Category:Fresco on the wall of Kashiviswanath temple, Padar Shinga

Created mistakenly due to typo Nizil Shah (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted in favour of Category:Fresco on the wall of Kashivishwanath temple, Padar Shinga. @Nizil Shah: Typos happen, but they don't need discussion. Next time, please use {{Bad name}} to have the old category deleted without discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Hyderabad Ganesh Idols

Delete this category because Ganesh Chaturthi in Hyderabad, India aldready exists VenkateshMgna (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion, because it contains only itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Postnikov mansion

Please delete this category. I want to rename it to "Postnikov house" for consistency, but instead created a separate directory Vladimir Elistratov (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Shri Hari Ram Temple

Nominating for deletion: The temple in this category was mis-named: The temple's name should be Harirai Temple. The single file on this page and relevant categories have been moved to Category:Harirai Temple, Chamba Blademasterx (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Blademasterx: I added the {{Bad name}} template to get it deleted. For future reference, that is often a better option in cases like this that don't require discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:St George's church, Hanham Abbotts

delete please - typo in name WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing -- cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:All Saints Church (Selsley) - interior

duplicate- created by mistake WereSpielChequers (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. @WereSpielChequers: Typos happen, but they don't require discussion. Next time please use {{Bad name}} on the bad category, and it will be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Bus Stops in China

Need merge to Category:Bus stops in China because of the same content. Theodore Xu (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I tagged it with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Association football midfielders from Cameroon

66666666666666666666 186.112.186.57 00:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Kerpo de León

La categoria esta vacia. La única imagen que contenía no correspondía con el infobox mostrado aquí ni con Q5959196 en wikidata. No es la misma persona, cosa que ya arregle en otros espacios wiki. En mi opinión la categoría es ahora innecesaria y debería ser borrada. Cabeza2000 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Translation) The category is empty. The only imaged it contained did not correspond with the infobox neither with Q5959196 in wikidata. Is not the same person, which is something that I already fixed in other wikispaces. In my opinion the category is now unnecessary and should be deleted. --Cabeza2000 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Halmstad Hammers–Nybro Vikings October 12 2018

Please delete Machatjkala (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done: Deleted: renamed, author's request. --Achim (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Soil Erosion by Water

The name needs to be Category:Soil erosion by water or similar. Leyo 22:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted in favour of Category:Soil erosion by water. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Soil Erosion by Wind

The name needs to be Category:Soil erosion by wind or similar. Leyo 22:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation should be according to the guidelines. Frantsch (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why the name of the category needs to get changed. --Leyo 09:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done --MB-one (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted in favour of Category:Soil erosion by wind. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Icons inTurkey

Category:Icons of Turkey Cobija (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Tagged as bad name. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted in favour of Category:Icons of Turkey. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lionel Barber

<deleted text>

Nomination seems to have been withdrawn. closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Abbasid art in the Louvre museum

hgghhcuyifkghjv86rcygvhj 205.202.243.15 16:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:2017 in New York (state)

This category is a duplicate of Category:2017 in New York Robby (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was convert Category:2017 in New York into a DAB. Robby this is the way to deal with these. Please discuss other issues such as not all of the years with "(state)" existing yet at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:1891 in New York (state). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:1933 in New York (state)

this category is a duplicate of Category:1933 in New York. Robby (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• This issue exists because of duplicate templates ({{New Yorkyear}} and {{New York(state)year}}), which the difference is adding the word state in parentheses to distinguish New York from New York state (but distinguish from what if we already distinguish New York City categories?). In my opinion, we just need to distinguish New York City from the state of New York (either by naming categories New York City or New York (city)). Robby proposed the deletion the duplicate template (I agree with that).--Flávio Nuno Neves Rodrigues (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was convert Category:1933 in New York into a DAB, please discuss further at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:1891 in New York (state) to keep the discussion in 1 place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Elections in Armenia

kohrbeht .🍦🚙Ⓜ 196.68.59.102 16:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Nonsense – nothing to discuss. --jdx ^Re: 20:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Coryphaena adnexa

This category needs deletion. It exsits only due to the wrong classification for the file "Blue-faced Darner (Coryphaeshna adnexa) (38927278871).jpg". I corrected that classification. The Genus "Coryphaena" is a Genus of fisch which has only two recognised species, none named C. "adnexa", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coryphaena and the there referenced sources. Azhai (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Rudolphous (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Close: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Orion III(ship, 2005)

Typo in name (missing space). Created correctly-name cat. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tagged with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, brain fart on my part for not using that. Thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:IVS Kinglet(ship, 2011)

Typo in name (missing space); created correctly-named cat Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I tagged the category with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. That's usually a better way to handle cases like this, because they don't really need discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Vice-Chancellors of the University of Raajshahi

wrong rename Afifa Afrin (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted as typo. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Nayantara

delete this category because nayantara category is aldready available https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nayanthara VenkateshMgna (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Would a redirect make sense? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirected. It seems to either be an alternate spelling or a common misspelling. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lower Saxony by genre of photography

The only thing here is a subcat for videos. However, "videos" is not a genre. Cat should be deleted. Auntof6 (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This doesn't follow the commons categorization scheme at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:North Rhine-Westphalia by genre of photography

Category should be up-merged to the photographs or media category because not all subcats are genres. Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. They aren't all even examples of photography, since it includes "valued images," "quality images" and "postcards" categories that can contain non-photographic media. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

And naturally, the same goes for sub-category Category:Wuppertal by genre of photography. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Company names

Is Category:Company names not redundant with Category:Business names? Themightyquill (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• in this case, I think, Company names mean Formal names of companies. Thanks.
  As an example, Category:Company name signs‎, Category:Logos of companies.
  Maybe, Category:Business names = (or ">") Category:Company names. But, each parent-category is respectively, Category:Business and Category:Companies. --Benzoyl (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The relationship between "Companies" and "Business" is not the same as the relationship between "Companies" and "Businesses", is it? I think we should at least merge into Category:Company names, or better yet, delete them both and put the contents in Category:Companies. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, 2 merge into 1 category (Category:Company names or Category:Business names). Either's fine. You can decide, Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If we choice Category:Business names,

Category:Business names > Category:Company name signs‎ (=Category:Business name signs‎) --Benzoyl (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection. Moved to Category:Company names. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:WOW

This category contained images related to two or three different unrelated WOW companies. I suggest that we change the title to something else as the current title is likely to cause confusion.

• The category seems to be meant for w:WOW Alliance.
• I've moved File:Wow sponsored city bikes in Reykjavik.jpg to Category:WOW Air. Note that both "WOW Alliance" and "WOW Air" are aviation-related but seemingly unrelated to each other.
• File:Toom - panoramio.jpg is related to an unidentified WOW. No idea how to categorise it. I've added {{Check categories}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest the creation of Category:WOW Cargo Alliance, and turning Category:WOW (or Category:Wow) into a disambiguation page linked to en:Wow. Category:Wow! signal could also be included, along with others, I imagine. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• DAB per Themightyquill. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Category:WOW Cargo Alliance. Dab page created at Category:Wow. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Black and white photographs of interior

Appears to duplicate Black and white photographs of building interiors; “interior” by itself is vague and not quite grammatical. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems open and shut to me. Do we need to wait for further discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hiddenhauser: Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The main reason I thought it warranted discussion is that this cat is older than the one with the better name.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Merged to Black and white photographs of building interiors. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ouse Burn

Rename to Category:Ouseburn - correct name (blocked by redirect at present) Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine- that's what comes of reading eighteen century sources! --ClemRutter (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Ouseburn. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda portraits

I don't understand this category. Why is Category:Portraits of Vladimir Lenin here but not Category:Portrait paintings of George V of the United Kingdom ? Surely not all examples of Category:Hugo Chávez in art will necessarily be propaganda. I would tend to favour deleting the whole category as subjective and unhelpful. Themightyquill (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If a particular portrait really is propaganda, it can go separately under propaganda and portraits. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Device current-voltage characteristics

disho 12345@hak.com 41.33.105.154 21:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx ^Re: 15:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Free software by genre

Category should be renamed because the subcats are not genres. I'm not sure what the name should be, though: by type? by function? Auntof6 (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Most seem to be grandchild sub-categories of Category:Application software by type so type would make sense. I'm going to nominate Category:Software by domain in a separate discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Free software by type. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Bridges by the army

