Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/06

This category is no longer needed since Template:Wikidata person has been replaced by Template:Wikidata Infobox, which doesn't use this tracking category. Mike Peel (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll delete this category --Butko (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Butko. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oil, like Category:Oil, is ambiguous. Move to Category:Petroleum recycling. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Currently, the category covers firstly collection and recycling of used cooking oil, motor oil etc. I'm not sure that used petroleum is collected to be recycled. --ŠJů (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, you are confused by this mistaken edit made by Torsch in 2012. --ŠJů (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů: Yes, I was going through the sub-categories of Category:Petroleum industry. Sorry for the confusion. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Boldak redundant with Category:Spin Boldak ? Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the pics of the Boldak village are Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment shown. They were 2010 stationed in Helmand Province. Spin Boldak is in Kandahar next to Pakistan. I don't think that the 3/25 Marines went from Helmand through whole Kanadahr to come to Spin Boldak, so I conclude that Boldak is a village in Helmand.--Sanandros (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: Thanks for your research. I can't find any online references to a Boldak village in Helmand, aside from Category:Patrol Base Boldak. I withdraw my suggestion of merging, but it would be great to know where this village is. -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great but Afghanistan is not publishing every thing in the internet like in Europe or in the US. Can we close the case?--Sanandros (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issue largely resolved thaanks to Sanandros. Categories are not redundant. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category, created wrongly CeeGee (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as duplicated of Category:Buruciye Madrasah. @CeeGee: Next time, use {{Bad name}} - Themightyquill (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ASWWWYTTTWYIWHFSHSDIBGSKYWHSAYG 112.209.163.33 11:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

restaurants near mehttps://www.bing.com/search?q=seattle&form=edgntt&qs=pf&cvid=048250a0f9224994a4791d3a0d4b135f&refig=c0d330b8805a4e41e48241136d535111&cc=us&setlang=en-us&plvar=01 Microsoft W 2001:4898:80E8:7:CC79:8F5C:87D:E965 21:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link shortens to this Bing search for "Seattle":

https://www.bing.com/search?q=seattle

What exactly is this discussion about?

--Timeshifter (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tidak layak dijadikan kategori. 114.124.134.27 03:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Not eligible to be a category" Why not? Kenapa tidak? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Empty and COM:NOTHOST/OOS cat for and by Suwanda Sitorus sock. --Эlcobbola _talk 20:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate category with erroneous capital F for furniture. I propose its deletion. Motacilla (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: {{G3}} would be less complicated. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate category with erroneous capital F for furniture. I propose its deletion. Motacilla (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: speedily deleted as an empty category. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct name should be Cemeteries in Comblain-au-Pont instead. ·×ald·^es 00:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple typos don't need discussion. Category moved. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

