Category:Lindau (Insel)

The current name uses a German term for disambiguation, which violates the language policy. This could either be fixed by translating the disambiguation term (i.e. moving the category to Category:Lindau (island)) or by naming the category after the district (i.e. moving it to Category:Insel (Lindau); my preferred option).    FDMS  4    18:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lindau (island) seems correct. -- Kürschner (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"Insel" isn't a district. Meant is the island Lindau which nowadays is only part of the city of Lindau. Therefore Category:Lindau (island) seems correct in my opinion, too. -- Ies (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support (island). --Achim (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Lindau (island), thanks for the input!    FDMS  4    13:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Beaver Lake

Should be deleted - could cause confusion with lakes in multiple states by this name. Varnent (talk)^(COI) 07:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There are only 3 matching category names on Commons, therefore I made a disambiguation. --Achim (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Kept and converted the redirect to a disambig. --Achim (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jet Petroleum

Duplicate of Category:Jet (petrol brand) with lower content Christian Giersing ^(da:) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Jet (petrol brand). --Achim (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Luzon Sukezaemon

Category that has become empty by the movement of the file. To request the deletion.--M-sho-gun (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tell tales

I can't figure out what this category is for. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with en:Tell-tale. Was it meant to be Tall Tales? Themightyquill (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Themightyquill: it only contains material related to en:Baron Munchausen, so yes, it should be en:Tall tales. --El Grafo (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it was a mistake. It should have been Category:Tall tales. --Anika (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolvedmoved cat --Anika (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved by Anika and deleted by Krd 5 June 2016. --Achim (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Rhodopis

Wenn ich das richtig sehe, ist Rhodopis eine Gattung der Kolibris, also Vögel. Die Category:Rhodopis steckt in der Oberkategorie Erythrininae. Erythrininae sind aber Pflanzen! Bitte neu Kategorisieren. Auch Phaseoleae sind Pflanzen. Diese sind genau wie Erythrininae in der Hierarchie-Template eingangs erwähnt. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Arnaud, danke für den Hinweis, ich hab die Ursache revertiert. War wohl schiefgelaufen, weil es 2 Rhodopis gibt: species:Rhodopis. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Done: Reverted bad cat move. --Achim (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Uploaded UploadWizard ile

Empty category, doesn't seem useful. Contained four random files before I re-categorized them. Matma Rex (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --E4024 (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No opposition in two weeks. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:UploadWizard 업로드

Empty category, doesn't seem useful. Contained one file before I re-categorized it. Matma Rex (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No opposition in two weeks. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:UploadWizardをアップロード

Empty category, doesn't seem useful. Contained four random files before I re-categorized them. Matma Rex (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No opposition in two weeks. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:UploadWizard ile yüklendi

Empty category, doesn't seem useful. Contained three random files before I re-categorized them. Matma Rex (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No opposition in two weeks. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Deanne Panday

Is it the same category than "Category:Deanne Pandey"? Caméléon Diaphane (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Per amazon Panday seems to be the correct variant. --Achim (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The accounts on twitter, facebook and instagram say Panday as well, see also the name of her husband en:Chikki Panday. I will move the cat. --Achim (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved Category:Deanne Pandey to Category:Deanne Panday leaving a redirect. --Achim (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Unverifiable

Named badly. What shall that mean? Achim (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly curious. @Jos1950: Can you explain how Category:Unverifiable is a sub-category of Category:Images of the Dominican Republic ? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Translated with Google

Unverifiable I created for myself. with the intention expanded to look at that later, this accelerates the monitoring of the entire "Category: Dominican Republic". Someone has linked to a general category of control, leaving now wipe out about. Unverifiable is not "Category: Dominican Republic" because the files in it, after an inspection, not be placed with certainty in a category DR.

A description as e.g. "A beach, a mountain or park in the DR" is no guarantee that it is so. Nice and easy, so I can from Flikr upload more files without knowing whether it is true. If Commons really appreciates the truth of a file, these types of files should be ocurrence.

If I files in the "Category: Dominican Republic" encounter that have a general description and does not check (on the Internet), I place it in Unverifiable. I live in the DR and am very interested in history and by regularly in various places.

So I have discovers example congestion "File:USMC, 1922, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic 10 of 26 (6226921413).jpg", "File:USMC Band, 1922, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic 16 of 26 (6226960101).jpg" and "File:USMC, 1922, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic 17 of 26 (6226960111).jpg" have large deviations in the building, even though they are from the same year. This can be caused by assembly or by changes in the environment, but contains parts herein that are not right. Compare the location of the gabled roof of "File:Building in Zona Colonial.jpg" and location of the barracks of "File:USMC Band, 1922-16.jpg" with the location "File:USMC, 1922-10.jpg" or the mane gate construction to "File:USMC, 1922-17" which is different from the "File:USMC, 1922-10" or the back of the tower to "File:USMC, 1922-10.jpg" which in "File:USMC band 1922-16.jpg" has disappeared. Because these files are from a series I will look no further for the time being to it.

I hope I can explain why I Unverifiable have made. --Jos1950 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, Jos1950. Si he entendido bien, la categoría es para las imágenes que dicen ser de la República Dominicana, pero la ubicación exacta no está clara. ¿Podemos crear Category:Unidentified locations in the Dominican Republic para que pueda utilizar en su lugar? Se puede ver en Category:Unidentified locations in Spain como funciona: "Esta categoría contiene archivos de location en España sin identificar, sin clasificar, desconocidos o mal etiquetados." - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

May also in English (I'm Dutch) haha but writing is very bad. Therefore I use Google Translate.
Good idea, I'll apply for a rename and thereby refer to this post. --Jos1950 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hah! Too funny. Between your username (which I assumed was short for Jose) and the category in question, I just assumed. The challenges of working on an international project with people you don't know! Bedankt voor uw begrip. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Op een andere plaats heb ik een deel van mijn doopnaam gebruikt "Joan" en daar denkt men dat ik een zij ben. By the way, the name is very old, but I don't feel old, so you (je) or you (jij) is also good. In order Dutch, English, Spanish or German is fine. --Jos1950 (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Category moved to Category:Unidentified locations in the Dominican Republic. Deleting Category:Unverifiable. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:TRA Sorth-Link Line

Move this category to Category:TRA South-Link Line. The present spelling is wrong. For more, see en:South-Link Line.--Liji (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

這的確是拼字錯誤的問題，非常感謝指正，本人會立即修正。--玄史生 (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Category deleted by 玄史生 and Krd. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Große Konfektschale mit Hirsch im Gehege

please remove ambiguous category! there is another Große Konfektschale mit Hirsch im Gehege in the same collection with another inventory number Marsupium (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Nomination by creator not long after creation. @Marsupium: Feel free to use {{Bad name}} if you make such mistakes in the future. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jupitergigantensäule Hausen an der Zaber

cat should be deleted, replaced by Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber Gerd Leibrock (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted in favour of Category:Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber. Nomination by creator not long after creation. @Gerd Leibrock: Feel free to use {{Bad name}} if you make such mistakes in the future. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Beaches in Pembrokeshire

Appears to be created in error, a duplicate of Category:Beaches of Pembrokeshire. Would suggest the contents are merged, if there's a clever bot that can do this easily! --Sionk (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This really doesn't need a CfD, which I will speedily close and merge the content as proposed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Anal balls in use

fuck wet all girls 63.143.116.182 05:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• This can be safely closed. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing as nonsense nomination. Themightyquill (talk) - 08:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tigridia acesta

Die Category:Tigridia acesta steckt in der Oberkategorie Category:Tigridia. Bitte entferne diese Kategorie. Tigrida sind Pflanzen. Tigridia acesta ist offensichtlich ein Schmetterling. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep the bad category Category:Tigridia was added automatically by the template {{Template:Lepidoptera}} via the genus parameter instead of the good category which is Category:Tigridia (Nymphalinae). I corrected with the correct parameter, the issue is now we can not put the specie level in the template for this category. In any cases there is no reason to delete. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep Our conversations must be in English. There are no problem for this category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Changed Category:Tigridia from cat redirect to disambig. --Achim (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Kept & problem solved. --Achim (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Penile-anal intercourse (female and male)

sex all girls 63.143.114.102 03:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Rashbi's cave

delete - duplicated with Category:The Rashbi Cave in Pekiein Deror avi (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Duplicate of Category:The Rashbi Cave in Pekiein. -- Geagea (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Penile-anal intercourse in art (female and male)

sexallgirls 63.143.114.102 04:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Botanical Garden, Rio de Janeiro

I think this category is twice. Please create a redirect to Category:Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirected Category:Botanical Garden, Rio de Janeiro to Category:Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro as per Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Diversity Conference 2013

Redundant category. Contents moved to category:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013. --Gamaliel (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted in favour of category:Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013. Both old categories. The latter is obviously clearer. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Schizofrenia

schizofrenia Antifajny (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is to be treated as a deletion request by the author who tagged all of the cat's content for deletion. Cat will be deleted as soon as it is empty. --Achim (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, should it be redirected to Schizophrenia?--Auric (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

vymazat a zahodit Antifajny (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted: Author's request. --Achim (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Andreas Herrlein

There are two things that require discussion:

• He was a German painter and there is absolutely no need to convert his name from German into Slovenian language. He was born in Franconia (today part of Bavaria) and he died in Ljubljana which belonged to Austria at the time of his death.
• There seems to be some confusion about de:Andreas Herrlein (Category:Andreas Herrlein) and de:Johann Andreas Herrlein (Category:Johann Andreas Herrlein) caused by the cited source http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-CJWAEX38.