Move to Category:Military bridges or Category:Military-built bridges? The current title is awkward/confusing - which army? Themightyquill (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving to Category:Military bridges. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Mottos

to learn about the college and mimerize the college learn about infomion 67.221.113.224 18:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure what's being proposed here or is this just a test/accidental nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx ^Re: 18:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Thomas Koschat-Denkmal. Peraustraße, Villach

Duplicate to Category:Thomas Koschat-Denkmal, Peraustraße, Villach‎. Seems to be a typographical error due to the point after "Denkmal". Liberaler Humanist (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Queen

DAB to Category:Queen (band) per w:Queen (band) and w:Category:Queen (band). Per W:WP:ASTONISH its likely that this will gets lost of images of queens. See w:Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 21#Queen category for the EN CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Support Should have been obvious, really. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and do the same with the same-named gallery. The category currently has quite a bit that isn't for the band. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Queen (band) and turned Category:Queen into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Car decks

Should perhaps the category name be changed to Category:Automobile decks to bring it in line with other categories related to automobiles? Blue Elf (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, "car deck" and "vehicle deck" are the common terms in usage on ferries. A google search for "Ferry 'car deck'" yields 75k hits, 29k for the same with "vehicle" and whereas a search for "Ferry 'automobile deck'" yields only 525 hits. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The rest of the Automobile/Car categories have been proposed to be moved at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Automobiles, we should get that resolved first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Would a move to Category:Vehicle decks not avoid that dispute? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, however if its just for car decks then a separate category at Category:Vehicle decks could be created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Vehicle decks. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammad Abdah al-Nashiri's defense attorneys

Sorry but I don't think that this cat is useful as the defense attorneys probalby have a lot more cases during their career. Sanandros (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. We wouldn't want every lawyer category to have a parent for each client they've had. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Plein air

Rename to Category:Painting en plein air for the sake of clarity, and to avoid confusion with Category:Open air Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Renamed to Category:Painting en plein air. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Slaying

Is this a useful category, as separate from Category:Murder ? Themightyquill (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest merging with Category:Murder in art. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Contents moved to Category:Murder in art, and category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Claudio Zuliani

no file about Zuliani, empty category. Danyele (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:2018-19 Serie A - Frosinone Calcio v Juventus)

empty category with obvious errors in filenames. Danyele (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted as redirect with typo. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Viaturas da Polícia Militar do Paraná

This category places media of vehicles of Parana State Military Police. According to COM:C#Category names and COM:LP, most Commons categories should be in English, so the category is suggested to be renamed as Category:Vehicles of Polícia Militar do Paraná. As I am not familiar about renaming categories, a regular CFD is nominated instead. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Vehicles of Polícia Militar do Paraná. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Agriculture in Adana

Probably my mistake and it should merge into Category:Agriculture in Adana Province. E4024 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted in favour of Category:Agriculture in Adana Province. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Brazil Biocountry

Including Category:Brazil Biocountry‎, Category:Central America Biocountry‎, Category:Eastern Europe Biocountry‎, Category:Middle Europe Biocountry‎, Category:Northern Territory Biocountry‎. What are these? They don't seem to be terms of common usage, and I'm having trouble figuring out where they come from. They are often redundant with "Nature in X" categories, as visible in the former Category:Caribbean Biocountry, Category:Victoria Biocountry, Category:New South Wales Biocountry, and Category:Southern Africa Biocountry. They don't seem to have matching article on wikipedia. I suggest deletion, but I'm open to other ideas. Themightyquill (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• I  share Themightyquill’s concerns. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories deleted. Content moved to "Nature in X" - Themightyquill (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Flat-1 engines

This is not a reasonable category of engine layout. The engines here are all horizontally mounted one-cylinder engines, but a horizontally mounted engine is not the same as a "flat" engine, which has horizontally *opposing* cylinders (which is why flat engines are sometimes called "boxers"). For example, mounting a straight-4 engine on its side would not make it a flat-4. A one-cylinder engine cannot have opposing cylinders, so a flat one-cylinder engine is impossible by definition. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Colin Douglas Howell: What would you suggest we do to fix the problem? Is it worth keeping a category for Category:Horizontally mounted one-cylinder engines? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I don't think it's worth making such a category right now, if ever. In this case, all the images here show the engine of the Benz Patent-Motorwagen or replicas of it. So it would be simplest to move them all to Category:Single cylinder automobile engines. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No opposition. Images moved to Category:Single cylinder automobile engines and Category:Flat-1 engines deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Südostportal (Ulm Minster)

This category can be deleted Uoaei1 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

An equivalent category Category:Gerichtsportal (Ulm Minster) already exists --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. Nominated by creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Liwa

This category referes to Liwa river in Poland, not Liwa oasis in UAE. It needs recategorization and media of oasis should be moved. Please correct me if I am wrong. Mizael Contreras (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• DAB per w:Liwa, there are even 2 uses in Poland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• I have made changes to files that were in this category, so it is not empty, except that another category is now a subcategory of this one. Leo1pard (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguated. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Mulu Caves

"Mulu Caves" is the same as Category:Cave of Gunung Mulu National Park where the latter is better established. Please do the "Mulu Caves" category. Thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a redirect would be appropriate? "Mulu Caves" yields a lot of google hits, so maybe it's also used. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Cave of Gunung Mulu National Park. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Yiddish-language literature

Aren't Category:Yiddish-language literature and Category:Yiddish literature redundant? And does Yiddish refer to anything other than the language? If not, the first category should be merged into the second. Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Could be merged, in my opinion. Shaul (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Most subcats of Category:Literature by language use the "-language" name format. If the one without that is kept, Wikidata will need to be changed because it currently links to the one with it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I moved most of the ones without "-language" earlier today. "French literature" is ambiguous (it could be French-language lit, or could be any literature from France) but Yiddish literature is not, afaik, ambiguous. That's why I left categories like Category:Hindi literature‎ and Category:Urdu literature‎ alone. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Yiddish literature. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Motifs by painters

Can someone explain to me what's going on in this category? I don't understand. Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It certainly seems like a mishmash of things. Also, the category name isn't what we'd usually use. "Motifs by painter" would make sense as a category name, but I'd expect the subcats to be things like "Motifs by <specific painter>". However, the things in this category seem more like subjects than motifs. The paintings included here may have motifs, but the category names don't reflect that.

The text says that the category is experimental. I'd say the experiment should be declared to have run its course, and the category should be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Graves by artist

In June 2017, this category was renamed from Category:Graves by sculptor. Since it's still categorized under sculptures, shouldn't it have "sculpture" somewhere in its name? Maybe "Grave sculptures by artist" or "Sculpted graves by artist"? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that Category:Graves is not a sub-category of Category:Sculptures either, and then I realized that's logical - a grave is just a hole in the ground, and gravediggers don't qualify as artists. Could we move to Category:Grave markers by artist or Category:Gravestones by artist ? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of the things here are more than gravestones, so grave markers would be better. If there's any chance that there are grave markers in a medium other than sculpture, though, then I still think this cat name needs to include a reference to sculpture. We do already have Category:Grave sculptures: it would seem to fit well there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. I hadn't noticed Category:Grave sculptures. In that case, Category:Grave sculptures by artist makes perfect sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Grave sculptures by artist as per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Azadi stadium by Year

For deletion, Main category is: Category:Azadi Stadium by year UnitedPowers^Talk 13:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Azadi stadium in 2018

For deletion, Main category is: Category:Azadi Stadium in 2018 UnitedPowers^Talk 13:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Downtowns in the United States by state capital

Per the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Downtowns by city earlier this year, this is not a meaningful way to organize urban centers. Eureka Lott 00:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see no reason for an exception to the earlier decision. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Delete, as with the previous discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted with consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Himalaya

I see that both Himalaya and Himalayas are valid, but shouldn't we pick one for consistency? The subcategories currently include:

• Category:Mountain ranges of the Himalaya‎
• Category:Diagrams of the Himalaya‎
• Category:Mountains of the Himalaya by name‎
• Category:Mountain passes in the Himalaya‎
• Category:Aerial photographs of the Himalaya‎
• Category:Satellite pictures of the Himalaya‎
• Category:Maps of Himalaya‎
• Category:Videos of the Himalaya‎
• Category:Himalayas in art‎
• Category:Ethnic groups in the Himalaya
• Category:Geography of the Himalaya
• Category:Geology of the Himalayas‎
• Category:Glaciers of the Himalaya‎
• Category:Himalaya in the 1890s‎
• Category:Junction point of three main mountain ranges, the Hindukush, the Karakoram, and the Himalayas in Pakistan‎
• Category:Landforms of the Himalaya‎
• Category:Nature of the Himalayas‎
• Category:Rivers in the Himalayas‎
• Category:Things named after Himalaya‎
• Category:Transport in the Himalayas‎
• Category:Uncategorized files pertaining to the Himalayas‎
• Category:Unidentified locations in the Himalayas‎
• Category:Valleys of the Himalaya‎

Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I favor the plural, because I've never heard it used as singular. Either way, we could have redirects from one to the other, if only to prevent creation of categories with the non-preferred wording. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Plural Per Auntof6, even the WP article is at "Himalayas‎", despite the plural nature of categories and single nature of article as its name is pluralized like Tropics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Himalayas. This was a much bigger category tree than I saw at first. It might take some time. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Bank checks

Redundant category of Category:Cheques (which is already categorized as financial document and payment system). Flávio Nuno Neves Rodrigues (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment A US v/s UK English spelling distinction. No strong opinion on which should be the main category, but the other should be left as a redirect. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• The general title should not have the word "bank" in it, because checks can be issued/printed by other institutions (such as credit unions). That is, unless we separate checks by the type of institution that issues or prints them, but I don't think we do because there's no real difference between them. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Bank check" is a long established term in American English, as a quick google will show, formerly fairly common. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Category:Cheques. "Checks" is ambiguous, cheques is not. I imagine that's why the wikipedia article is at en:Cheque. If anyone feels we absolutely need to disambiguate further to ensure Americans know what it's about, we could do Category:Cheques (payment) or something like that. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• • "Cheques" seems sufficient; no need to create Wikimedia specific neologisms when sufficiently clear terms in use already exist in use outside Wikimedia. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Cheques. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Madonnas by painter.

This title Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary would suggest redundancy with Category:Virgin Mary in art, but the contents are obviously quite different. Could we rename to Category:Virgin Mary by theme or Category:Virgin Mary in art by theme ? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not an easy decision. See a similar category here: Category:Depictions_of_Jesus_Christ. For now I move "Depictions of the Virgin Mary" as a subcategory of Virgin Mary in art, as all the depictions are art.--Jordiferrer (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jordiferrer: Thanks for pointing out that parallel category, as this decision should apply there too. I note that English wikipedia has both en:Category:Jesus in art and en:Category:Iconography of Jesus. The latter seems like a much better phrasing than "Depictions of Jesus", not least because both Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary and Category:Depictions_of_Jesus_Christ are subcategories of Category:Christian iconography. By contrast, see Category:Depictions and even Category:Depictions of Muhammad which is clearly something else. So I'd propose we move to Category:Iconography of the Virgin Mary and Category:Iconography of Jesus Christ, potentially as subcategories of Category:Virgin Mary in art and Category:Jesus Christ in art. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No oppositin. Moved to Category:Iconography of the Virgin Mary and Category:Iconography of Jesus Christ. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms by painter

This category was left of out the changes resulting from Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Sculptures by artist. Can it be safely moved to Category:Coats of arms by artist ? These aren't all necessarily paintings, are they? Themightyquill (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Coats of arms by artist. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Changrabhaga beach

not needed. Incorrect name Psubhashish (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Chandrabhaga Beach‎ - Themightyquill (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment The WP article title uses the lower case but the intro uses the upper case, it looks like the upper case is correct as "Changrabhaga Beach" appears to be the name of the beach (a proper noun), rather than just being a beach at Changrabhaga. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Chandrabhaga Beach‎. The spelling is also different - there's a d not a g. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Carbines

This category doesn't have a good definiiton. Check german wp "Der Begriff ist im Waffenbereich nur unscharf definiert." This is not precily defined. Sanandros (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we come up with a good definition, or that we do away with the category? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If there exists a good definition somewhere then I'd accept it but I couldn't find any, so currently I'm for deleting.--Sanandros (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Sanandros. And if we delete, where do the contents go? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

In general they should go to rifles, but more moderne "carabines" (like the M4) should go to assault rifles. I read withCategory:Saiga-9 that it is a carabine but it uses a pistol caliber which would make it a submachien gun. But the Saiga-9 is not a fully automatic weapon so it is also not a submachine gun, eventually we then just categories it generally as firearm.--Sanandros (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sanandros: No opposition, it seems. Please sort the contents accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'm doing it, but not now. Give me a few days (maybe also next weekend).--Sanandros (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sanandros: No worries, just close discussion when you're done, or let me know so that I can close it. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done: per discussion. --Sanandros (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Animations of physical phenomena

should be joined into Category:Animations of physics Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree. A redirection must be left.--Allforrous (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, Category:Animations of physical phenomena is even a better name than Category:Animations of physics? After all, an equation (like E=m·c²) cannot be animated, but a phenomenon obeying that equation can. - As for redirects, I'd prefer to omit them between names that have a long common prefix. For example, if you type "Animations of phys", the auto-complete mechanism in wikipedia's search box will show you the full name of the existing category automatically. On the other hand, when a redirect is kept, and you try to re-categorize a file with HotCat, you'll be offered both "Animations of physical phenomena" and "Animations of physics" and you have to find out which one is appropriate; it usually takes some time to find out that it doesn't matter since one is a redirect to the other. When you do lots of re-categorizations, much time accumulates that is wasted with learning about redirects. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection for 3 months - joining Category:Animations of physical phenomena into Category:Animations of physics (seems to be a canonical name in Category:Animations by subject), without additional redirect. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Abruzzo deck

All files in this category are under copyright by Dal Negro and should be deleted as is the category itself. Countakeshi (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Cat is now empty, so I have tagged it for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing because cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Rum, Scotland

Should this not be at Category:Rùm (or Category:Rùm, Scotland) per the OS and Wikipedia? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably. And shouldn't the "Scotland" qualifier, if kept, be in parentheses instead of using a comma? I thought that only populated places were separated with commas (although I see other similar uses in Category:Small Isles archipelago). --Auntof6 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm still in favour of using parentheses for "is a" disambiguation and commas of "in" disambiguation. So Category:Rùm, Scotland or Category:Rùm (island). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The "Scotland" qualifies should indeed be with a comma per w:WP:UKPLACE (which uses Jura, Scotland as an example), while its not part of Great Britain it is still located in Scotland. The qualifies should be by "in", not "is a" anyway as all others (apart from Category:The Lamb (island)) appear to use "Island, Location", which should probably change. The main question I would ask is if we decide to use the Galic name "Rùm" then do we need to disambiguate it at all. It it likely to be confused with the drink (or anything else) per w:WP:SMALLDETAILS (noting that the requirement for PTs are higher here). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved as unopposed, no evidence the drink would be spelled this way. Also note that many sub categories use this form already or just use "Rum" without qualification. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Calligraphy

niet categorie wel schrijfwijze: kalografie... zoals lithografie.... 2A02:A03F:4E85:6700:E449:A8FD:D8FB:C4C9 11:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, could you write it in English, please? I don’t speak Dutch. --Manuel (Diskussion) 07:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Manuel Strehl: comment done by anonym. Per Google Translate seems to be just info pollution--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Tripe chorba

"Tripe soup". Full stop. Çorba means "soup" in Turkish and is used even for the French soupe à l'oignon (soğan çorbası) or the Spanish gazpacho (soğuk domates çorbası). If there is a "dish" called "chorba" in some country, limit the word to that country that must have been invaded by us the barbarians. (Stop there, food is culture, right? :) Please do not let making the English word "soup" a victim of a foreign word. E4024 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose There are tripe soups that aren't chorba (which, in English usage refers to Turkish, Central Asian, and some Balkan soups). For example sopa de mondongo is also literally "tripe soup" and it differs from Turkish işkembe çorbası. In Bulgarian, some soups are called chorba (чорба) rather than supa (супа; This is the generic word for "soup"). In English, some soups from specific geographic regions are called chorba and tripe chorba is one of them. (See for example ). --Jon Sega (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"Bai Ganyo" must be an expert on this issue! We should invite this person to Commons. But, oh, that's a fictional character... --E4024 (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• All the surrounding categorization was re-handled and this one re-directed by another user and now there is no need for this CFD any more. Closing after almost two years. --E4024 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Closed per above. E4024 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name (flat list)

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Ships by name.

