categorized under Copyright violations that must be speedely deleted.. Amitie 10g (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ordinary DRs or {{Copyvio}}s (speedy) should be enough. Screenshots can be tricky, if there's nothing to see (originality, de minimis, etc.) –Be..anyone (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@84user: Could you suggest a clearer category name, or should we just delete it? It seems rather ineffective at the moment. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Leonel Sohns: It's not a vote. If there's a reason to keep this, please let me know, otherwise it will soon be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment, it's an international project, I fear your English suggestion makes it worse for a French word also used in Germany. I'd put "ToiToi", a company leasing movable rooms consisting of the object in a category:toilets (silly example, but certainly no "washroom";-) –Be..anyone (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for your input, Be..anyone. While I accept your point, however, I'm not sure where that gets us. Firstly, toilette also means both an object and a room in both German and French. Second, surely there are plenty of other languages that don't use the world toilet - and that's why commons uses English for its categorization scheme. International descriptors in each category can help. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 for international descriptors, and COM:REDCAT where applicable. Folks must find the correct category with a simple search, otherwise they make them up as they go. A remotely related CFD might be Traffic cops, fortunately hopping straight from jargon to Victorian English won't be necessary in that case. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Be..anyone. What are the first two? They're not Category:Restrooms (seems like a euphemism) or Category:Bathrooms, are they? And the second are not portable toilets. (I'm not familiar with all the categories available for toilets. But when I put one in Category:Public toilets, I noticed this discussion.) They're not Category:Toilets (objects), are they? EChastain (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The fourth, "Hand-made toilets in Indonesia" are local constructions, devices built over a stream for use as a toilet. The third I wouldn't think of as a "Washroom". (In fact, couldn't a "Washroom" be a "Laundry room also?) I never hear the term used for a room that contains a toilet, personally. EChastain (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
My problem is finding that these categories exist as options. Are all these options under "Toilets" or some other central place? (Problems come from options listed under a cat where I wouldn't look to begin with, like "Washrooms".) I'm new to thinking about all this, just trying to put some cats on images yesterday. I'll have to check out Category:Privies, as I don't know what those are. There is a cat for Category:Dry toilets, but what about the storage containers that aren't really toilets, like the first two for example?
Chamber for storage of dried feces
Container for dried feces is in "Dry toilets"
this is already in "Dry toilets" but could be a "latrine" or "outhouse".
This was under ""Latrines in Ouagadougou" and "Urine", but it's a well for drawing water.
Should go under "Toilet by type"?
Pit latrine according to its description
This look like they're "portable toilets" but in practice they're not.
The problem with Category:Outhouses or Category:Portable toilets is their application to Africa. "Outhouses" is more of a western term, and would apply to most African "toilets" outside of cities and large towns, I think. The term "latrine" is more common there. And toilets that look like "Portable toilets" aren't moved around but are generally in a fixed place. And I haven't run into anything that would fit into Category:Washrooms yet. If a cat like Category:Portable toilets is nested under "Washrooms", I'd never look there to begin with, nor under "Bathrooms". EChastain (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to accommodate all rural dialects from English-speaking areas of Africa and elswhere. I agree that outhouses is more of a western term, but if it would apply to African "toilets" outside cities and large towns, then I don't see that as a huge problem. Latrine might be more common (which country in Africa are you speaking about, by the way? Surely it varies from place to place?) but latrine means an enormous number of different things in different countries. That said, if "latrine" essentially means "outhouse" in (for example) Zambia, maybe we could solve that issue by using Category:Latrines in Zambia as a subcategory of both Category:Outhouses by country *and* Category:Latrines by country?
I think Category:Portable toilets could apply even if something is never moved. (Many Mobile homes are rarely if ever moved, but they *can* be if necessary.) Maybe that category could also be placed in Category:Human waste as well.
I agree that that its difficult to find categories for all these variations. On en:wiki Portable toilets "are simple portable enclosures containing a Chemical toilet (a toilet bowl filled with disinfectant instead of water) which are typically used as a temporary toilet for construction sites or large gatherings because of their durability and convenience." So I don't think pit latrines and other "toilets" that aren't moved, even if visually they look like they "could be moved", can be considered "portable toilets", unless there's evidence to the contrary.