San Vicente del Caguán is no longer just an Apostolic Vicariate, but a diocese instead. Hence, category should be renamed as Diocese of San Vicente del Caguán. Thanks ·×ald·^es 04:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: category has been already moved. Thanks, --·×ald·^es 06:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing -- cat was renamed. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, should be deleted. Several fjords with the same name. Remove this one, keep the others. Erik den yngre (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest it should be turned into a disambiguation page, linking to Category:Storfjorden (Svalbard), Category:Storfjorden (Troms), Category:Storfjorden (Sunnmøre). - Themightyquill (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree it would become a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Please go ahead and create DAB, for more details about "Storfjord(en)" see no:Storfjorden. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The Wikidata connection is also wrong. I dont know how to remove it. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: the cat was empty, so I made it a dab page. I also updated Wikidata. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should use English name. Why a French title? Sharouser (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should move it to Category:Green tide. --Sharouser (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me, given en:Green tide. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong spelling. Nothing links here. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: cat was renamed, and this one is now a redirect. @Jürgen Eissink: If you want the redirect gone, use {{Bad name}} or {{Category renamed}} (with the appropriate parameters). --Auntof6 (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need to change surname from Madatov to Emreli Nzemreli (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be done already? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's done. Closing. This cat left as redirect. @Nzemreli: If you want the redirect gone, use {{Category renamed}} on it with the appropriate parameter. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user created this category for female students at the university, but the problem is, young adult women shouldn't be treated as "girl". I can't think of a place where it can be used.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's empty, so I tagged it with {{Empty page}} to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a collective of non-notable persons. King Rk (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm included to agree. This could certainly be turned into hidden user categories (and removed from the category tree), if you want, Raymond. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I am fine with deletion of this category. I was not aware that it exists. In case of keeping it I suggest to make it a hidden category. Raymond 17:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered the contents here and turned it into a user category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a non-notable person. The only relevance this photos have is what they're illustrating, not what the unknown model is called. King Rk (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Models of Raimond Spekking - Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a non-notable person. The only relevance this photos have is what they're illustrating, not what the unknown model is called. King Rk (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Models of Raimond Spekking - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a non-notable person. The only relevance this photos have is what they're illustrating, not what the unknown model is called. King Rk (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Models of Raimond Spekking - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a non-notable person. The only relevance this photos have is what they're illustrating, not what the unknown model is called. King Rk (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Models of Raimond Spekking - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a non-notable person. The only relevance this photos have is what they're illustrating, not what the unknown model is called. King Rk (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Models of Raimond Spekking - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oil, like Category:Oil, is ambiguous. Move to Category:Petroleum companies - Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition in nearly a month. Moved to Category:Petroleum companies. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In short: This person has nothing to do with the former German singer/tenor w:Peter Hofmann/w:de:Peter Hofmann (Sänger), Wikidata Peter Hofmann. More follows. 2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 22:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. This person’s name is Peter Hofmann, he is or was the chairman of the German show jumping committee / Vorsitzender des Springausschusses beim Deutschen Olympiade-Komitee für Reiterei. He seems to be irrelevant in German WP, because he has no article there and in w:de:Achaz von Buchwaldt under the photo there is no red link to his name either. His name is not in w:de:Mannheim#Persönlichkeiten, w:de:Liste von Söhnen und Töchtern der Stadt Mannheim, but this cat is in the Category:People of Mannheim.
2. He has nothing to do with the former German singer/tenor w:Peter Hofmann/w:de:Peter Hofmann (Sänger) who has WP articles in 11 languages + 1 cs.wikiquote, see d:Q688930, but the singer has no commons category yet which should be on this place, because all articles except in de.wp have this name without brackets.
3. There are 10 different persons with this name in the disambiguation page w:de:Peter Hofmann, 8 of them with brackets in the article names. 5 of these 8 persons have articles, but this one does not even has a red link there and noone there was born in 1950 like this one.
4. There are commons categories for Category:Peter Hofmann (chemist)‎, Category:Peter von Hofmann‎ and this one, see Category:Hofmann (surname).

Maybe, this category could be moved to Category:Peter Hofmann (chairman) or something similar. This place is completely wrong. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 22:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I‘ve also found a disambiguation category Category:Pieter Hofman now which links only to this category, but not to the 2 other Peter Hofmann categories. Maybe, this could also be a solution for Category:Peter Hofmann, especially if there are no free photos of the singer on commons yet. On en.wp, there is only a fair use image, and de.wp has no photos of him. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 22:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Turn Category:Peter Hofmann into a disambiguation page with links to Category:Pieter Hofman, Category:Peter Hofmann (chemist)‎, Category:Peter von Hofmann‎, and Category:Peter Hofmann (chairman) or Category:Peter Hofmann (show jumping). - Themightyquill (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support per nom since the tenor is PT on EN and DE also DABs this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, what means PT – Portuguese WP? --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 16:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  PT means primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition. Diambiguated with content moved to Category:Peter Hofmann (show jumping). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this category is for a German goth-rock band, but is being used for any image that "claims" to be (in its name), or that is perceived to be, a "behind the scenes" type of shot. Note that Behind The Scenes redirects to this category, but Category:Behind the Scenes and Behind the Scenes do not currently exist. I would recommend renaming the category (if we're going to keep it) to clarify that it's for a band. Also, someone needs to go through and remove images that have nothing to do with the band. - dcljr (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rename it to match the English Wikipedia article -- Behind the Scenes (band) -- and clean it out as you suggest. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Move to Category:Behind the Scenes (band) and delete Category:Behind The Scenes. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the consensus seems to be to rename it to Category:Behind the Scenes (band). Since I haven't done such a rename in a while, I'm not sure the best way to proceed. Do I just tag the category with {{Category redirect|Behind the Scenes (band)}}, create the new category page, and wait for a bot to move the files? (Will deal with the purging of unrelated images separately.) - dcljr (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to move it. Since you don't appear to have the necessary right, I can do it if there's no objection from @Themightyquill: (or TMQ could go ahead and move it). --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved one image and one gallery to Category:Behind the Scenes (band). Everything else was moved to Category:Film sets. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:People of the United Kingdom by ethnicity Themightyquill (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because one is specifically for Asian descent, and the other is for ethnicity in general. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I nominated the wrong category. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly redundant with Category:Ethnic groups in Canada Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:People by ethnic or national origin. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:People of the United Kingdom by ethnicity -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:People by ethnic or national origin. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(en) I suggest that we have to raname Category:Hedyotis lindleyana to Category:Neanotis hirsuta. It seems that neither this taxonomic name nor the variety hirsuta is anymore accepted and both names are now considered synonymous with Neanotis hirsuta. See Hara (1942:89), Lewis (1966:38), YList and WCSP. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ja) 現在 Hedyotis lindleyana やその変種 hirsuta ��正式な学名とは認められておらず、いずれも Neanotis hirsuta（あるいはその基本変種）のシノニムと考えられている模様です（原 1942: 89、Lewis 1966: 38、YList、WCSP）。先の文献やデータベースを鑑みるにカテゴリを現行の Hedyotis lindleyana から Neanotis hirsuta に改名するのが妥当であると存じます。--Eryk Kij (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