It seems some people don't like this category. It was meant as a solution to find a compromise between those who agreed there should be a flat category listing all ships by name, but weren't sure how to square that with Category:Ships by name by type. Some wanted the latter deleted completely. Some wanted it as a parallel category to Category:Ships by name. Some, apparently, wanted to ignore COM:OVERCAT and include ships both in the flat list and in the sub-categories. I think Category:Ships by name (flat list) solves this whole debate nicely, and allows the categories to nest naturally. I'd be happy to hear of other potential solutions. Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that Category:Ships by name by type has since been removed both from Category:Ships by name and Category:Ships by type. Category:Ships without name which also fit pretty well under Category:Ships by name has also been removed. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think a category containing each named ship individually is needed. If you know a ship's name but nothing else about it, this category lets you look for it by name. If you want an image of a ship with a certain name, but it doesn't matter which one, you can find one in this category. Well, at least it would if the sorting were worked out better. I don't really care what the name of the category is, if that's the issue, but I think a category should exist with this content. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

For me the old Category:Ships by name was good enough. Short and gave sufficient possibilities for other categories. I did not protest at the renaming other than asking why, because Category:Ships by name (flat list) is the only category with "(flat list)" in Category:Categories by name (flat list). I did not see the advantage. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it might be the only "by name (flat list)" category, but there also aren't a lot of "by name" categories which are actually flat. (Yes, there are some and they require ongoing maintenance to keep them flat, and/or weird workarounds like Category:People categories by name). Category:Ships by name invites sub-categorization, whether you want it or not. In most all other category trees Category:X by Y by Z is a subcategory of Category:X by Y and usually by Category:X by Z. The first few examples that came up in a search, just looking at those involving "name" - it's even more common in other intersections:

• Category:Politicians by name by year is a subcategory of Category:Politicians by name and Category:Politicians by year
• Category:Jurists by name by country is a subcategory of Category:Jurists by name and Category:Jurists by country
• Category:Streets in Germany by name by city is a subcategory of Category:Streets in Germany by name and Category:Streets in Germany by city

Conversely, there's no indication that most or all sub-categories that end with "by name" are flat-categories. From my perspective, if you want a flat category to remain flat without having to fight for consensus whenever anyone wants to sub-categorize, add "(flat list)" to the category name. No more need for debate and maintenance, and no harm done. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I note we're still active at the Village Pump on this question: discussion September 18.

Hopefully we can keep this simple. In essence I agree with Stunteltje on this topic.

I think we may all agree that the simplest most direct method is the best way. The directory tree should be as flat as possible. Ideally all main cats should lie directly under Ships. A main cat should be as short and as simple a name as possible, that why I prefer "Ships by name" to "Ships by name ((flat list)". "Ships by type" should be directly under "Ships", as a parallel category to Category:Ships by name. "Ships by name has instructions at the top of it telling you that it is a place for ship name categories only. Calling it "Ships by name ((flat list)" does not resolve dumping other stuff in there. Adding "(flat list)" to the category name, doesn't take the place of the instructions. All cats invite sub-categorization, especially for people who don't read instructions. Your right every cat needs to be curated, because part timers continually dump stuff where it shouldn't be, either through ignorance, laziness or more likely confusion; and confusion come about through over nesting, and over long cat names.

When Commons was born a directory tree was created by people interested in "filing" as a subject and by people interested in "boats and barges" as opposed to ships. That greatly influenced subsequent development. The "ship" community" has a very different view on a whole raft of detail. I.E. ships are launched, barges and boats are built, is just one example. At the start it was not envisaged, how big the project would become, even shipping as a subject is larger than we ever dreamt. The cat structure was designed accordingly, and designed for people that did not know how to interrogate a database using sophisticated search queries.

Consequently we have choked many branches within commons with over nesting of cats and over diffusion of images. The latter has been discussed recently elsewhere and over diffusion by date was found to be not popular by consensus. Simply, because, even when looking at 200 files in once place it's obvious what dates belong to what image, and filing by year tends to hide files away, and make them inaccessible. Over-catting leads to an unacceptable maintenance overhead.

What is clear to me, is that if you want to find a ship, people use Wikipedia as a map. It's in Wikipedia that ship types and ship names are identified, that means in effect that all our type cats are effectively redundant. An enquirer then come to commons and looks for ships by name, that is if you don't know how to use deepcat or Petscan. Even if you want images tied to a certain year (and your eye is not enough) then it's best to use petscan or type in a specific year as a search keyword to narrow the results. However date finding is not too clever in Commons, as the largest number of errors here are the dates attached to images, far greater than spelling errors.

Commons doesn't lend itself to disambiguation as efficiently and clearly as Wikipedia. We should be geared towards not filing as an end in itself, but as a repository of images for our major client, exemplified by Wikipedia. COM:OVERCAT has nothing to do with putting ships in both the flat list and in sub-categories (I'm presuming you meant ships by type) that's perfectly acceptable, though a waste of time IMO.

Autofun6 has a point, but of course we're not supposed to raise a cat for a single image, but what we can do, is put an image in cats like "Ships named Neptune" or similar. All this work just for people who cant do basic search! It's not all wasted effort though as many images have insufficient text descriptions that on occasion don't include the name of the ship, and / or miss out on the term ship, and call the vessel what it is, yacht, barge, steamer. But that of course takes me back to the inherent flaws that still exist, through creation of the tree by bargemen as opposed to ship boys.

Don't get me wrong, this is a living organism that will perpetually change (and more importantly is not broken), I just pray that we keep it simple and solve it by taking out unnecessary levels and cats, rather than adding new ones. Remember those four cats doing the same job: "Categories by ship name", "Ships by type"; "Ships by function"! and "Ships by name by type‎" as an example. "Ships by name (flat list)" is just another needless, and a log on the fire. Respectfully. Broichmore (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note that, as far as I can see, there is only one other "by name by type" category on commons, Category:Aircraft by name by type, and it's in Category:Aircraft by name. Category:Aircraft by name is heavily sub-categorized.

While searching for the above, I accidentally also found that Category:Ships by name by type was already subject to a discussion back in 2011. It was ultimately decided that it should go in Category:Ships by name, as following standard practice for other intersecting categories on commons. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

So what is category Category:Ship names for then? Broichmore (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

To group together those sub-categories that were in it previously (Category:Ships by name by type and Category:Ships without name) as well as Category:Ships by name (flat list) and any other sub-categorizations that might get created in the future -- there's nothing to stop someone from creating Category:Ships of the United Kingdom by name, for instance. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ships of the United Kingdom does that already, and there are already several sub-cats covering that too. Despite all that you've said, and not read, you still have no good reason for your modifications to "Ships by name", please change it back to how it was. Dump those cats you didn't like (that were in it, polluting it, to your annoyance) into Category:Ship names. Again, our problem is over nesting and adding cats and levels to that is not helping that. Not happy with one cat and an extra level you now want to double it, with another. Regards - Broichmore (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If Category:Ships of the United Kingdom by name would be redundant with Category:Ships of the United Kingdom, then wouldn't Category:Ships by name be redundant with Category:Ships? That's not how commons works. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll do you a bargain, You can throw all the main "name" cats into Category:Ship names (I'll even do it for you), if you reinstate Category:Ships by name and get rid of Category:Ships by name (flat list). Broichmore (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Under that scheme, what goes in Category:Ships by name? It's redundant with Category:Ship names? I'm not sure I'm convinced anyway, as these are categories for the ships but organized by name, not categories for their names. What about we get rid of Category:Ship names and redirect it to Category:Ships by name (flat list)? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This an important issue, and deserves much thought. I'm going to be doing intensive travelling over the next two weeks, so I beg you to put this on hold. I will think about it over the period and come back with a way forward, that hopefully you will find agreeable. Key points have to be minimal nesting of categories, and preserving ships from the the over categorisation and diffusion that is such a blight on other projects. While there are unlimited numbers of ship images there are relatively few as a rule per ship. You may have already solved the issue, notice that in Category:Ships by name you have already put in the "header", a set of "instructions required" to keep it a "flat list", perhaps we just need to point out in there, that images that have no home I.E. "unidentified ships" or are single ship images should be in "Ships named after Foo" or better still "ships named Foo"? In the end we may all have to put up with a certain amount of image dumping into and consequent curation of major cats such as this. -Broichmore (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