On en:wiki, Washroom is redirected to Public toilet, Outhouse has a rather specific application, while Latrine, which is a translated French article and needs fix-up, is more general. There's no article on Privy, but the disambig page says it an "Outhouse". Bathroom is "a room for personal hygiene, generally containing a bathtub or a shower, and possibly also a bidet." And hot and cold water. I wish others that are not North American would weigh in. We want categories that are useful to others, so we want category names that others can follow. The top category, under which you're proposing subcategories, has to be called something that everyone understands the meaning of. On en:wiki, that seems to be "Toilet". There are many articles using toilet in the title. For example (I don't think I've found them all.)
What should be our criteria for determining the usefulness of these categories for those who are looking for images? EChastain (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Themightyquill - Looking around more, I'm beginning to think you"re about something like "Sanitation" should be the overall cat. EChastain (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
EChastain - I was under the impression that the structures in this picture fit that definition of portable toilets even if they are never moved, but if I understand correctly now, they have pits below them? So they are really not designed to be moved. They definitely don't fit under portable toilets in that case. Sorry for that confusion!
From what I see on English wikipedia they have en:Toilet (room) for all private (household/hotel room/etc) washrooms, and en:Public toilet for all washrooms for use by the general public, regardless of form. They have en:Latrine but it offers a pretty open definition, and a separate article for en:Pit latrine with a more specific meaning. en:Toilet refers to the object. Toilet (the object) and Toilet (room) are both in en:Category:Toilets, but Toilet (room) and Public toilet are both also in en:Category:Bathrooms which is only in Category:Bathing. In short, they have a lot more people working on this than we do, and their categorization scheme is still kind of weak. =)
Themightyquill, I agree with you. I'm trying to get feedback on en:wiki from the WikiProject Sanitation and was asked to join so I did. I was contacted by EvM-Susana who suggested this Flickr link as the way such images were classified there. I have to take a closer look at that. EChastain (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Public bathroom, Paris
I just found this discussion while cleaning the Category:Urinals now placed under Category:Health care and splitted into 1.) Urinal containers (portable), 2.) Urinal plumbing fixtures, 3.) Urinals (public facilities) and 4.) the sustainable stuff (urine collection containers ...). May I suggest to place toilets also under Category:Health care and split the category into
Portable toilets
Bedpans
portable public toilets
toilets (plumbing fixtures)
Public toilets (rooms, public facilities)
N.B. Public bathroom is not understandable for german or french speakers, nor is it, I guess, for english speakers (see: en:Public bathroom disambiguation). --Bohème (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bohème: : I think your scheme above might work, but what about toilets (as in the room) that aren't public? Like a washroom in a private home or a hotel room? There are actually a fair number of these. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, coming from England I would understand "Public bathroom" or "Public washroom" to mean the sort of indoor public baths that are common in Russia or Hungary (maybe even Turkish baths and other types of steam room), or the "slipper baths" that used to be common in public swimming pools in the United Kingdom built in Victorian times, and would not expect toilets to figure at all in that category. "Washroom" over here would tend to suggest a public laundry, and again would have no connection with toilets. Coming back to the original questions, do we even need a Category:Toilets in public toilets. Could the the images not be placed in both Category:Public toilets and Category:Toilets (objects)? To Bohème, I would point out that Category:Toilets is already a subcategory of Category:Sanitation which is a subcategory of Category:Health, which seems appropriate (toilets are related to health but not really to health care). Skinsmoke (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: 'Toilets' are for ablutions, which can usually include personal body waste evacuation, cleansing, washing, showering, and areas with facilities that can be used for make-up and dressing. The Brit 'toilet', the almost universal euphemism for evacuation units, is woolly nonsense, as is the American restroom and bathroom; both are designed to be as 'tastefully' innocuous as possible. So Toilets could be those areas with above defined facilities. Where evacuation areas exist within toilets, then 'Lavatories' could be used, which itself can include 'Water closets', 'Urinals' and other types of units receiving body waste. External lavatories as sheds or portable 'toilet' units could be 'Latrines'. However, 'Toilets' is so generally misused but accepted by those with delicate dispositions that I think changes to properly specific and descriptive terms will be resisted, and Wikimedia changes immense. For those who believe that languages other than English should be taken into account, the prime language focus on Wikimedia is English. As there seems to be no consensus since January, is there a case for just removing the banner, accepting the inadequate fuzzy terminology. Acabashi (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree, time to remove the discussion banner. When someone searches for 'toilet' they will be presented with the gallery page with alternative categories. Living in the UK, I expect to find images of lavatories and public toilets, with images of general bathrooms (with showers, baths, sinks etc.) or urinals under linked categories. --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I agreed with Themightyquill that it should be split.