この分野に関しては、特に持論があるわけではありません。標準に合わせていただければいいと思います、Keisotyo (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Keisotyo: 終了: 議論提起より二週間が経過しましたが反対意見は出されなかった為、Category:Hedyotis lindleyana から Category:Neanotis hirsuta への移動処理を行います。/ Closed: No objections for two weeks; I will move Category:Hedyotis lindleyana to Category:Neanotis hirsuta. --Eryk Kij (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotional empty cat created by a locked sock of Vhacker Vicky kadian Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as empty to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes

• Category:Generals of the Confederate States Army by rank
• Category:Lieutenant-Generals of the Confederate States
• Category:Major-Generals of the Confederate States

Essentially superfluous double categories GELongstreet (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since all are empty, I've tagged them with {{Empty page}} to get them deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: all are deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chienti is a river LigaDue (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the category for speedy deletion because of C2=improperly named category and empty, Chienti is a river, no churches by city in rivers, see Category:Chienti. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 14:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio. Reason for deletion: Improperly named category (C2). 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chienti is a river LigaDue (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the category for speedy deletion because of C2=improperly named category and empty, Chienti is a river, no buildings by city in rivers, see Category:Chienti. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 14:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio. Reason for deletion: Improperly named category (C2). 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chienti is a river LigaDue (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the category for speedy deletion because of C2=improperly named category and empty, Chienti is a river, no architecture by city in rivers, see Category:Chienti. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio. Reason for deletion: Improperly named category (C2). 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

typo in category name, category now empty Robby (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have put speedydelete in because of the typo. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 13:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio. Reason for deletion: Improperly named category (C2). 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the 2013 general assemblies of Wikimedia Deutschland had been categorised differently than in all other years. I fixed this, leaving this empty category to be deleted. Thank you, Gnom (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree Looking into Category:Mitgliederversammlungen Wikimedia Deutschland, the reason may be that 2013 has been the first year with 2 Mitgliederversammlungen in one year. This has not been the case until 2015 then, and this category is of April 2014. And afterwards, there have not been created categories for the years anymore. As there is a Category:Wikimedia Deutschland – Veranstaltungen 2013, I have now put the two categories for May and November 2013‎ there instead of this one before the change, so this category is obsolete now and can be deleted because of structure change. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 16:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked it for deletion because of "CSD G6 (uncontroversial maintenance): and obsolete empty category, see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Mitgliederversammlung Wikimedia Deutschland 2013". --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 17:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Deleted by admin Túrelio. ----2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 08:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect name based museum website english name should be Emmerich Kalman Memorial Home[1], or even better the Hungarian name,-based wikipedia,-'Kálmán Imre Múzeum (Siófok)' Globetrotter19 (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A jelenlegi név nem felel meg a sorrend miatt sem tulajdonneveket magyarban nem fordítunk, ha mégis akkor a múzeum neve a honlap szerint angolul Emmerich Kalman Memorial Home. Úgy vélem a wikipédiás neve 'Kálmán Imre Múzeum (Siófok)' sokkal jobb lenne. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the Hungarian as it's a) the official name and b) clearer to English (and other languages) users anyway. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right then I will move to Category:Kálmán Imre Múzeum (Siófok). - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal page Sodacan (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: You can speedy this kind of page. --Green Giant (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request. Duplicate of an already existing category on the same person ( Prince Faisal bin Al Hussein) Supernova (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• please delete as it duplication.--Avicenno (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely should only be one. I generally prefer using categories without titles like "prince" but if Category:Faisal bin Al Hussein is ambiguous, then I won't insist. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Supernova, Avicenno, and Themightyquill: Closed (Empty duplicate; speedy delete Category:Faisal ben AlHussein) Josh (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Junghans Reppresentativ in Estonia 193.40.48.27 09:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain a bit more in detail why the category should be discussed? Raymond 12:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymond: Closed (no details forhcoming, no action taken, can be re-submitted with details in the future) Josh (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