So I propose to restitute the state before the cat renaming. --Achim (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support he seems to have been confused with his brother here. If you want to convert his name into Slovenian, it should be Andrej Herrlein and not Janez Andrej Herrlein. See https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=idn%3D135923999 References are scarce, but Andreas Herrlein seems to be preferred. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: swapped cat and redirect as well as creator and redirect. --Achim (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bonanno's door in Pisa

Would anyone oppose a move to Porta di San Ranieri? That seems to be the official name of the door. A google search for "Bonanno's door" yields very few results (aside from commons). Themightyquill (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok for me --Sailko (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support --Achim (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Done via CommonsDelinker. --Achim (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Created with Photoshop Express

The name should be changed to "Category:Created with Adobe Photoshop Express" so that it conforms to the style of other sub-categories in Category:Created with Adobe Photoshop

AbdealiJK (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. It's clearer too. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support --Achim (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Created with Adobe Photoshop Express as per consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Created with PhotoStitch

The current name is very generic, as photostitch can be confused with the algorithm "photo stitching". The category name "Created with Canon PhotoStitch" may be a more appropriate name as the PhotoStitch software is owned by Canon w:List_of_Canon_products#Software and the parent categories indicate it's for the canon sofware. AbdealiJK (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me --SuperJew (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Created with Canon PhotoStitch as per consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Sahar Zaman

Empty of any images Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 17:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Sadena Parks

Empty of images Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 17:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jupitergigantensäule von Walheim in Köngen

should be deleted, files will be included in Jupitergigantensäule von Walheim and category:Jupiter column (Walheim) Gerd Leibrock (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 17:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jupitergigantensäule von Walheim im Römischen Lapidarium Stuttgart

should be deleted, files now included in Jupitergigantensäule von Walheim and category:Jupiter column (Walheim) Gerd Leibrock (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 17:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Regions of the Southern United States by state

Incompletely populated subcategory of Category:Regions of the United States by state. Even if it were completely populated, I don't see the need to split the southern states into a separate category. Auntof6 (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Delete. Definitely no reason to do this. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No objections: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ambulances of Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe

empty category not needed anymore 84.141.27.178 07:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The files have been moved to Category:Ambulances_of_Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe_in_Germany and Category:Ambulances of Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe in Austria. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. One could keep it as a metacategory for the two new categories but since the German brand Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe is only used in Austria and Germany I don't see a need for that. De728631 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted per above. --Achim (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Kệ chứa hàng

Empty category. All the user's other contributions appear to have been deleted, see notices at User talk:GiaBao16 Fayenatic london (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleting as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Hanse (ship)

Category precised. New: Category:MS Hanse (ship, 2000). Please delete Category Hanse (ship) Roland.h.bueb (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Source for MS Hanse (ship, 2000) --Roland.h.bueb (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: empty, author's request. --Achim (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tepoztlán en la Mirada Summer 2016

class canceled and will not be adding photos to this category Thelmadatter (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Empty category, nominated by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:English Wikipedia main page images

SUB REGISTRAR OFFI 117.206.60.122 09:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Unclear nomination by anon-ip. Closing as likely accident. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Boura I

Pour éviter la suppression injustifiée des photos MBATAKA (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

En effet, toutes les photos prises ici sont faites soit par mes soins, soit à ma demande avec mon appareil, tout comme les importations des réseaux sociaux et autre site sont de mon fait; ces importations sont faites parce j'ai perdu le fichier basique après téléchargement des fichiers numériques dans le réseau social. Et les personnes qui s'y trouvent sont toutes informées de l'usage que j'envisage faire des photos que je prends. Donc il n'y à mon avis aucun conflit ou problème lié à un quelconque droit d'auteur par rapport à tous mes fichiers images. Je pense qu'il est mieux de guider ceux qui ne maîtrsent pas les règles de publication dans Wikipédia, que de proposer leur contribution à suppression sans essayer de les guider et observer leur désir d'amélioration ou pas. Car on ne naît pas sachant marcher, on apprend à marcher avec tout ce que ce la comporte de chûte, et quand bien même on court déjà, il arrive qu'on connaisse encore des chutes et qu'il soit nécessaire qu'on nous tienne par la main. MBATAKA (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Copied to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MBATAKA. --Achim (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Out of process scope. Please follow up at the deletion request page for further discussion. --Achim (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Dolington Village Historic District

Dolington HD 02.JPG 2601:82:C101:A19B:8909:4036:54A4:E439 16:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Unclear nomination by anonip. Closing as likely accident? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Rivers of Novy Urengoy

To be deleted MartynovRussia (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Why? If it's because it's empty, then it doesn't need discussion. You can just put the {{Empty page}} template on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --MartynovRussia (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The category has been deleted, apparently because it was empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Window shutters in Trier

There was only one picture, can be deleted Berthold Werner (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Single file has been upmerged to Category:Window shutters in Rhineland-Palatinate. Deleting empty category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Elations of Austria and Israel in 2013

This Category's name should be Relations of ... not Elations of... Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Done: Added to CommonsDelinker, will soon be moved automatically. --Achim (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category that was created in the wrong name

• Category:Bungo Tachibana clan
• Category:Otomo Tachibana clan

These category is the one that had been created with a name that was wrong in the process of creating the "Category:Tachibana clan (Buke)”. Since there is no thing, which is also used as a redirect, please delete. [unsigned comment by M-sho-gun 04:11, 30 June 2016‎]

All three of these categories were created around the same time by nominator, M-sho-gun, and nominated for deletion the same day. Deleting as requested. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Fabiana Alvarez

Shoud be deleted, it's empty. Yanguas (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Empty after DR. --Achim (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Kandelaberlinde

It is currently shown as a subcategory of "Kandelaberlinde Dorla", but it should be the superior category. I do not know how to do this. Cosal (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Category:Candelabra trees (shape) really not sufficient? We need to group Candelabra linden trees together, under a German name? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Redirected to Category:Candelabra trees (shape) by Holger1959 7 July 2016. --Achim (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Polymerous daylily

Please delete this category. I see no purpose of this category. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Registro Internacional de Armas Gentilicias

Untrustworthy private registry used by sockpuppets to legitimize fancyful personal heraldry. Category should be removed, and each file in it checked to see whether is accurate and whether it is in scope. Tom-L (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Empty. Deleted. --INeverCry 03:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jupitergigantensäule Stuttgart

to be deleted, replaced by Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber in Stuttgart Gerd Leibrock (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:='Wiaschtln' by Richard Weihs

Why do we have a category which begins with a "=" sign? Looks wrong. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely. I'd suggest moving this to Category:Wiaschtln (performance) or possibly just Category:Richard Weihs at Weinhaus Sittl. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Wiaschtln (performance). --Achim (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Icons for railway descriptions/crossing/turn

Redundant to Category:Icons for railway descriptions/crossing+junction. Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 09:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Insigne Latinae