As of today things look OK to me. First we have Category:Ships, inside it "Ship Names" and "Ships by name‎", then inside "Ship names" are various name titles and again "Ships by name". There is no need for adding another tier of "Ships by name (flat list)". the current contents of which should be returned to "Ships by name". "Ships by name" is the only category in "Ships" of any real importance. As such it deserves its name to be as short as possible. It is the only mandatory category where a ship folder should reside. There are many other categories in "Ships" that an individual ship can belong to. These other categories are problematic. They will never be complete. Are difficult to maintain (curate). Some are poorly defined. They are redundant in large part by Wikipedia being effectively an index of shipping titles (a map of Commons ship content) and Commons being an extended library shelf (databank). Please return the contents of "Ships by name (flat list)" to where it belongs "Ships by name". Thank you --Broichmore (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Broichmore. The system worked fine and there was no need at all to introduce a "flat list" category here. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: When "Ships" was first conceived, a category for names was made, called "Ships names". It was later felt that a flat list was required and so "Ships by name" was created. The latters only fault was a lack of prescriptive instruction for its content in its header, which you and others finally fixed. Hence there is no need for lengthening its name into "Ships by name (flat list)". Lengthening its title only creates problems with slow internet connections. Tell me, afresh, at this moment in time, given the amendments and improvements (you and others sponsored) to the page "Ships by name" header (which made it into a so called flat list), why it should it be changed to "Ships by name (flat list)". How is that an improvement. What does it solve? Seeing as "Ship names" now holds the sub cats YOU did not want there. I'm not the only person not to see the point in this change. Stunteltje, Huntster, Rmhermen, have all agreed at some point that there is no need for it. Again please reinstall its contents. Broichmore (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, please correct me if this is not an accurate comparison of the two systems that are being proposed.

Thanks, Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The old system stopped working once "Ships by name" and the subcategories of "Ships by name by type" had the same content, so a textbook case of overcategorisation ensued. In terms of naming there is may not be need an apparent need to have the new "(flat list)" disambiguation, but it makes it clear that "Ships by name" should no longer be used for individual ship categories. Category:Ships by name by type, however, is a valid subcategory for "Ships by name" and should not have been removed from its parent at all. TMQ's system as listed above provides a well-structured category tree that goes along with the requirements of our category guideline, and also follows a logical taxonomy. De728631 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Its not a case of over over-categorisation. This category solves the continual problem of ship identification, where names are re-used multiple times, even in the same year, its necessary to have an (overview) register of ALL ships names.

"Ships by name by type" is completely different, it is not an overview cat of all ships names.

Ships very often change their identity / type over time. Example sidewheel steamers were often converted into barges in their late working life. Liners into troop transports or hospital ships. Sailing Ships converted into into paddle steamers. Fishing boats into gunboats. Gunboats into yachts and launches. Four masts to three masts. There are also many grey areas in ship types, where a ship can fall into two or more types. Example Sailing Yachts and steam yachts. Ships can crossover into several descriptions barques, schooners, as can Clippers.

Trust this explains the need for "Ships by name". If anything this is the only mandatory cat for a ship. Wikipedia content acts as an index that makes many shipping cats redundant; including "Ships by name by type".

Aircraft are a completely different life form, and are not directly comparable. They are made in batches or in series, by type and are largely therefore anonymous. They are very often not bespoke made, or unique, or Launched. They are seldom reported on or written about as individuals. Therefore "by type" is a valid form of categorisation. Anyway I'm not an expert on Aircraft and would not presume to weigh into that area and would leave it, to its own experts.Broichmore (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point, Broichmore. Are you suggesting that, for example, the category of Category:Edisa (ship, 1959) should not go in Category:General cargo ships because it might someday be converted? We should/could instead include only photos (not ship categories) in ship-type categories? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the cataloging of the Edisa at the moment. Except that it could go into even more cats, for example different ship owner names. If it were converted at anytime then it wouldn't change its category it would have an additional one added for it new role. Ships lives are like your CV, everytime your job changes so does your role, your job title, your salary, your employer. If you were a miner in 1959, and a broker in 1969. you would appear in those two cats. I don't care how many cats a ship appears in, its virtually unlimited. The more cats are created the more curational overhead exists. The only essential cat is "Ships by name". Broichmore (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Overcategorisation occurs whenever a category and its subcategory are placed in the same parent category (see the example scheme for overcategorised files). This was the case for "Ships by name by type" which is why these discussions where started in the first place. This has nothing to do with identifying ship names or a possible reuse of names, but it is about the structure and hierarchy of the category tree. The Commons community has approved the principle of "Don't place an item into a category and its parent", so this was in fact a problem. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ships by name and "Ships by name by type" are and should be at the same level. It's inevitable that every ship will appear in multiple categories, there's no way to avoid it. Example a Royal Navy tanker and depot ship, could appear in more than four cats, especially if at some stage sold to (and converted by) a commonwealth navy. None of these "sub categories" will ever be truly complete, the curation overhead is immense. However "Ships by name" is the only mandatory cat for a ship to be in, regardless of its type. Ships differs from other areas in Commons in that it is highly bespoke. Cat-a-lot is almost useless here. Every file has to be opened before it can be individually categorized. Ships are by their nature as unique as human beings. I have actually said before now that categories outside of "Ships by name", are largely if not totally redundant. Wikipedia acts as an index for ships and their classes whether we like it or not.

The problem you have identified is what to do, with "Ships with only one image"? -Broichmore (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: What goes in Category:Categories by ship name? Not Category:Ships by name again? And you're sure you don't want Category:Ships by name to be a direct child category of Category:Ships, even though all the other "Ships by X" categories are there? It doesn't seem ideal to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Categories by ship name sits at the same level as Category:Ships by name within "Ship names". I really don't care how many levels or places Category:Ships by name appears in. Being in several different places is probably a good thing; as I keep saying it is the only cat in "ships" that is mandatory or essential for an individual ship category (Edisa (ship, 1959)) to be assigned to. -Broichmore (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Themightyquill, you picked an odd example (Category:Edisa (ship, 1959)) as that ship only sailed as Edisa from 1972-1974 and sank in 1978. It was called Disa for 13 years and Calypso Trader for 4 years. Even stranger that category is sorting under the number 5 instead of alphabetically in the General cargo ships and ships (flat list) categories and I can't see why. Rmhermen (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I just now added an image to the Edisa cat, that was lost in the ether. The order of appearance is number 5 because the database has been told to file and sort under IMO number. That's obviously wrong. This is a good example where either a mistake has been made or someone with insufficient experience of "Ships" has meddled. This is not a place to make decisions about, without extensive hands on experience. -Broichmore (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