recat everything into other subcats of expo 2010 and delete. Roy17 (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Same issue as with various "Other <foo>" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and Auntof6: Closed (no objections; upmerge Category:Shanghai Expo miscellaneous into Category:Expo 2010 and sort media from there) Josh (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:Loxodonta africana pharaohensis tend to prefer latin names when possible. Leave the redirect though. Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Auntof6: Closed (no objections; move Category:North African Elephant to Category:Loxodonta africana pharaohensis) Josh (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category name should be translated into English; or at least a translation should be given on the page, and a redirect from the English version to here should be established. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it should be translated: it is the proper name of a free knowledge project being operated by Warsaw University: http://otworzksiazke.pl/projekt

I think anybody is welcome to add a description if they wish. Ankry (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. I'd add a description by myself; however, I'm unable to translate the Polish name into English. Could you help me with that? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name meaning would be "Open a Book" or "Open the Book" (imperative form of the verb), but as I noted above I do not think that it should be translated. Ankry (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added a description to the category page. I agree that a link from the English translation doesn't make sense. If no one else speaks up until end of June, I suggest to close this discussion with result "keep as is". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt and Ankry: Closed (resolved; no action required) Josh (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

content is copyvio, artist died in 2005, no fop Martin Sg. (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete all files and gallery page as well (I only created the category from the gallery page). --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Sg. and Havang(nl): Closed (speedy delete Category:Mater Dolorosa Berlin-Lankwitz - Kreuzweg once all files have been deleted) Josh (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no postcards of the Americas as a whole, so this category should not be needed. The only things in this category are subcategories for postcards of North America and postcards of South Amreica. Those subcategories are already in other appropriate categories, so no recategorization would be needed. Auntof6 (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No reason to group postcards by supercontinent. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 and Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; delete Category:Postcards of Americas) Josh (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Canadians of Vietnamese descent‎ Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Vietnamese Canadians into Category:Canadians of Vietnamese descent‎) Josh (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Polish diaspora - if it needs disambiguation, why not just use the disambiguation? English wikipedia article is also at en:Polish diaspora -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; move Category:Polonia (Polish diaspora) to Category:Polish diaspora) Josh (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please move to Category:Ali Kemal, more follows soon. 2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 18:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. See en:Ali Kemal and tr:Ali Kemal and most others d:Q349199#sitelinks-wikipedia. It has been moved on en.wp back in 2015 because of “no reason for tacking on this honorific”.
2. en:Bey is a Turkish title for chieftain in the Ottoman Empire, not part of the name itself.
3. These book titles are without the title.
4. See also data in all catalogues: catalogue.bnf.fr, viaf, DNB, isni with both versions, Library of Congress, idref.fr, worldcat. – Just the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (in Turkish) is listing him only with title as Ali Kemal Bey