Category names should be in English, not in Latin. These coats of arms belong into the main Category:Coats of arms or its national subcats, to the extent that they are not erroneous (see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Insigne Helveticum.svg. Sandstein (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I created this category specifically for Ssolbergj's Latin-named coats of arms. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fry1989: I don't understand. You mean, those files with Latin filenames? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ssolbergj seems to be working on a digital roll of arms, where the goal is to have a uniform presentation. Tom-L (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Ssolbergj is creating a catalog of national coats of arms for uniform uses all with their naming in Latin for the same uniformity. I created the category for those files to have one place. But if there is no need, then go ahead and delete. I did not ask them, I just thought it would be a good idea. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Delete Thanks, Fry1989. Putting them all in a gallery might be useful for people looking for a consistent/uniform set of national coats of arms, but I don't think there's any need for a category. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Leanni Lei

This is a single item category with no other apparent files that could possibly recategorised here. It would be better to upmerge. FredWalsh (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cristina Agave

This is a single item category with no other apparent files that could possibly recategorised here. It would be better to upmerge. FredWalsh (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jacey Andrews

This is a single item category with no other apparent files that could possibly recategorised here. It would be better to upmerge. FredWalsh (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ally Ann

This is a single item category with no other apparent files that could possibly recategorised here. It would be better to upmerge. FredWalsh (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Gina Austin

This is a single item category with no other apparent files that could possibly recategorised here. It would be better to upmerge. FredWalsh (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bunny Bleu

This is a single item category with no other apparent files that could possibly recategorised here. It would be better to upmerge. FredWalsh (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Summer Brielle

This is a single item category with no other apparent files that could possibly recategorised here. The only other file that was here was a copyvio. It would be better to upmerge. FredWalsh (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Delotta Brown

This is a single item category with no other apparent files that could possibly recategorised here. It would be better to upmerge. FredWalsh (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Busty Belle

This is a single item category with no other apparent files that could possibly recategorised here. It would be better to upmerge. FredWalsh (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lee Caroll

Single item category with no current prospect of expansion. FredWalsh (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Charlie (actress)

Single item category with no immediate prospect of expansion. FredWalsh (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 03:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Kerington Cruz

Single item category with no immediate prospect of expansion FredWalsh (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted. --INeverCry 04:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikimania 2016 by Photographer

typo in name Freddy2001 ^talk 20:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's empty, so I've tagged it with {{Empty page}}. It should be gone soon. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted by Jcb 30 June 2016. --Achim (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Commons press

because it is intrest of the british people and the beloved and trusted queen must look after her beloved citizens 2.89.153.199 22:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense nomination. Kept. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lapidarium in Stuttgart

Die zwei Kategorien Category:Lapidarium in Stuttgart und Category:Lapidarium (Stuttgart) sind missverständlich: „Lapidarium in Stuttgart“ müsste „Städtisches Lapidarium Stuttgart“ heißen. „Lapidarium (Stuttgart)“ müsste „Römisches Lapidarium Stuttgart“ heißen. Wenn ich diese Kategorien umbenenne, ergibt sich das Problem, dass über 400 Dateien neu kategorisiert werden müssen. Weiß jemand Rat, wie man das EINFACH hinkriegt? Gerd Leibrock (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It is quite easy to make the moves. I have added a notice at Category:Lapidarium (Stuttgart) to make sure everyone agrees. Then we can move the categories as you suggest. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Stadtmuseum's English website doesn't use Städtisches Lapidarium Stuttgart, so it isn't a proper noun and the category names must be in English. I suggest moving Category:Lapidarium in Stuttgart to Category:Stuttgart lapidarium (municipal) and Category:Lapidarium (Stuttgart) to Category:Stuttgart lapidarium (Roman).    FDMS  4    14:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to use "Städtisches Lapidarium" under Visitor Information in the page you linked, no? Maybe Category:Städtisches Lapidarium (Stuttgart) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's to help visitors find the lapidarium on German-only local maps or street signage (the section is mostly about directions); the text itself calls the lapidarium Lapidarium of the City of Stuttgart and Stuttgart Lapidarium, which I don't think it would if Städtisches Lapidarium was a proper noun.    FDMS  4    19:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

And yet the text consistently capitalizes Lapidarium, as if it were a proper noun. It's a tough call. Category:Stuttgart lapidarium (municipal) seems awkward to me. Category:Lapidarium of the City of Stuttgart ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Would be fine with me, but what about the Roman one then?    FDMS  4    11:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If the depicted thing is a lapidarium or parts of one I'd in general prefer a category name with Lapidarium as the first word. --Achim (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Römisches Lapidarium Stuttgart? Römisches Lapidarium (Stuttgart)? That seems to be the official name, as far as I can tell. Best English translations would be... Roman Lapidarium (Stuttgart)? Roman Lapidarium in/of Stuttgart? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why the proper names Städtisches Lapidarium Stuttgart an Römisches Lapidarium Stuttgart should be by force translated. I think this would only puzzle people who search for these names, others can find the lapidariums by the corresponding supercats.--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The German names would be preserved as redirects, so I don't see how German-only speakers could have difficulties finding these categories.    FDMS  4    18:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but that would also apply for every other formal-title-as-category-name that we've kept in the original language too. The fact is that policy doesn't recommend "force translating" (as Gerd Leibrock puts it) formal names, especially when there is no clear, commonly used English equivalent. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

OSE … We're not actually translating anything here, as an international project we're simply using the internationally understood terms to describe these categories' subjects. I think that even the English official website itself primarily using the English terms shows that "Städtisches Lapidarium Stuttgart" is not a [term] which [doesn't] have an exact English equivalent and as such shouldn't be used.    FDMS  4    14:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, "using internationally understood terms" in a different language is synonymous with "translating into English." You may think that's a worthy action (and I don't certainly don't think your argument is baseless) but that doesn't make it something else. I don't see what OSE has to do with this conversation, and the language policy you cited says that at least some proper names should not be translated. If we translate Römisches Lapidarium Stuttgart, we'll be making it up ourselves. Städtisches Lapidarium Stuttgart is somewhat more ambiguous, since as you mention, they translate it themselves on their website, but given that the website capitalizes the name (even in English), we are definitely talking about a proper name, so the policy is ambiguous as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

German isn't the only language that exists in Germany – many visitors and immigrants use their native languages to refer to German things, sometimes without even knowing the German terms, which can hardly be seen as translating. OSE was in response to "that would also apply for every other formal-title-as-category-name that we've kept in the original language too", I'm only realising now that you were referring to proper nouns (sorry!). I believe the proper noun exception exists for cases like Kaufland or Deutsche Bank, not museums however seemingly irrelevant to non-German speakers the may be. When a name consists solely of [instance] + [class] (order inverse in German), names generally aren't proper nouns – for example, nobody refers to the Deutsche Bank using Bundesdeutsche Sparkasse, Bank der Deutschen or just Bank, while I guess people use Stuttgarter Römisches Lapidarium or simply Lapidarium just as often as Römisches Lapidarium Stuttgart. Such names not being proper nouns but replaceable terms also explains why the municipal lapidarium uses different English terms to refer to itself (apparently capitalising them by mistake). To some degree Commons is always "making it up itself", for example by using terms globally despite them not being established locally or not using full official company names (but stripping business entity type suffixes and sometimes changing the capitalisation), I think that is something we generally have to live with.    FDMS  4    20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The "Städtisches Lapidarium Stuttgart" is not anysuch Lapidarium in Stuttgart, but this one institution of this name. I wouldn't hang the translation of the name in the Englisch translation of their homepage too high. A nice service to speakers of the English language (probably done by an intern), but with no legal implication, because further down, in the proper address the official name is retained. The name of the category should correctly be: "Städtisches Lapidarium Stuttgart". --Wuselig (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Judging by web links and by the titles of literature found in de:Städtisches Lapidarium Stuttgart, "Stuttgart" is not part of the name. E.g. here the title is "Das Städtische Lapidarium in Stuttgart". So, the correct Lemma would be "Städtisches Lapidarium", or more distinctly "Städtisches Lapidarium (Stuttgart)". I also don't see any reason to translate the name. An English explanation and translation should follow in the description, though. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This lasted long enough without a decision, so I just moved the pages:

• Category:Lapidarium in Stuttgart to Category:Städtisches Lapidarium (Stuttgart) and
• Category:Lapidarium (Stuttgart) to Category:Römisches Lapidarium (Landesmuseum Württemberg).
  