My suggestion: Toilets for the device and Lavatories/Toilet rooms/Toilets (room) for the room.--Roy17 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Adding my two cents here, in Canadian English "washroom" refers to any room with a toilet and is used much like the word "restroom" in American English. Chess (User talk:Chess) Please ping when replying. 02:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chess--- In norwegian a washroom/vaskerom would be a separate room(/facility) in private household or public areas where you keep washing machine/laundromat, store cleaning chemicals/mops and have plumbing for the the bucket outlet/garden hose. Its funny how some words are used differently over the world. Anders (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
There currently exist Category:Toilets (for the functional device), Category:Bathrooms (for rooms containing the device), and Category:Toilet buildings (for entire structures devoted to the role). There does not appear to be any clear consensus to change either this basic structure or adopt specific new names for any of these three categories, and discussion appears to have petered out. Thus, we can close this discussion at this point. If there is a more specific proposal to be made, it can be done as a new CfD. Josh (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Josh. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with that, for sure. Josh (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This is the whole problem. Depending on who you ask, "bathroom" can mean "room with toilet fixture" but can also mean "room with bath (with or without toilet fixture". The same problem with "washroom". Depending on who you ask, "toilet" can mean the plumbing fixture or the room containing the plumbing fixture. Even if we separate them (somehow), we also need to figure out what to use as the base category. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
fwiw, I'll offer a perspective from a different language. In Chinese, the device is 馬桶 (enwp is toilet), the facility for pee and poo is 廁所 (toilet (room)), and the facility for showering is 浴室 (bathroom).
In this analogy, maybe the device cat can be "toilets (device)", the facility can be "toilets (room)", the showering/bathing place can be "bathrooms".
Keep No promotional at all; It is a proper brand category under Category:Synthesizers by brand, even you removed it at 22:03, 3 January 2015. Note: I've maintained hundreds of guitar/synthesizer brand categories since several years ago, however, I've never seen this type of deletion request (i.e. removing proper categories, then claim it as promotional spam). --Clusternote (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Done as REDCAT by Butko (just close the CFD if nothing else remains to be done.) –Be..anyone (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete. --ThePolish 00:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
–Be..anyone (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
–Be..anyone (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Question do we have other categories that hold information from EXIF data? If yes, they should probably grouped together somewhere in a common (hidden) category. I can see the reason for the current naming, but I still think that this is confusing. What about something like Category:Lens focal length according to EXIF data? (just for the main meta category, I have absolutely no problem with the subcats). At the very least, there should be a proper category description.
Comment Yes, of course. Since someone added Exposure time as category to some of my images, I begun to add the four category types for ISO speed, lens focal length, Exposure time and F-number. They all depend to the EXIF data. Additionaly I'm using camera and lens from EXIF data. --XRay talk 16:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
–Be..anyone (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Renaming to Category:WikiProject Paris per Wikipedia.--Paris 16 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose the deletion. We use categories to group similar pages, so other can find them. All pages in those categories still need to be categorized. Your arguments suggest you do not like the category name, but if you do not like the name and want to rename the category than you should suggest a name you would like to replace it with. If you come out with more clear name, I would support the renaming. --Jarekt (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
and if you won't then you capricious lack of principle is proven. when i take things to flickr it is precisely to keep them away from wikicommons. what education do you have? have you graduated high school? have you ever taken a picture? what qualifies you to make any judgement about photographs or education? i am sick and tired of the parasitic "digital maoism" that can't actually do anything, but will fight to the death to throw rocks at everyone else's work. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC).jpg)
Not done: Lack of consensus for deletion of this category. --Achim (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Pit latrines in Cameroon
Public toilets in Ghana
Toilet in a slum interior
Hand-made toilets in Indonesia
Squat toilet house in Sri Lanka.jpg)
Chamber for storage of dried feces
Container for dried feces is in "Dry toilets"
this is already in "Dry toilets" but could be a "latrine" or "outhouse".
This was under ""Latrines in Ouagadougou" and "Urine", but it's a well for drawing water.
Should go under "Toilet by type"?
Pit latrine according to its description.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Toilet interior? That sounds like plumbing, no?
Baños Parque Central
.jpg){kind=small}
_Wat_Chetuphon.jpg){kind=link}
_Wat_Chetuphon.jpg){kind=link}
_(14594519040).jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