So this should be pretty clear Category:Ali Kemal without the title Bey. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 18:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed (no objections; move Category:Ali Kemal Bey to Category:Ali Kemal) Josh (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category only containing (unused) duplicate Creator. Having two categories and two creators is unnecessarily confusing; recommend deleting the extras. Sweet kate (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I redirected one the the other. --JarektBot (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JerektBot and Sweet kate: Closed (resolved; no further action required) Josh (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renaming this cat and subcats to fish balls where applicable, i.e., with a space and pluralised. Most meatballs are coined by meat+space+balls, e.g. beef balls, chicken balls, octopus balls, prawn balls... Oxford dict prefers fish ball too. Roy17 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: Closed (no objections; move Category:Fish ball to Category:Fish balls) Josh (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious criteria for inclusion based on the title (i.e., what kind of files belong here?). Subcategory of Category:Video cameras and Category:Video production. Currently empty. Recommend deletion. - dcljr (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcljr: Since it's empty and not a new category, you can get it deleted by putting {{Empty page}} on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Wouldn't {{SD|C3}} be more appropriate? In any case, since I've already opened this discussion, I'll wait for a few days before nominating it for deletion. - dcljr (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcljr and Auntof6: Closed (no objections; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:Kurdish diaspora in Canada Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Category:Kurdish diaspora in Canada or Category:Canadians of Kurdish descent? I guess I'm not all that sure where the breakdown is between these, having just closed the last CfD in a move to Category:Canadians of Vietnamese descent. Josh (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"X of X descent" or "X people of X descent" is for individuals, whereas "X diaspora" could also include things like churches, community centres/clubs/gatherings, newspapers, etc. The former being a reasonable subcategory of the latter. Not always a clear line though. With the Vietnamese one, I think it's fine. This one seems like it would be better off at diaspora so I'll move it there. (Canadian categories seem a little weird because of Category:Ethnic groups in Canada (which in Canada, unlike most of the word, means immigrant groups, not domestic ethnic groups) but that's a separate issue - the subcategories conform to the general commons pattern.) - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Kurdish diaspora in Canada. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:British people of Iranian descent Themightyquill (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Closed (no objetions; merge Category:Iranians in the United Kingdom into Category:British people of Iranian descent) Josh (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a non-notable person. The fact that these pictures are made by one and the same semi-anonymous Flickr user is irrelevant for Commons. King Rk (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are over a thousand Flickr stream categories in Category:Flickr streams. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that. The user categories seem to be anything goes. So if I remove the people category it should be okay I guess. --King Rk (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and King Rk: Closed (resolved; no further action required) Josh (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A ton of duplicated files. SVG may be useful for cleanup. 大诺史 (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 just convert them to SVG by tools, and then delete those jpg/pngs. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@大诺史 and Liuxinyu970226: Closed (keep Category:Diagrams of Japanese Expressway signs until content images have been converted and deleted at which point the category can be speedy deleted) Josh (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Incestophile" is not a (current) technical term for people who do incest and therefore it shouldn't be used in a Commons category as if it was. The one subcategory can get categorized into the parent category. King Rk (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@King Rk: Closed (no objections; upmerge from Category:Incestophiles to Category:Incest) Josh (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This cat undefinied and wrong translated! Siófok has Aranypart. Aranypart (en: Golden Coast) is a city part usually mean from lake shore Hotels. West part closed, only for hotel guests. East part of the coast called Aranyparti szabadstrand [2](en: ~Golden coast public beach). Any one wanted the translation is bad. The File:Siofok.jpg even doubtful...really taken in Hungary? Look like Ocean or Sea Beach, nothing can be see from North Balaton, and the water colour...Maybe in Australia Golden Coast. (The uploader name 'szipiszopi' (en: ~suckssuckle) sounds like a joker guy). The File:Siófok Aranypart.jpg shows midwest Aranypart not the public beach part and even not the 'Nagystrand' ~Big beach on the west end of Aranypart. However translate these are bad idea so renaming necessary, but... The other baech photos exact location are unidentified probably somewhere in Siófok but there are at least 6 beaches! so my opinon this category,-at least now,-unnecessary. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed and moved that one file - it was Australia. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nem tudom mit takar a név. Aranypart? Aranypart városrésze Siófoknak? Aranyparti szabadstrand? A File:Siofok.jpg lehet nem is magyar... lásd a Balaton színe, a nem látszó északi part és a feltöltő neve 'szipiszopi' miatt lehet, hogy csak 'jópofaság'. A File:Siófok Aranypart.jpg a szállodasort mutatja a Nagystrand és az Aranyparti szabadstrand közötti részt [3]. Akárhogy is nem kellene az ilyen neveket lefordítani és a kategória,-a többi siófoki strandfotó azonosíthatatlan helye miatt,-egyenlőre feleslegesnek tünik. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Globetrotter19: Move to Category:Aranypart, Siófok, or just delete and move the contents to Category:Beaches of Siófok? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the second one. Delete and move. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Globetrotter19: Closed (consensus to move Category:Golden Beach, Siófok to Category:Beaches of Siófok) Josh (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the subcats use of instead of in? Most sublayers of Category:Food by country use of. Roy17 (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say there's a different standard when the food is identified with one country or region, but has spread internationally. See Category:Pizzas by country, Category:French fries by country, or Category:Tofu by country for examples. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: Is the answer by Themightyquill (talk �� contribs) sufficient to resolve this question? Josh (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had only checked hamburgers but not something Asian like Sushi. You're right that we currently use in for regional food.