No category name was translated from German to English, since they are all composed from proper names. --Sitacuisses (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Photographs of Rio de Janeiro city

Redundant and useless. Delete Yanguas (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This wouldn't be an issue if we could resolve the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/11/Category:Photographs. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bridges over the Medway

Redundant to Category:Bridges across the River Medway. "Across" as preposition seems to be more common for English rivers; I very slightly prefer it to "over". --Choess (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't over the more common preposition?    FDMS  4    14:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

8,188 Categories matching Bridges Over, 735 matching Bridges Across. However perhaps they should both really be Category:Bridges over the River Medway Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Supporting merger into Category:Bridges across the River Medway. To be honest I prefer "over", the vast majority of similar categories use "over", but there are several "across" categories too. I don't think it's such a big problem to require renaming the original category here, after 8 years. Sionk (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no personal preference between the two phrasings, but I think moving to the more common format makes sense. If there is a majority of support for a move in the other direction, I'll of course back down, but redirects should stay in place either way. "Across" is older, as Sionk points out, but "over" dates from 2011, so it's not exactly a newcomer. I can't believe we've had two totally redundant categories for five years without anyone noticing. Thanks for bringing this up, Choess. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have not really strong preference, so I'm happy to merge "across" into "over" just to see these combined. Choess (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Bridges over the Medway as per consensus. Long long overdue. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:King David playing harp

Rename/move category to "David playing harp", because some of the items shown in here depicting young David (i.e. before he was a king), for example David played harp before Saul. Bennylin (yes?) 11:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support That makes sense, and parent category is just Category:David so it fits fine. Sub-category Category:David playing the harp on stained glass windows‎ is fine as is, but Category:Sculptures of King David playing harp‎ should be moved to Category:Sculptures of David playing harp‎. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Category and sub-categories moved to Category:David playing harp, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh

Should this category not be moved to Category:Rajneesh in accordance with no honorifics policy? The en.wikipedia and en.wikiquote pages seem to follow it. Rahul Bott (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons has no such policy. We probably should, and I'd support one, but we don't. I've brought up a related question at Commons_talk:Category_scheme_People#Titles_of_monarchs_in_category_names if you'd like to contribute. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments @Themightyquill. I will also write my views at the link you mentioned. - Rahul Bott (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to that discussion. As for this category, if no one objects in the next few weeks, we can move it to Category:Rajneesh as you suggested. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No opposition in months. Moved to Category:Rajneesh and sub-categories moved accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Walter Stoneman

I am concerned that all the images in this category are copyright violations. While I have not checked every single image, the ones I have checked depend upon PD-UKGov. The photographer, Walter Stoneman, was not working for the British government as http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp14553/walter-stoneman explains. As he died in 1958 it is not yet 70 years since his death and 70 p.m.a. cannot be relied upon either. The UK National Portrait Gallery and Wikipedia have "history" (see en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute) and so, in my view, it is even more important than normal that we are scrupulous about respecting valid copyright claims. Greenshed (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright status of individual images in the category has no bearing on whether or not the category should exist. Deleting the category won't delete the individual images. Gamaliel (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• No action needed for category. If there are copyright issues with the files, then address them at the file level. If the files get deleted and the category is left empty, then the category can be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Greenshed: If you want to nominate all these files for discussion at once, you can use Help:VisualFileChange.js to do so. But I agree with the others about the category. If all the files are deleted, we can discuss what to do with the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Kept: Deletion of files is out of process scope. --Achim (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Huang Daopo memorial tomb

Duplicated with "Category:Tomb of Huang Daopo" Fayhoo (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Both categories were made within about a month of each other in 2015, so neither has clear "seniority." Neither term yields many hits on google. The other categories in Category:Tombs in Shanghai are formatted as "Tomb of X", but maybe the word "memorial" is important or integral to the title? Do you have a preference to keep, Fayhoo ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's just tomb of Huang Daopo, not a memorial tomb, maybe the creater confound with Huang Daopo's memorial Hall--Fayhoo (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I would suggest we delete Category:Huang Daopo memorial tomb, and create a redirect from Category:Huang Daopo's tomb to Category:Tomb of Huang Daopo. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Category:Huang Daopo memorial tomb. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Single item categories

Created today by User:FredWalsh for to keep his cleaning up requests. Thus the name of the category should be changed for it might be filled by a bot or by other users listing more single-item categories (like Category:Leroy F. Aarons) which should be kept as they are. It might also be kept as a user category of Fred. Achim (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Definitely not needed with the current name. As for making it a user category, I'm not a fan of those, but I'll defer to others on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep it is a hidden temporary category that I am using to tag small categories. I tried to do it with a non-existent category but some users, who don't like what I do, simply removed the pages. I don't see the harm of keeping a temporary category so I can nominate large numbers together for discussion? I know some of you are really peeved at me for successfully nominating your favourite soft porn pics for deletion, and I'm guessing this nomination is just another desperate attempt to stop me like the poor users who lost the naughty pics they uploaded here (conveniently ignoring the fact that the files were copyright violations). Even if this category is deleted, it will not stop me from doing what needs to be done? FredWalsh (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never had any "favorite soft porn" things here, nor have I ever uploaded anything that could be considered porn, so don't make blanket assumptions here. Could you not build a list of the images in question? Even if you build a category so that you can nominate everything in it, there's no way to stop other people from adding or removing things. That's true of any category, but a list on a user page would be left alone. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Auntof6: - I didn't mention anyone specifically but you are certainly not one of those people. I've been nominating porn images that are copyvios but the uploaders are unhappy about being caught out so they've engaged in any activity to stop me. The responses below should suffice. FredWalsh (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 Comment @FredWalsh Funny that the one user that says that other users remove subcategories as "another desperate attempt to stop me like the poor users who lost the naughty pics they uploaded here you " or is the one that "know some of you are really peeved at me for successfully nominating your favourite soft porn pics for deletion" is one user that, since May 23 2016, has only editions related to female pornography, female cosplay or female nudity. Would you guess which one i´am talking and the fine irony? Tm (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tm: Amusing that I didn't mention anyone by name but obviously I managed to raise someone's hackles. What's your point about edits related to female porn since May 23? Why that date in particular? FredWalsh (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@FredWalsh: It seems understanding an ironic comment is not your strong. You accussed others than me of having ""favorite soft porn", but, since May 23, who is the one user that its editions only gravitates around related to female porn, cosplay and nudity. If you did not understood before i´am telling you. Its you FredWalsh. Tm (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Fred, leave us a note when your crusade is done so that we can clean up the crumbs. --Achim (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Achim55: what crusade? As an administrator I would have thought you would be concerned with copyright violations. Yet, you join in with the taunting of another user who has not engaged in personal attacks. It might be worth noting that I have nominated almost 300 copyvio files that have been deleted. FredWalsh (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@FredWalsh: Pardon? Neither categorising nor the CfD request process have anything to do with copyright violations. --Achim (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy close - I've renamed it so it is obviously a user category. All Achim needed to do was ask on my talk page and I would have complied. FredWalsh (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted by INeverCry 22 July 2016. --Achim (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Grande rivière Noire

Should be merged with Category:Big Black River (Saint John River). Laurianna2 (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the only file from this category because it was already in a subcat of Category:Big Black River (Saint John River). I suggest redirecting this category to that one, since this one is the river's French name. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Category is still empty months later. Redirecting to Category:Big Black River (Saint John River). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Chemical structure diagrams of stimulants

Category should get renamed to Category:Chemical structures of stimulants. Leyo 22:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support That makes sense. Since Category:Chemical structures is a sub-category of Category:Structure diagrams and Category:Chemical diagrams all chemical structure sub-categories should be diagrams, but there's no need to state it every time. This category's single sub-category, Category:Chemical structure diagrams of cocaine‎, should also be changed accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Delete. The category is unnecessary. Chemical structures of drugs within a drug class are normally put in the category for that class. For example, Category:Antidepressants contains chemical structures of antidepressants. The files in Category:Chemical structure diagrams of stimulants should simply be moved to Category:Stimulants. ChemNerd (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. That might well be common since not all drugs are photogenic, but certainly chemical structures are not the *only* way to illustrate a drug. Just look at the non-chemical-structures images in the Category:Stimulants that you linked to, not to mention something like Category:Cocaine vs Category:Chemical structure diagrams of cocaine. I think it's reasonable to separate the two. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Delete I tend to agree with ChemNerd. Pertinent info is the chemical structure of the active ingredient. Any other illustration is generally just a white/pink/whatever_any_other_color round/oval/etc. pill; in the best case scenario, with its serial number. In this case, imo, it's even preferable to create the special subcategory to gather the picture of the pill with the chemical structure of the active ingredient. Rhadamante (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