We're drifting here. We seem to have started talking about the whole structure of "ships", example Category:Ships by name by type is the same thing as Category:Categories by ship name‎ one of these is pointless. I would delete the second. I alluded to similar flaws before now, and there are many here. What we are defending right now is the sanctity of the this particular category. At this moment in time, given the amendments and improvements to the page header of "Ships by name" (which made it into a so called flat list), I see no reason why it should it be changed to "Ships by name (flat list)". The new name is too long for comprehension and or useability where the internet is slow, and needs to be reverted. Its change for the sake of change; and unwanted by the ship community. The longer the title here, the more niche, the subject. We don't really want to be saddled with a long title for a basal and popular cat such as this. -Broichmore (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have real trouble believing that the extra 12 bytes of data in " (flat list)" is going to have any effect on useability where the internet is slow. There aren't many people using 300baud modems anymore. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's besides the point, a peripheral issue. The main issue here, which you doggedly refuse to address is 51,619 instances of folders being moved to a place no-one in the shipping community wants. You obviously want to repeat this in Category:Categories by name (flat list), where you can do the same to another 96 categories. Your "original" invention of "Flat List", presumably derived from the term "Flat-file databases" is un-wanted. I'm sorry Quill, but you have given no clear explanation of why this change is required, and it needs to be reverted. As you so aptly put it "this is not how Commons works". Regards. -Broichmore (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Even if I believed your incredibly strong feelings on this issue represent the entire "shipping community" (unless it's a pretty small community), Commons categorization does not exist exclusively for people "in the shipping community". It follows a set of standard logically organized structures so that everyone can find the image they are looking for and properly categorize the image they upload. The side-by-side table above demonstrates exactly why this is needed. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Quill, you have been told by active members of the shipping community (all of whom are established creative editors), and who have been here in these discussions, to desist and revert. Commons categorization procedures are completely intact in both "Ships", and this matter and will continue to be so provided you revert. Shipping already adhered to the established procedures, before you happened upon it. It is your initial action, and subsequent prevarications that are the deviation/s to the Commons categorization procedures. Everyone "else" who has visited, has professed no specific agreement to the move, they have only asked for simplistic clarifications demanding monosyllabic answers, and had no further comment to make; something unheard of in the shipping community, I might add. This change, which you did not propose but yet, have unilaterally actioned, is a deviation to the Commons categorization procedures. Please revert it. -Broichmore (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, I just disagree. I've made my case, and I don't feel you've responded to my argument. I recognize that you don't like my proposed change so you can stop telling me that over and over, but I don't feel you've presented a valid reason to oppose it, or a valid reason to keep the illogical old system. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I can see you disagree, with so many on this issue. I have given full responses to your arguments; both specific and non-sequitur. I even described to you the failings within "Ships". The changes to the illogical system have not been opposed, indeed I suggested further improvements. The valid reason for not changing the name of this category was given in detail several times. Its' longer than it needs to be. The extended term "flat line" is both your own invention, it's needed, and unwanted. The deficiencies within the cat were resolved by putting directions into the header, some of which you put there yourself. All that's opposed here is the renaming of the category, and your moving away of its content. -Broichmore (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: See previous post. Quill, Its about time that you changed back this category to its original state. Again you have studiedly ignored what I and others have said to you. You've failed to justify your actions here. Ignoring consensus in such an obvious way and with such artifice is not good form. Broichmore (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, and I again request that you stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. I created this discussion specifically in response to your concerns. I don't believe consensus has been reached. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: What you are ignoring is what has been said to you, time and again by self and others (who are established "ship editors". The consensus is that this change is unnecessary. I implore you to read afresh this and the other relevant strings and you will see that is the case. -Broichmore (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm not ignoring you - I simply disagree with you. I disagree with your argument. I disagree that you've acknowledged any of the flaws in your design. I disagree with your conclusion that consensus has been reached. I disagree with the idea that your self-created designation as "established ship editors" has any special weight here, since the discussion is not about some technical detail of ship building, but about commons categorization structure. Since you're not adding anything new to this discussion, however, I'm considering ignoring you in the future. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Yes the designation "established ship editors" is irrelevant here. I have designed nothing. You persist in twisting whats been said. However you can disagree, but when you fail as an Administrator to be objective in your judgements, and consistently ignore what been said to you, and fail in turn to justify your actions, and resort to gamesmanship to further your aims, then you show yourself to be unworthy of the status of Adminship. You should resign and surrender your powers, that you may have acquired with a free bag of skittles at the start of the project. Now that's a new topic. When an admin ignores the policy they are supposed to be using and defending; thats a problem. Please revert what you have done to the Category, which, again, has been requested of you by consensus of other editors. I sincerely hope you come to your senses here. Regards -Broichmore (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name (flat list) is the correct way to name this category. It is an index category of all ship categories which specify the ship's name. Category:Ships by name can be subcategorized, and items in it thus need to be removed from Category:Ships by name to be added to sub-categories. Adding them to Category:Ships by name (flat list) removes OVERCAT problems. The system listed by Themightyquill (talk · contribs) under TMQ System is the best of the proposals yet put forward. Category:Categories by ship name is a mess, it contains wholly seperate types of content that deserve their own properly named categories (probably warrants its own CfD in the future). The TMQ system is simple, straight-forward, compliant with Commons guidelines, and consistent with naming and structure for other category trees. Josh (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Not all boats are ships, but all ships are boats. A narrowboat is not a ship and Category:Narrowboats by name should not be included in under the categories about ships. — PBS (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@PBS: That's a bit of a side issue, so I'm going to make some comments on your talk page instead. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:School laboratories

Is Category:School laboratories redundant with Category:School science rooms ? For the moment, I have no clear preference. Themightyquill (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Yes, I believe they probably are exactly the same thing, but I have no preference as well. I have created the most recent one because I have not recognized that designation ("science room") and it was not clear it was the same thing. Maybe using the first cat which was created, and redirect the other, would be a good option.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think a 'school science room' is a broader concept than a 'school laboratory'. In a science room the teacher might show (also?) things about physics (electricity, mechanics and so on) and biology. In a laboratory it is all about chemistry. So I would argue for keeping both categories. JopkeB (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@JopkeB: What about Category:Physics laboratories ? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: So you mean that laboratories are not only for chemistry, but for all kind of functions (see parent Category:Laboratories by function)? Then I agree with DarwIn: keep Category:School laboratories (this is in line with the other categories) and make a redirect for Category:School science rooms and its subcategory. JopkeB (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Conclusions:

1. Category:School laboratories is redundant with Category:School science rooms.
2. Keep Category:School laboratories because this one is in line with the other categories.
3. Make a redirect for Category:School science rooms and its subcategory.

I made these changes. JopkeB (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Cityscape paintings from Brazil

Isn't Category:Cityscape paintings from Brazil redundant with Category:Cityscape paintings of Brazil ? Themightyquill (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Category:Cityscape paintings of Brazil. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Posof, Ardahan

Is Category:Posof, Ardahan not redundant with Category:Posof ? Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I agree something should be done. But Category:Posof seems to be about butterflies also, so the one word cat is apparently confusing to some. I don't oppose whatever is best. In general I am for adding a qualifying name to a place, like the province, having been misled so many times myself by a single word for a place category. One word can mean many things to users and editors. Those not sophisticated about locations in Turkey may need some help. Kalbbes (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Category:Posof, Ardahan, I just don't think we need two categories. I imagine the butterfly photos were just taken at/around Posof. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree! Kalbbes (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like "Posof" is unambiguous, if that is the case then the category should be at the unqualified name, thus keep Category:Posof instead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Posof, Ardahan was redirected by BSRF. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Users from Ankara

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:Users from Ankara.

Empty unnecessary cat. Please delete it. Discuss more important things. E4024 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@E4024: You removed Pivox from this category yourself. Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

{{User from Ankara}} was bugged, so I corrected it. Category contents may lag behind the change. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Charles I at the Hunt - Anthony van Dyck - Louvre INV 1236

Revert =vandalism by User:Ecummenic. Charles I at the Hunt - Anthony van Dyck - Louvre INV 1236 respects common pattern of Louvre cats, see all other subcats of Paintings by Anthony van Dyck in the Louvre Oursana (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. Already reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Werdenberger See

Gemäss Schweizer Landeskarte heisst dieser See «Werdenbergersee» (vgl. Werdenbergersee) und nicht «Werdenberger See». Diese Schreibweise ist für Seen in der Schweiz unüblich, vgl. auch Liste der grössten Seen in der Schweiz. Die Verschiebung vom 7. Mai 2017 sollte rückgängig gemacht werden. Gruss -- Schofför (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Da sich fast ein Jahr lang hier nichts geändert hat, werde ich die Verschiebung nun vornehmen. Gruss --Schofför (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. No objections. The result was redirect to Category:Werdenbergersee Estopedist1 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Émile Malo-Renault

Pourquoi "User talk:Francois Malo-Renault" est dans la Catégorie " Emile Malo-Renault"? François Malo-Renault (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A cause de cette modification. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Cette catégorie est pertinente. Ce qui ne l'est pas, c'est :

• d'y ajouter des pages utilisaeurs
• où des pages déjà inclues dans des sous-catégories, comme expliqué sur User talk:François Malo-Renault, en raison de COM:SURCAT. --Pa2chant. (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Pa2chant: the above-mentioned user page is removed from the topical category. The nominated category itself is a redirect, and reflects enwiki en:Malo-Renault. This CFD is probably solved--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Ships registered in Sevastopol, Ukraine

Do we really need two such categories for Sevastopol? Wouldn't it be better to merge them and keep them categorized under both Ships of Ukraine by home port and Ships of Russia by home port? Blue Elf (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It does seem weird. But guess a ship registered in Sevstopol in 2002 was never a "ship of russia", so that was the intention - to keep the nationality separate for Russian ships in Category:Ships registered in Sevastopol and Ukrainian-only ships in Category:Ships registered in Sevastopol, Ukraine. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Agreed, but the way it is set up now, it is Category:Ships of Russia by home port > Category:Ships registered in Sevastopol > Category:Ships registered in Sevastopol, Ukraine, so in reality the Ukraine ships are still under Category:Ships of Russia. Really it should be two categories under Category:Ships registered in Sevastopol, one Russian and one Ukrainian (Category:Ships of Russia registered in Sevastopol and Category:Ships of Ukraine registered in Sevastopol maybe?), each under their respective "Category:Ships of XXX". Josh (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, your idea sounds better to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Joshbaumgartner: you are free to execute your suggestions. It is unlike that someone opposes--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Elf, Themightyquill, and Estopedist1: Closed (split by country under 'neutral' homeport category) Josh (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Red Bull New York