@Joshbaumgartner: yes I forgot to close this.

Use in as preposition.--Roy17 (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Regions of Algeria redundant with Category:Provinces of Algeria? I can't find any references to the former on wikipedia. Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: These appear to be less-than-official regions, so they are not duplicates of provinces which are the official administrative sub-divisions. I think the map is one of Wikivoyage's regional definitions, and some of the sub-cats are geographical regions and contain several provinces as subs within them. Having a category for other-than-government regional definitions seems valid, though irregular. The wikidata link to province of Algeria (Q240601) should be removed from the regions category at a minimum though. Some sort of description is in order as well, I imagine. Josh (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think the wikidata links were confusing me. I've fixed them and I'll add a category description. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved as per above. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:Asamkirche (Munich) along with subcategories. English is standard as per Commons:Categories#Category_names. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to a great many other categories in Category:Churches in Munich as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Auntof6: Closed (no objections; correct spelling for the city is "Munich" on Commons; rename categories from "München" to "Munich") Josh (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category title mistyped. Creator requests speedy deletion. Category with correct title created. CeeGee (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CeeGee: In the future, please also provide to corrected category name to make it easier to complete these requests. Josh (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CeeGee: Closed (no objections; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me what is the difference between "Category:Meteor Garden guests" and "Category:Meteor Garden cast members"? I think...it is enough to use Category:Meteor Garden cast members.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kai3952: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Meteor Garden guests into Category:Meteor Garden cast members) Josh (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This category and some subcategories seem like porn - should they be deleted? Swil999 (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swil999: If there are images you feel should be deleted, please nominate them for deletion (though I doubt you'll have much success). The categories are just boxes, and cannot possibly be pornographic. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swil999 and Themightyquill: Closed (files can be nominated for deletion per policy, if this category ends up empty in the future it can be deleted, no action necessary for now) Josh (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clear spelling error: statioM (for statioN) Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct conclusion. I have already created a category with the right name (Enschede Kennispark railway station) and moved the files to this category. The page with the typo can be deleted --Fho4train (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jürgen Eissink and Fho4train: Closed (no objections; speedy delete) Josh (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains one sub-cat. Also this is misleading, there is no submarine class as Chakra class. Only one ship has been leased from Russia, and no class was formed for it. KCVelaga (talk · mail) 18:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KCVelaga: Closed (no objections; upmerge Category:Chakra class submarines) Josh (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:People of Black African descent in the United Kingdom? Themightyquill (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Closed (no objections; merge Category:Black British people into Category:People of Black African descent in the United Kingdom) Josh (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 Microsoft W 2001:4898:80E8:9:D2D2:37A:7C77:AD96 22:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep, nonsense DR.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure what's being proposed here if this isn't a nonsense CFD  Speedy keep. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. and Crouch, Swale: Closed (no action) Josh (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

empty category Robby (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby: Closed (no objections; speedy delete as empty) Josh (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improper move; the subject does not categorize her first or last name. I removed redirect and moved images back to previous category. Funcrunch (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: What is the correct category? In the future, please wait until the CfD is closed to proceed with redirecting or moving files like that. Josh (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: The correct category is Category:pattrice jones. Funcrunch (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: Closed (no objections; speedy delete as bad name) Josh (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Boko Haram or Category:Islamic State's West Africa Province Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Boko Haram. All latin, cyrillic and Chinese wiki entries at the moment are using this name.--Roy17 (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition in over two weeks. Renamed Category:Boko Haram with redirects from the other two. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:States with limited recognition to match our own templates and en:State with limited recognition. Themightyquill (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill:

1. Which templates are you talking about ?
2. en:State with limited recognition leads to... en:Unrecognized state !
3. What do you mean with "our" ? Does it mean "English Wikipedia" ?