ChemNerd and Rhadamante: I'm not sure I understand. Are you both suggesting we delete the whole Category:Chemical structures tree? Or just delete Category:Chemical structures by substance (and its subcategories) and move everything to a large flat Category:Chemical structures category? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not suggested deleting the whole Category:Chemical structures tree. I don't see the usefulness of some categories within it though, such as Category:Chemical structure diagrams of stimulants‎ and Category:Chemical structures of drugs‎. Those two categories are entirely incomplete if they are going to be used. There are literally tens of thousands of chemical structure diagrams of drugs and ‎chemical structure diagrams of stimulants‎, but only small number of placed in these categories. ChemNerd (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I don't propose either to delete the whole "Category:Chemical structures" tree, but more its sub-tree "Category:Chemical structures by substance", which is pretty empty anyway. My point is that, most of the time, the only pertinent representation of a (complex) chemical substance is its chemical structure, the other media about it being trivial : when it's not a colorless gas or liquid, it's pretty rare to have things other than a white solid/powder. It's even rarer, for the drugs, to have a picture of the active ingredient, and not its commercial form, meaning any kind of pill/capsule, which can also be anything (in most cases we can only trust the uploader that he indeed uploaded what he says he uploaded...). A thrilling example is the categories "organic/inorganic compounds", which are subcategories of "chemical structures" ; and indeed they contain (especially organic) 99% if not 100% of chemical structures. Which kind of sounds as it is what one expects in such categories. Rhadamante (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Support --Allforrous (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The result was: Merge Category:Chemical structure diagrams of stimulants with Category:Stimulants, consistent with the categorization of other classes of drugs. If this results in Category:Stimulants containing too many files, then some of those files can be distributed to existing subcategories such as Category:Central nervous system stimulants‎. If someone would like to create a full category tree containing multiple categories along the lines of [[Category:Chemical structures of <drug class>]], that might be workable, but should be discussed at Commons:WikiProject Chemistry (or similar venue) first. It simply doesn't make sense to have just one such category though. Finally, Category:Chemical structures of drugs is now empty and therefore is deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 18:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jupitergigantensäule Köngen

cat should be deleted, has been replaced by Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber in Köngen Gerd Leibrock (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It has alread been redirected to Category:Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber in Köngen. You don't think the redirect is useful? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect is ok--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerd, passiert da perspektivisch noch was? Schließlich ist es nicht so dolle, 7 gut benannte und kategorisierte Kategorien von Jupitergigantensäulen zu haben, die aber leer sind, siehe Category:Jupiter Giant Columns in Germany. Normalerweise werden hier keine Kategorien auf Vorrat angelegt in der Hoffnung, dass vielleicht in 10 Jahren mal jemand ein Foto reintut. Nix für ungut, wenn du sagst, dass das in Ordnung geht, dann mache ich hier ne disambiguation draus und schließe diesen Request. Gruß u. schönes WE noch, --Achim (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Die leeren Kategorien sollten nach meiner Meinung gelöscht werden.--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted: Broken redirect. --Achim (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Smilies

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/04/Category:1st - 228th Street in Manhattan.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/04/Category:1st - 12th Avenue in Manhattan.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/05/Category:International borders.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Mexican-American War.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/02/Category:Doebner-Miller reaction.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Categories of railway lines in China.

All subcategories using the w:Hyphen-minus are typografical wrong, there should be using at minimum – EN DASH – or nothing of this signs. ↔ User: Perhelion 11:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hyphen minus might be typographically wrong, but en dash is functionally less than ideal. Could we come up with some better solution? Category:Angry smilies or Category:Smilies (angry) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

+1 would agree ↔ User: Perhelion 17:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Parentheses are used for disambiguation scopes. We coude use Smilies with dash and Smilies with minus for redirecting but it is not the standard way and furthermore we must patrol for new entries. Many people don't recognize that are three similar signs. The second best and what I choose is Category:Angry smilies. If you agree @Perhelion and Themightyquill: I can move them all.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 06:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You are suggesting Category:Smilies (angry) (etc.) as the best option? That's fine with me. It will also help with anyone using catalot because "Smilies (angry)" will pop up as an option to someone writing "Smilies" whereas "Angry smilies" would not. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No I prefer Category:Angry smilies because like Wikipedias we use parentheses for disambiguation scopes not for categorization. We use instead adjectives category:red sedans or attributive nouns category:nuvola icons or gerunds category:walking paths. The way you suggest, Themightyquill, could made searching easier but sorting harder. We should use always sorting strings after the categories and... we should change the whole Commons category tree :)--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's reasonable, and Category:Angry smilies is also fine by me. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Implemented per above by Pierpao.    FDMS  4    18:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Modern artillery

Afaik "modern" is not an useful term neither in encyclopedic work nor in categorizing. The same goes to POV terms like "new" "old", "recent", "unfashioned", "big" etc. It'll be a rather mess to update and recategorize (who'll do that job?) when the comprehension of "modern" is changing. Therefore asap this category should be emptied and deleted afterwards. Jotzet (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but would extend this to Category:Modern weapons, Category:Warfare of the Modern era (20th century)‎ and Category:Warfare of the Contemporary era. Aren't the latter two redundant with Category:Military history in the 20th century‎ and Category:Military history in the 21st century‎, respectively? I'll tag these categories for discussion as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Themightyquill, to dig a bit deeper: Modern can also be meant as modern era in opposition to the medieval era. Look at Category:Modern swords: There are also Category:Medieval swords, Category:Ancient Roman swords and some more. --Achim (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but what's the point in dividing up "Modern Era" by century? Once you've said 20th century, there's no need to say Modern Era as well. You're saying keep Category:Modern weapons and Category:Modern artillery ? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Themightyquill, no, there is no need to keep modern cats if there are century cats or even period cats like Renaissance or something like that. --Achim (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Delete neither Category:Modern weapons nor Category:Modern artillery are useful categories. Categorize eiter per century or technology. --Avron (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Keep, modern refers to 16th-21st century (a period); include the century-categories in these categories. Furthermore, sub-categories of Category:Artillery by military conflict could be added to the artillery periods.--Zoupan (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jotzet, Achim55, Avron, and Zoupan: Let me be rephrase my proposal then:

• Category:Modern artillery > Rename to Category:Artillery of the Modern era (or Category:Modern era artillery) and delete
• Category:Modern weapons > Rename to Category:Weapons of the Modern era (or Category:Modern era weapons) and delete
• Category:Warfare of the Modern era (20th century)‎ > Merge into Category:Military history in the 20th century‎ and delete
• Category:Warfare of the Contemporary era > Merge into Category:Military history in the 21st century‎ and delete

I think that would avoid confusion. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete for the first both (en:Modern history: from early 16th century to today) because that is not a useful era for artillery. OK for merging of the last both.--Avron (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think "Modern" is meaningless, and that "21st-century artillery" is far more accurate and useful. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to expand the proposal further:

• Category:Modern firearms > Rename to Category:Firearms of the Modern era (or Category:Modern era firearms) and delete
• Category:Modern daggers > Rename to Category:Daggers of the Modern era (or Category:Modern era daggers) and delete
• Category:Battles of the Contemporary era > Merge into Category:21st-century battles‎‎ and delete

We could either create Category:Warfare of the Modern era (as a home for Category:Battles of the Modern era and its subcats) or merge Category:Battles of the Modern era with Category:20th-century battles (and the same with Category:Naval battles of the Modern era‎) and delete.

I've tagged these categories accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorted as per above. Modern changed to Modern Era - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Step-stone bridges in the United Kingdom

See also: en:Talk:Stepping stones.