This category needs to be moved to Category:New York Red Bulls, as that is what the club is nearly universally known as. The name was originally announced as "Red Bull New York" (in line with Red Bull's clubs in other countries) when they rebranded in 2006, but since then the name has almost always been "New York Red Bulls" (although the initialism "RBNY" is still used sometimes). In primary sources (i.e. the team and the leagues' websites/social media/etc), in secondary sources (e.g. news article), and in other Wikimedia sites, the team is almost never called "Red Bull New York". –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion also affects these subcategories:

• Category:Coaches of Red Bull New York
• Category:Football kit templates/Red Bull New York
• Category:Players of Red Bull New York
• Category:2010 Red Bull New York season
• Category:Red Bull New York U 16 (I added this extra category --Estopedist1 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC))

–IagoQnsi (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion.  Agree, harmonization is needed--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done: moved. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Birmingham City Transport (bus company)

"(bus company)" is unnecessary; and misleading. The organisation ran trams as well as buses, and was a municipal (council; local government) department, not a company. Category:Birmingham City Transport is a redirect to the nominated category, but should be the name used. the more generic name will allow Category:Birmingham Corporation Tramways to be made correctly part of the category tree. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. Necessary changes made, Category:Birmingham City Transport is not a redirect anymore. The nominated category is waiting to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted as "misleading" by Túrelio. GeorgHH • talk   20:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Lee Sang-hoon (general born 1958)

Wrong name. According to the press release made by Korean Ministry of National Defense, the general officer was born in 1959. Howard61313 (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The category has been moved to Category:Lee Sang-hoon (general born 1959) but the English wikipedia article is at en:Lee Sang-hoon (general). Is there are reason that Category:Lee Sang-hoon (general) is not good enough here? Are there other notable generals named Lee Sang-hoon? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Category:Lee Sang-hoon (general born 1933), an four-star army general. Category:Lee Sang-hoon (general born 1959) is a three-star marine general instead. Howard61313 (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. And you think it's better to disambiguate by birth date than "army general" vs "marine general" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a little bit. It’s unlikely to have more “General Lee Sang-hoon” with the same date of birth (There are maximum retirement age for general officers in many countries. So, most of the officers born before 1960s are now retired). But it’s possible to have more “General Lee Sang-hoon” serving with the same military branch in the future. Under that circumstance, the pages have to be disambiguated again. Howard61313 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. DAB page Category:Lee Sang-hoon is created. CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted, new categories have been created. GeorgHH • talk   20:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Bottle reverse vending machines

This is a category for bottle reverse vending machines.

Is there any other kind?

There is nothing else (anymore) in Category:Reverse vending machines and Wikipedia says "A reverse vending machine is a device that accepts used (empty) beverage containers and returns money to the user." - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: As it seemed, "Reverse vending machines" usually means machines for reverse vending of bottles, i.e. the categories can be merged. However, theoretically, they can be not the only subject of reverse vending. Have you an idea about other types of automatized reverse vending and how to integrate them to the terminology? Machines for reverse vending of full or empty bottle crates really exist and can fall also under this term. Possibly, also e.g. some tokens or unused or unexhausted tickets can be repurchased by machine, etc... However, we can disregard it. --ŠJů (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@ŠJů: that information (if sourced) will be useful for Wikipedia, but if we have no pictures of those things we probably don't need a category at this point. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: "Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents, because the contents are generally not a permanent feature of the category page; in particular, you can momentarily find inappropriate contents in a category page." I.e., the core question is whether the term "reverse vending machine" is perceived exclusively as a machine for bottles, or as a broader concept, even though applied mainly to the specific type (as we have a common term for "vending machine" which can mean various types of machines). I agree that for now, we can disregard possible other types of reverse vending machines. --ŠJů (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@ŠJů: perhaps if we could find just one picture of another type of reverse vending machine. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: It depends not on the fact whether we have some picture of another type at this moment, but on the fact how the term is perceived in English language. Either as the most frequent application of a more general term, or as a specific term for a specific device. If a biologic taxon has just one subtaxon, we can also keep both level of categories. --ŠJů (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@ŠJů: "the core question is whether the term "reverse vending machine" is perceived exclusively as a machine for bottles, or as a broader concept" I thought about it and can't really think of any other type that actually exists. Some bottle reverse vending machines also accept crates, some accept cans, but this doesn't seem to really justify more categories. Perhaps a rename to "Beverage container reverse vending machine" or whatever, or just drop the "bottle" from this one. Machines that repurchase tokens/casino chips? Seems to defeat the reason to use tokens in the first place. Repurchase unused or not fully used tickets (like parking tickets), well maybe, although I'm not sure that would really be a reverse vending machine. I would imagine a reverse vending machine takes some physical product and returns money or a store discount ticket. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I might note that these machines also accept cans, and the category is already a sub-category of Category:Can recycling. Meanwhile Category:Reverse vending machines and Category:Returnable bottles don't share a parent category, even though they are very closely related. Maybe the creation of a matching category for en:Container-deposit legislation would make sense? Category:Container-deposit system? I agree with Alexis Jazz, the wikipedia article at en:Reverse vending machine makes no mention of returning anything other than beverage containers, nor does en:Container-deposit legislation. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Alexis Jazz, Themightyquill, and ŠJů: currently enwiki en:Reverse vending machine definition encompasses bottles and cans. From my personal experience, I know that a vending machine takes in both: bottles and cans. I guess that we should retain only one category: Category:Reverse vending machines; the nominated category can be a redirect--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In the Netherlands they can't take cans, but this is a software and not a hardware thing. In Germany they do take cans and bottles. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 New developments: There is now a page entitled "Category:Beverage can reverse vending machines", from April 1st (first), 2023 supermarkets in the Netherlands will accept them. The Dirk van den Broek chain of Dutch supermarkets is planning on having separate bottle reverse vending machines and beverage can reverse vending machines, so the idea that all reverse vending machines are bottle reverse vending machines is no longer applicable. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	None
Participants	Alexis Jazz (talk · contribs) ŠJů (talk · contribs) Themightyquill (talk · contribs) Estopedist1 (talk · contribs) Donald Trung (talk · contribs)
Notes	There are now two subcategories in Category:Reverse vending machines, for Category:Bottle reverse vending machines‎ and Category:Beverage can reverse vending machines‎ (both with content), so all are still necessary.
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by MONUSCO related to Goma

Why do we have that category? Shouldn't it be all in the category:Photographs by MONUSCO? As also other "photographsy by" category have only one cat? Sanandros (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with this or its similar sibling categories. MONUSCO is a UN organization so it's not unusual for there to be so many photographs that diffusing becomes, if not necessary, at least helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

category:Photographs by MONUSCO is a hidden cat and this one is not. So normal users don't geht the link between Monusco and the cat.--Sanandros (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

We could make this one and its siblings hidden, too. I'm not sure I really understand the issue. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that "Photographs by MONUSCO" is not a ordinary category and acuallty meant for maintance. "Photographs by MONUSCO related to Goma" can be also made hidden, but it would be good to categorise the induvial pics further in the Goma category (like to categorise them by year in Goma) and take Photographs by MONUSCO related to Goma out of that cat.--Sanandros (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Sanandros on this one. I don't think we should sub-categorize topics by the source/photographer. I'm fine with Category:Photographs by MONUSCO related to Goma as a subcategory of category:Photographs by MONUSCO, but not as a sub-category of Category:Goma. Those specifically featuring UN forces could be in Category:MONUSCO forces in Goma or something like that. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. I created this category in 2017 because all of the thousands of images produced by MONUSCO have a particular bias. Users interested in depictions of places (such as Goma, Kinshasa, Kisangani) must be made aware that MONUSCO-authored works should be viewed as public relations advertising, not exactly educational documentation. On the other hand, Commons-licensed documentary photography of DRC is relatively rare, so it is very nice to have the MONUSCO contributions. -- M2545 (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