Related categories:

• Category:Step-stone bridges in England (and child categories)
• Category:Step-stone bridges in Scotland
• Category:Step-stone bridges in Wales

Rename to Category:Stepping stones in the United Kingdom etc., the phrase 'step-stone bridges' simply isn't used in the UK (is it an American phrase?) as can be seen from the file names of all the files currently in the category. Sure, if 'Step-stone bridges' is a term used in the USA or elsewhere, the 'stepping stones' categories could remain as sub-categories. This will help tremendously in finding the correct categories. --Sionk (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Support "Stepping stones" is the common UK usage, and I see the en:WP article "Step-stone bridges" is a redirect to "Stepping stones". Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Support The discussion at en:Talk:Stepping stones makes it even clearer that no one uses the term step-stone bridges in the USA (or anywhere else) either. The phrase seems to be largely an invention of English wikipedia. Category:Step-stone bridges and all of its sub-categories should also be moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I support all of Themightyquill's suggestions. In addition, these categories should be removed from bridge categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

We might have to do some head scratching to find suitable category trees. Stepping stones are crossings, evidently steps and usually stones. The parallel universe of Category:Stepping stones has some interesting (though questionable) parent categories. Sionk (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If the point of these is that they cross water, maybe the categories could be called something like "stepping stones in water". Some stepping stones are on land, so it might be a worthwhile distinction. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done: per consensus. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Brian Moore

Nominating for deletion: Conflated category, had files from both en:Brian Moore (Iowa politician) (who only has 1 image) and en:Brian Moore (political activist) (who only has 2 images and a possibly overcategorized Category:Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008), neither one enough to justify a separate category Closeapple (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, Closeapple, but my recent deletion of another person category (Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Lily van den Broecke) was overruled by administrator Billinghurst on the basis that the person had a wikidata entry, even though the category had no actual photos of the person in question. Apparently, we don't have a clear policy on this. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where that decision in Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Lily van den Broecke came from. I've never heard of such a guideline either; Wikidata doesn't have a one-to-one correlation with Commons; and as much as I think Wikidata serves a purpose, Commons is a separate project, not subject to Wikidata. I've left a message at User talk:Billinghurst#Non-deletions; it appears you got there first. Furthermore, in this specific case, this is effectively a disambiguation page with no categories to disambiguate. --Closeapple (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Category of "one" can be reasonable, as a category has to start populating somewhere. For Wikisource works here, the works of authors will regularly be added one by one and start with one. In this case there were image(s) that can be assigned to the categories — the people were notable (WP criteria), and the category name can be used by Wikidata for the property "Commons Category" as it populates infoboxes. The category name was distinct. The deletion was denied as the category was usable at Commons, and the factors of wikidata usage were added to expand the rationale.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing this discussion -which I cannot swear I read- because the cat has already been deleted. Nothing to continue discussing here. --E4024 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Flags of States of India and territories

Is this redundant with Category:Flags of India by state or territory ? Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Flags of India by state or territory. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Penny Arcade

I think this category should be deleted to make way for Category:Penny Arcade (comic) to be moved here, and then a link to Category:Amusement arcades can be added to that category's description with a {{Distinguish}} tag. Perhaps there could be a disambiguation page at Category:Penny arcades or Category:Penny arcade, but if you capitalize the "A" and make it singular rather than plural, I think there's very little chance you're not looking for the webcomic. This move has precedent on enwiki, where the article is just titled "Penny Arcade". IagoQnsi (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support This seems reasonable, IagoQnsi. I'd suggest, instead of a dab page at Category:Penny arcades, we might add a note at the top of Category:Penny Arcade pointing people to Category:Amusement arcades. I think that should be enough. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Closed. In the 3 years since there was active discussion, the category has been a disambiguation, without apparent problem. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Subnational flags of Myanmar

There is some mess caused by an indef blocked user at the flag categories of Myanmar. I'm no flags specialist, so could someone experienced on that help us? The so called regions are on the same level as the states, see en:Flags of the Burmese states and regions and en:Administrative divisions of Myanmar. Maybe it's best to choose Category:Flags of states and regions of Myanmar similar to the page name on en:wp. Achim (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, but there's also a "union territory" with the same level. We have Category:Regions of Myanmar and Category:States of Myanmar. I'd say we make separate flag categories for each OR create Category:Flags of subdivisions of Myanmar (in Category:Flags of country subdivisions by country) and move everything there. There are only 21 administrative divisions total in Myanmar, so one category could be enough to hold them all. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Closed, deleted. Category with no parent nor subcategories; all state and division flags of Myanmar are in other more standard categories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Milk pans

I created this category but then noticed Category:Saucepans. Frankly I have known these pots always as milk pans. On the other hand, there must be a difference between the more profound ones (for milk) and those which are not so profound. E4024 (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure if you're proposing anything here, or just inviting a discussion. Milk pans certainly exist, in my (UK-based) experience much smaller versions of saucepans, sometimes with a lip for pouring. Though the Oxford Dictionary confuses matters a bit by including wide vessels for separating the cream (maybe this is an older definition) ...and any vessel used to hold milk. But it seems to me to be a valid category and I'd recommend keeping it, though also as a sub-category of "Sauce pans" for ease of navigation. Other vessels - milk churns, milk jugs etc. can have their own categories if required. Sionk (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• I understand no-one else shows interest in the issue; therefore we should close this chapter. Go ahead as you wish. --E4024 (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed this category seems of use to some; no recent discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Saucepans

What are saucepans? Only those with one handle? Then why do we have some with two? No difference between the profound ones and the others? Do we use "a saucepan" to fry two eggs? I guess not.E4024 (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

From en:Cookware and bakeware:

• Saucepans (or just "pots") are vessels with vertical sides about the same height as their diameter, used for simmering or boiling. Saucepans generally have one long handle. Larger pots of the same shape generally have two handles close to the sides of the pot (so they can be lifted with both hands), and are called sauce-pots or soup pots (3–12 litres). Saucepans and saucepots are measured by volume (usually 1–8 l). While saucepots often resemble Dutch ovens in shape, they do not have the same heat capacity characteristics. Very small saucepans used for heating milk are referred to as milk pans, such saucepans usually have a lip for pouring the heated milk.

I think that answers your question above about milkpans as well. The picture you have linked seems to be a small saucepan by this definition. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Good; but judging by the pics either this cat must be divided (better) or cleaned up (too many different items in one bag). --E4024 (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think at the very least this and the neighbouring categories need some adequate descriptions/instructions of what to put where, plus better Wikilinks. For example in German, both saucepans with two handles and Stock pots are simply called "Kochtopf" (cooking pot), while sauce pans with only one handle (and only those) are called de:Kasserolle (which can be considered as a sub-type of "Kochtopf"). Same in French: fr:Casserole. At Commons we also have:

• Category:Casseroles, which refers to a group of dishes (food) but is wikilinked to the cookware in both French and German – should probably be wikilinked via d:Q6501890 instead.
• Category:Casserole pans, pots and roasters (cookware), which seems to be for the cookware used for making casseroles (dish) but might confuse non-english speaking users looking for a place to put their pictures of Casseroles/Kasserollen (cookware). --El Grafo (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis and hope to see your solutions (action :) also. --E4024 (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The interwiki links are going to be difficult. en:Casserole says "A casserole... is a large, deep dish used both in the oven and as a serving vessel. The word is also used for the food cooked and served in such a vessel, with the cookware itself called a casserole dish or casserole pan." and the article is in categories for both "Casserole dishes" (ie. food) and "Cookware and bakeware". Personally, I've never before heard it used in English to describe anything but the food, but there are likely regional differences, and the etymology (from the cookware) is clear. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I cannot say anything about "clear IWs" by myself, I am more of a consensus user. (Or trying to be so. :) Having said that, I have no doubts that Commons is not a side platform of EN:WP, we may easily ignore that version of WP and make the necessary changes that will fit to most WPs. --E4024 (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost sure the casserole dish/pan referred to in the en:WP article is not the same thing as the French/German Casserole/Kasserolle. In German, this would be an Auflauf served in an Auflaufform. In French, the generic term for that seems to be fr:Gratin, which in turn seems to be considered a special type of casserole (food)/Auflauf in other languages. Suppose it might be best to clear up interwikis at wikidata first and then re-organize our categories accordingly. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to really dive into this this week, but I'll try to keep it in mind for the weekend … --El Grafo (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive and constructive approach. Danke schoen und viele Gruesse. --E4024 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, El Grafo. All I'm saying is that we can't iwlink Category:Casserole pans, pots and roasters (cookware) and Category:Casseroles to separate English wikipedia pages, because English wikipedia only has a single article that covers both. That's not to suggest that we should merge the two here on commons. While we can have lots of photos of casserole pans, and lots of photos of casseroles (food) but there is perhaps limited content that an encyclopedia article can say about a casserole pan. At the same time, it does seem a little weird that every photo of a casserole (food) on commons would be in both categories. Maybe we could suggest that Category:Casserole pans, pots and roasters (cookware) should be primarily for empty pans, while those filled with food should generally go in Category:Casseroles ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe we move Category:Casseroles to Category:Casseroles (food) and follow the same pattern I mentioned just above? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Closed. In use, does not seem to be a problem. Very similar items under different names can have a "See also" note at top if useful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Film strips by Paolo Monti

To me this looks like scans of en:Contact printed proof sheets (commonly referred to as contact sheets) rather than scans of the film strips themselves. Propose re-naming to something like Category:Contact sheets by Paolo Monti (compare Category:Contact sheets by the Ford White House) and move from Category:Film strips to Category:Contact sheets. El Grafo (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, some of them are not taken from strips at all, like this collection of single frames. --El Grafo (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Do what you think is right. I am not sure, if wee need those images at all. If the scans of those photos are the same one that have been uploaded they are basically just very small duplicates. Even is they should be unique, file size of the individual fotos is so small that I don't see much use for them. Cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 13:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support Category:Contact sheets by Paolo Monti makes sense to me. Whether the photos should be deleted is a valid question, Amada44, but not relevant to this discussion about the category name. Feel free to nominate them for deletion if you would like. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Info I've moved all the contents to Category:Contact sheets by Paolo Monti. Propose the now empty Category:Film strips by Paolo Monti to be deleted, as redirecting it doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved; empty category deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Elder Holocaust victims

first, it's elderly not elder and the term is totally subjective making it impossible to categorize effectively Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "elder" is grammatically incorrect, and should be either to "elderly" or "old." As for the legitimacy of categorizing people as "old" or "elderly" at all, you may want to add your thoughts at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Old women by country which is still looking for input. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted after moving 4 files with cat to parent cat. Misnamed, little used. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Beirut River crocodile

Local administrators (باسم and Ibrahim.ID) see that the images do not express the required crocodile and prefer local fair use images الواد الجامد (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@الواد الجامد: - Sorry, I don't understand. The problem is that the crocodiles pictured in the images in this category are not from the Beirut river? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: YouTube video says that as well, but the Local Users do not believe and believe that a crocodile is wrong --الواد الجامد (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, الواد الجامد. If the images are the problem, I think you should consider nominating the images for deletion before the category is deleted. They seem to be from a youtube video that was licensed as CC, so they are fine in terms of copyright status, but they're not very good images so I think they'd be out of scope if they aren't showing anything important. Incidentally, I couldn't find the discussion of the images among local users. Out of curiosity, could you point me to it? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Closed, if individual images are a problem, the problem is not with the category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hongkonger

User:Okstartnow has started today a bulk renaming of categories related to Hong Kong.Maybe it's ok but I'd like to hear some opinions and arguments on that recategorising. Achim (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose It is not consistent with upper categories. This is an encyclopaedic project and we should use official names, I think. Wieralee (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Agree "Hongkonger" is a official name as "British". And it is consistent with upper categories. For example Hongkonger is a nation and the upper category there is "Nation". --Okstartnow (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Leave them the way they were. Hong Kong is not a nation. It is a special administrative region of China. We already have categories for these things. If they are to be changed, they need to be discussed first.

@Wieralee: could you clarify what you're opposing? User:Achim55 just asked for a discussion he didn't say he wants to keep or delete.

We don't have a category "British", but Category:People of Great Britain. That is why we should stay with official Category:People of Hong Kong, I think. Wieralee (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we do have Category:British. I'm not sure we should, but it's there. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The only one sub-category is Category:People of the United Kingdom‎... And there are some files there: illustrations from "Autobiographical notes", photos of European Common Frog, Grass Snake and Natterjack Toad -- or even some notes... This is a category to clean up, I'm afraid. Wieralee (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Okstartnow: please be clear about exactly what you are agreeing with. If you are agreeing with Wieralee, you should indent your comment one level more than his/hers. Also please stop making these changes until they are discussed. (I'm actually going to change them back, because it's confusing to have a mix as we have right now.) Besides that, you are not using the correct case (upper/lower case) and grammar on some of the categories. In addition, you are overcategorizing.

--Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not a nation but Hongkonger is a nation. And I am sorry. I just wanted to support saving "Hongkonger" the category. --Okstartnow (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

How is Hongkonger a nation? Doesn't it just mean a person from Hong Kong? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hongkonger has the common language, a common economic life, a common psychological characteristics derived from the thoughts of resisting the Communist Party of China and Hong Kong there are clearly defined geographical scope. Combining with the objective conditions and subjective imagination. That's how Hongkonger is a nation. And according Oxford dictionary "Hongkonger" means "A native or inhabitant of Hong Kong" so it can mean a person from Hong Kong only. --Okstartnow (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That could define an ethnic or cultural group, not necessarily a nation. For purposes of Wikimedia, Hong Kong is neither a nation nor a country (which is the term we use instead of nation), but part of China. To change the way it's viewed or categorized requires a discussion, which we're having here. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

From en:Hong Kong people: "Hong Kong people do not comprise one particular ethnicity, and people that live in Hong Kong are independent of Chinese citizenship and residency status. The majority of Hong Kongers are of Chinese descent and consider themselves as ethnic Chinese..." So, by my reading, Category:People of Hong Kong seems most appropriate. Category:Hong Kongers should simply be a redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Closed, category left as redirect to the construction more usual for people by city. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Great Circle Mapper

The terms provided for these images are questionable. Specifically, the author appears to generally license them only for non-commerical use, however they explicitly permit them to be used on Wikipedia so long as attribution is provided. This ambiguity should probably be clarified with the author. JesseW (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Further context:

• Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Fancyakitas (a DR about quite a few of these images, closed as delete).
• the author's FAQ, which states:

  You may use maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper on non-commercial web pages (q.v. commericial use below) so long as you do not profit from them and you include the following credit on pages which include maps

• AND states:

  You may use maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper on Wikipedia so long as you

  Provide attribution to the Great Circle Mapper

  Include a link to this FAQ entry

  List the source as the URL used to generate the map, which allows readers to experiment with your map.

@JesseW: The category is perfectly valid as long as we have these files, which should naturally be categorized together. If you think the files might be acceptable for commons, please do another batch deletion request (like the one you linked above), and consider contacting the creators. If they are deleted and you want to stop further uploads, we might consider leaving the category in existence, but adding a note indicating that uploads are not welcome. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is precisely to serve as a venue to discuss whether files from this source can be legally uploaded to Commons. I agree about your suggestions regarding the use of the category. If you insist that, for procedural reasons, this discussion should be elsewhere, feel free to move it. JesseW (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Converted to a Deletion Request Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Great Circle Mapper. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Gulripshi District

It is a duplicate of Category:Gulripsh District, but I don't know which way a merge should go. A related pair that should also be merged are:

• Category:Ochamchira District‎
• Category:Ochamchire District‎

Scott (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a language problem once more, see d:Q946159. Georgian and other languages have -shi (en:wp has it also), Russian and a few other have -sh. I'd prefer the -shi variant. --Achim (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Commons:Categories#Category_names says Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form – Latin alphabets are used in original form including diacritics and derived letters, non-Latin alphabets are transcribed to the English Latin script. which probably supports using the same names for the categories here as the English Wikipedia articles. --Scott (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We've already had Ukrainian vs Russian naming problems as well as Serbian vs Albanian. Now we have to discuss Georgian vs Abkhazian naming, and I don't like these kinds of debates of right and wrong. Abkhazia as an independent republic has been recognised by very few nations worldwide. On the other hand the majority of the people living there speaks Abkhazian language. So redirect the cats as you like. --Achim (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done: merged to Category:Gulripshi District. --ƏXPLICIT 07:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:DBAG Class 103

this category is dispensable - look category: DB Class E 03. in this category are mixed newest and oldest photos 31.2.102.50 12:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The general system is that Category:DBAG Class 103 would contain 103s operated by Deutsche Bahn (i.e. most photos after 1994), while DB Class E 03 contains locos before that date. The categories need cleanup, but the system is sound, therefore  Keep. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 12:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Released by date

As far as I can tell, this is a whole category tree, created over 2 years ago, that still serves only to date Category:CardBus cards‎ (with 22 files), Category:Gibson CF-100E‎ (with 3 files), File:IBM DOS 1.1 Manual and Disk.jpg and File:Remote 25.jpg. Is it in need of being populated, or in need of being deleted? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Delete: Grammatically as well as content-wise, this category tree isn't making a log of sense.    FDMS  4    20:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The same is true of Category:Model changed by date. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Themightyquill and FDMS4: both to be deleted: Category:Released by date and Category:Model changed by date--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill, FDMS4, and Estopedist1: Both worth to be deleted! --Elkost (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Voûtes lambrissées in France