We have also Category:Files created by the United States Marine Corps with known IDs with more than 60'000 files and there it's also not a problem.--Sanandros (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sanandros: Could you explain what you mean by "not a problem"? Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not a problem that the USMC category has so much files and it doesen't have a subcat. I don't understand why you categorised this cat as a subcat of a hidden cat. Was that with an intention or not?--Sanandros (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I created subcategories by city (Goma, Kinshasa, Kisangani) primarily because the "Photographs by MONUSCO" category [1] is a visible category, not hidden; [2] contained over 3,000 images, too many for users to easily browse; [3] contains very biased content about a conflicted region. The subcategories are useful to people interested in MONUSCO and also cities in the DRC. Removal of the subcategories will diminish meaning and functionality. -- M2545 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't understand your answer as already the first version of the cat was already hidden in 2014.--Sanandros (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The category is visible here, for instance. I am no expert in the technicalities behind "hidden categories", but I do see that this one is visible to regular users. -- M2545 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@M2545 and Sanandros: Do either of you have a problem with Category:Photographs by MONUSCO related to Goma existing as a sub-category of Category:Photographs by MONUSCO, but not as a sub-category of Category:Goma? The individual images can/should, of course, be sub-categorized under Category:Goma by specific content, as many other are (for example, in Category:Amani Festival). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@M2545: Hidden cat means that the files (and cats) are seen in their parents but not seen by there kids so in Category:Photographs by MONUSCO related to Goma a normal user (or IP) can't see that it is in category:Photographs by MONUSCO. @Themightyquill: your suggestion would be also fine.--Sanandros (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Yes, I have a problem with the deletion of Category:Photographs by MONUSCO related to Goma. It should be kept as is, for the reasons stated in the above discussion. Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@M2545: Please read my proposal again. I am defintely not suggesting deleting it. I am merely suggesting to remove it from Category:Goma. On commons, we generally sub-categorize subject by more narrower subjects or maybe style, but not by by photographer. Someone looking for images of Goma doesn't want to look through different categories of individual photographers to find what they are looking for. Does that make sense? All the images in Category:Photographs by MONUSCO related to Goma should be properly categorized in sub-categories of Category:Goma as many of them already are. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Your proposal is understood. To clarify my objection: I have a problem with the deletion from Category:Goma, for reasons stated above. Most people would want biased imagery by a single author to be in its own clearly labelled section, rather than interspersed throughout the Goma category. If MONUSCO depictions of Goma were normalized, then we editors would be complicit with MONUSCO's agenda. -- M2545 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@M2545: I don't think that's reasonable. All the images are clearly labelled with the creator, and all would additionally be in a category for MONUSCO, so the originator wouldn't be secret. To separate all MONUSCO images from all other Goma images would also required Category:2014 photographs of Goma by MONUSCO as a sub-category of Category:2014 in Goma; Category:Photographs of Goma Airport by MONUSCO as a sub-category of Category:Goma Airport; Category:Photographs of Amani Festival by MONUSCO as a sub-category of Category:Amani Festival. Surely photos by others might also have their biases as well, so we'd have to create sub-categories for those creators as well? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and M2545: If I see the category tree related to the nominated category, it seems to be OK. I also corrected sort keys in Category:Goma--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Closed, stale discussion, in use, no consensus for specific change, kept. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Portraits by genre

Category may need renaming, because some or all of the subcats don't seem to be for genres. The same is true of the two by-genre subcats. I'm not sure what the name should be: by type? by topic? Auntof6 (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it may be fair to call these subcategories "genres", based on the dictionary definition of "genre". I can't think of a better word; topic and subject suggest to me the actual person being depicted, and type is quite vague and could refer to other things like medium. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Closed, stale discussion. Category kept, in use, no consensus to make a specifc change. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Driving with the Stars exhibition at the Museo Enzo Ferrari

This category with no images but several references looks like an encyclopedia article. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So far, I have found no images from this exhibition. The notes are scribbles about this exhibition. I was going to hide it using HTML comments, or in a collapsible area. Ketil3 (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @4nn1l2: the creator (user:Ketil3) states that no files are related to this concrete exhibition. Hence -  Delete--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: There are now some subcategories. I think the discussion is moot and the category can be kept. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: if you see concrete files from these two subcategories, then these are not related to this exhibition. So deletion should be the best solution--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Deleted, attempted article in Commons category space. The subcategories were for autos already in more appropriate category trees that apparently had been at this exhibit but were not actually photographed there. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Software by domain

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Software logos by role.

Can we either merge Category:Software by domain with Category:Software by type, or come up with a clear category description that explains the difference? Thanks! Themightyquill (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I support a rename, but I think both could be combined into a new category, Category:Software by purpose. I don't think the subcats in either of them describe software types. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: For the most part, that sounds fine, though I don't think Category:Free software, Category:Historical software, or Category:Scripts fit in "Software by purpose". I'm also unsure if Category:Web software or Category:Application software do. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: You're right: those could remain under "by type". --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically, "free software" could fit under "Software by license" like en:Category:Software by license, if we wanted to go to that effort. But I guess for obvious reasons, most (all?) of the software we have images of is free software. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure "free software" is a type of license. Let alone a software domain or software purpose (whatever that means). somewhat related to that, there's currently Category:Ransomware. Although there doesn't seem to be anything like Category:Paid software, but one possible route could be to create something like Category:Software by monetization method that Category:Ransomware, and a category like Category:Paid software could go into. Then en:Category:Software by license could be confined to categories for software based on the actual type of license that they are under, like BSD or whatever. I'll probably do that eventually if no one has any objections and my brain doesn't tard out about it in the meanwhile. More specific to this I would just change it to Category:Software by subject or just go with Category:Software by type. But then, what is a "type" of software? Either way, for whatever reason creating categories in Commons based on how Wikipedia has things categorized rarely seems to work and there's zero point in over complicate things by sorting media related to software by the target subject area of a computer program in the meantime. Just for the unware, as far as I know a software domain is the real-world context in which you're attempting to solve a problem using said software, which for many reasons isn't a usable categorization criteria. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Closed, category kept as in use. No consensus to make any specific change; stale discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Église Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption du Vast

I was unable to find a confirmation that this church is indeed dedicated to the Assumption. On the site of the diocese, it is simply named Église Notre-Dame du Vast, likewise in Palassy. AFBorchert (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @AFBorchert: French Wikipedia uses also the name fr:Église Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption du Vast. I guess the current solution is OK--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closed, kept at current name, matches on fr:w -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Native Americans in the United States

This discussion is about both Native American people in the United States and Native Americans in the United States. What's the point in keeping two substantially similar categories? Wouldn't we better merging them? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 20:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

While the two categories do overlap slightly, the Native American people in the United States category refers more to an ethnicity (for lack better word at the moment), while the Native Americans in the United States refers more to individuals.

Therefore, the preference of this editor is to keep the separate categories. An Errant Knight (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

To me it seems quite clear from the subcategories that Category:Native American people in the United States is for specific individuals, while Category:Native Americans in the United States is for the broader subject including specific people, language, history, culture, politics etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That's good, but not every person or bot that assigns categories looks at the subcats (or the parent cats, either, for that matter). It's best to have less-ambiguous categories wherever we can. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@all: wouldn't be better in this case moving the category for the individuals to Native American people OF the United States? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh well ok, at least something we agree upon -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding support for the change to "Native American people of the United States". It is a better fit to the existing standard naming scheme; not sure why the change as not been made already. An Errant Knight (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment From what I can tell the change to "Native American people of the United States" has been made. So can someone close this discussion? I would, but I don't know how. No point in leaving it open if it's already been resolved though. Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Closed, cat name made into redirect years ago. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:1891 in New York (state)

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:1892 in New York (state).

this category is a duplicate of Category:1891 in New York Robby (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've converted Category:1891 in New York into a DAB but I'm not closing this as there appear to still be templates than may need changing to remove the links and automatic categorization. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've some doubts whethe3r it is really useful and necessary to have 3 categories for this. I would suggest to have just one category for the state New York and a subcategory for New York City (which is located in the state New York). Moreover we have to be aware of that in order to avoid a big mess we need to align as well the templates related to this cf Commons:Deletion requests/Template:New York(state)year and last but not least put the appropriated changes in all relevant elements in Wikidata. Robby (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Robby and Crouch, Swale: I'm closing this because Category:1891 in New York is now empty. If there are any templates that assign this category in the future, we should see it under Category:Non-empty category redirects. The question of whether we should have dabs for this (I think there are quite a few of them) can be handled elsewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1892 in New York (state)

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:1891 in New York (state).

This category is a duplicate of Category:1892 in New York Robby (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Category:1892 in New York is now a DAB. I'd recommend discussing this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:1891 in New York (state) to keep the discussion in 1 place. However I haven't closed this as as Category:1892 in New York still contains Category:1892 maps of New York. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Robby and Crouch, Swale: I'm closing this because Category:1892 in New York is now empty. I've changed it from a redirect to a dab. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)