Is there any good reason for this category to use a French term instead of "vaulted ceilings"? Moreover, since Category:Vaults is a sub-category of Category:Ceilings, isn't this redundant with Category:Vaults in France? Forgive my ignorance of architecture if I'm misunderstood something important here. Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that, despite the English description in the category, the term "Voûtes lambrissées" translates to "panelled vaults", so perhaps that is something distinct? I don't know. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Lambris, in French, is usually wooden panelled coverings on ceilings or walls. If this can help, --Le Passant (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Le Passant: That's super helpful, and seems to match well with the content. So then it belongs as a subcategory of Category:Panel ceilings. Maybe move to Category:Panelled vaults in France? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I agree with you, it is a subcategory of Category:Panel ceilings and of Category:Wooden church ceilings in France. As panels are not only made of wood, maybe it could be moved to Category:Wooden panelled vaults in France ? --Le Passant (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done: moved to Category:Wooden panelled vaults in France. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Nature in Katlanovsko Blato

Please remove some pictures from this category. Window shutters and chapels dont be nature. thx. -- Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• 
• 
  garden
• 
  bridge

@Arnaud Palastowicz: There's nothing wrong with the category itself. You can remove the categories from those files yourself, either by editing each one individually, or by installing Cat-a-lot. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Only Admins can remove the Category:Nature in Katlanovsko Blato from the pictures.
2. Ist das Forum ein besserer Ort für Beanstandungen? --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Arnaud Palastowicz, I see the problem. Unless it's simply a matter of mis-tagging, I suspect these photos were taken in the area of Katlanov(sk)o Swamp (Katlanovsko Blato), which Wiki Loves Earth Macedonia included in their project. But not everything in a natural area is natural. The problem lies with {{Wle14mk}} which puts everything tagged with {{wle14mk|D01}} in Category:Nature in Katlanovsko Blato, when it might be better to put everything with that template simply in Category:Katlanovo Swamp. I'd comment on the template talk page about that. I'd suggest that Category:Nature in Katlanovsko Blato should probably simply be upmerged into Category:Katlanovo Swamp. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge is great. thx. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment @Arnaud Palastowicz: The fix is simple: 1) Click Edit on one of non-nature pics; 2) Remove the line {{wle14mk|D01}}; 3) Add the line [[Category:Katlanovo Swamp]]. Cheers! --Brainmachine (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved. -- Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Stale discussion. What is the situation here, user:Arnaud Palastowicz?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Issues addressed, no action needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Countries by ruler

This category name sounds like the subcategories should be things like "Countries ruled by John Doe", "Countries ruled by Mary Smith", etc. That clearly wouldn't make sense. I don't think we need a category with this name.

If we want to keep the subcategories together, it should be in a category with a different name. They seem to be types of political entities, each of which would be headed by a person with a particular title. Not all of them necessarily relate to countries or country-equivalents, so the "countries" in the cat name doesn't fit. Maybe something related to political systems/entities/jurisdictions ruled by noble individuals? Maybe with a "by type of ruler" in the name? I don't know. Some of the linked Wikipedia categories are called jurisdictions of nobility: maybe something like that could be used.

If the category is kept/renamed, it would need to be recategorized. Auntof6 (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Tricky. Adding "by type of ruler" seems quite reasonable, but I'm not sure about the first bit. I don't think Category:Countries by type of rule is so bad, even if it's imperfect. Category:States by type of rules might work? Sorry I can't be of more help. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Stale discussion. Specific topic, but I just mention that category's name part <by ruler> is unique in Commons database--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

it seems this category is for all kinds of monarchies. maybe it could be renamed "monarchies by type".

on the other hand, its scope could be broadened to include republics etc. too. then it could be called "states by political system political systems (flat list)" maybe? RZuo (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No consensus - can be renominated if needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Ornaments in books

Is this redundant with Category:Typographic ornaments? Thanks Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No opinion. The name is semantically distinct (ornaments in books being a subset of all typographic ornaments), but the content might not be. I just fixed the capitalization of the existing category. — LlywelynII 23:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, LlywelynII, for your thoughtful input and for the move. I worry that, given that Category:Typographic ornaments is a sub-category of Category:Design of books and Category:Book illustrations, even the clear semantic difference between the category names loses its significance to some degree. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, Typography is the art of typesetting. For example this one would fit to Category:Ornaments in books as well as to Category:Typographic ornaments because the typesetter's hand put it onto the page, but treated this way the ornament of this page would not be a typographic ornament (although it is semantically). --Achim (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. So we could (theoretically) have Category:Typographic ornaments in books as a subcategory of both. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise. Organize and/or rename the categories better but it is probably better not to consider merging them directly. 50.53.21.2 07:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Closing; no new discussion in almost 4 years. Category kept with subcategories since created. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Syriac Christians

Copy of Category:Syriacs. Zoupan (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

en:Syriacs redirects to en:Assyrian people, an ethnic group. It seems logical that Category:Syriacs should redirect to Category:Assyrian people, and Category:Syriac Christians should remain as is. Alternately, Category:Syriacs could be a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd support a disambiguation page.--Zoupan (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Actually, Syriacs should redirect to Syriac Christians (as common name), which would then have a hatnote. In WP, Syriacs redirects to disambiguation page Syriac.--Zoupan (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm.. I must have been looking at en:Category:Syriacs which actually redirects to en:Category:Syriac people which redirects to en:Category:Syrian Christians. Would you accept a disambiguation page at Category:Syriacs ? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Closed, no new discussion in more than 6 years. This now a subcategory of Syriacs, which seems appropriate. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:People of Great Britain

This category is meant only for people that lived in the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707—1800). This seems like it's asking for confusion, since people still use "Great Britain" today. Can we move to Category:People of the Kingdom of Great Britain to be clearer? Category:People of Great Britain by century‎ andCategory:18th-century people of Great Britain and their sub-categories should be deleted as redundant, since that was the only century the kingdom existed, barring the year 1800. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, please. Today the term "Great Britain" means the island that includes England, Scotland, and Wales. That's not something by which we need to categorize people. Several other Great Britain categories need the same change. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• If people want to go to this length to avoid confusion, I see no great problem with the change, or the knock-on effect on other categories, but of course the term "Great Britain" was the formal name of the country created in 1707, which in 1801 became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, it was never called "Kingdom of Great Britain", a term which I think has been invented by Wikipedia. The use of "Great Britain" to mean the island of Britain was originally wrong, as until 1801 it definitely included all the islands that were part of England, Scotland, and Wales, and that meaning continued throughout the 19th century and is still about today. Geographers do now seem to use it in the sense of the island of Britain, which can create some confusion. That's why I added the explanation at the head of the category page. Moonraker (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting, Moonraker and, I think, it's probably worth mentioning in the category descriptions for Category:Kingdom of Great Britain and Category:History of Great Britain that the formal name was "Great Britain" not "Kingdom of Great Britain". (The latter category, incidentally, has several images unrelated to the 1707-1800 period.) We could alternately disambiguate with Category:People of Great Britain (1707-1800) which would be more accurate, but less pretty. Thoughts on that? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Then people might start creating unwanted categories for different date ranges. Rightly or wrongly, the term "Great Britain" went on being used for the British state until well into the 20th century, and indeed it made a big come-back after the Irish Free State became independent. If we should disambiguate the term "Great Britain", it's not so much between one period and another as between Great Britain (the country) and Great Britain (the geographical area), and your suggestion certainly does that. Perhaps my real objection is to the capital "K". How about Category:People of the kingdom of Great Britain? But a really fool-proof name might be Category:People of the 18th-century kingdom of Great Britain? Moonraker (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC) NB, the year 1800 was of course the last year of the 18th century. Moonraker (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Either of those sounds reasonable to me, as do your concerns with my proposal. Any thoughts, Auntof6? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Some of these categories might seem redundant, but if you remove them you will mess up the category tree. --Joostik (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

i support "People of Great Britain (1707-1800)". using the exact time range is the clearest way to disambiguate things.

according to wikipedia, even the brits themselves dont have a standard name for it: "The Treaty of Union and the subsequent Acts of Union state that England and Scotland were to be "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain", and as such "Great Britain" was the official name of the state, as well as being used in titles such as "Parliament of Great Britain". The websites of the Scottish Parliament, the BBC, and others, including the Historical Association, refer to the state created on 1 May 1707 as the United Kingdom of Great Britain..." RZuo (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The nominated category will remain as it is. However, as per discussion, I've created People of the Kingdom of Great Britain as a sub of People of Great Britain. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)