--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoWings: Sorry, I should have been clearer and more careful:

1. {{Countries of Europe}} and {{Countries of Africa}} for instance, which are used in most "by country" subcategories.
2. I meant to link to en:List of states with limited recognition. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoWings: Do you have any further questions or did Themightyquill answer your concerns? Is there any other debate on this one? Josh (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the move. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i  Support. a clearer expression.--Roy17 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:States with limited recognition, along with subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Category:Refugees by country should be in Category:Social problems by country alongside Category:Pedophilia by country‎, Category:Domestic violence by country‎, etc. Refugees might be the product of a social problem but they aren't themselves inherently a social problem, so I could maybe see the usefulness at Category:Refugees by country of departure, but not for Category:Refugees by country of resettlement. Themightyquill (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree, it's rather insulting, if not abusive, to label those at risk of exploitation and even death as a social problem. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing certain social phenomena as 'problems' is asking for trouble. Refugees are not, IMHO, a problem. That said, I know some who would disagree. I am not sure what the more appropriate category would be, but I don't think it should be under problems at least. Josh (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved to Category:People associated with war by country (since Category:Refugees is a sub-category of Category:People associated with war) and removed Category:Social problems by country. Does that work for everyone? (Ironically, neither "War" nor "Conflict" are categorized as social problems...) - Themightyquill (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A whole structure of funny cats. Trees are a kind of plants. Merge all to Flora of XX on their respective levels and delete. Roy17 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are 86 more.--Roy17 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: No objections; proceed to merge all "Plants and trees in XXX" categories to "Flora of XXX" categories, then this CfD can be closed. Josh (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete inappropriate union of Category:Nymphaeaceae and Category:Nelumbo. Roy17 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: no objections have been raised, so sort the existing items between then two and this CfD can be closed. Josh (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No images in the category show a temple or a religious building. In order to avoid people misunderstanding, I want to rename it to "Tomb at the New Dazhong Temple".--Kai3952 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition. Moved to Category:Tombs at the New Dazhong Temple. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Bennett Lake, British Columbia redundant with Category:Bennett, British Columbia? Or should images of the community be removed and this category should be for images of the lake only? Themightyquill (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: @Themightyquill: The lake has its own category at Category:Bennett Lake (Canada). Category:Bennett Lake, British Columbia and Category:Bennett, British Columbia appear to both be categories for the same ghost town: Bennett (Q817839). I recommend merging the two. Josh (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted in favour of Category:Bennett, British Columbia. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we have two categories, YouTube celebrities and YouTube video producers, which have essentially identical scope. Both of them seem to be for any sort of person that is involved in creating YouTube videos, and there doesn't seem to be any reason that any particular individual would belong in one category but not the other (they even both have the exact same pair of parent categories: YouTube and People associated with the Internet). I see no reason why we need two separate categories for this.

I think we definitely need to merge these categories, but I don't think either existing category name is ideal. "YouTube celebrities" sounds subjective (i.e. how famous do you have to be to be considered a "celebrity"?) and "YouTube video producers" sounds like it might only include people doing film production-type work (but in reality, the contents of the category include all sorts of YouTube creators). Instead, I propose the new merged category be titled Category:YouTubers. This is the category name currently used on most Wikipedias (see Category:YouTubers (Q9432996)) and it seems to be a good descriptor of the actual scope of these two categories. It identifies them as people involved with making YouTube videos without specifying what particular type of work they do (we have other categories for that, e.g. Video editors, Presenters, etc) or how subjectively famous they are. --IagoQnsi (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note, this would affect a lot of subcategories. Here's a list:

–IagoQnsi (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to start my own proposal to merge these categories, so it's no surprise that I support. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree One need not be a producer to be a YouTuber (some hire staff for that) nor does one automatically become a so-called celebrity by being a YouTuber. Having just done a lot of work in these categories I found the structure cumbersome. I tended to rely on the "celebrity" categories as opposed to the "producer" categories as they seemed more complete. Merge both into one new one, be it "YouTuber" or "YouTube personality" I care not. Cheers --SVTCobra (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support ZellmerLP (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support--Allforrous (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support YouTubers.--Roy17 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support merge --Jaqen (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support merge in YouTubers. --Mazuritz (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who is youtuber? In my opinion it is if it is exclusive content. that does not mean second use on youtube ZellmerLP (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZellmerLP: Generally I'd say it isn't up to us who is or isn't a YouTuber. If other sources call them a YouTuber, then they're a YouTuber; otherwise they're not. For example, there are a lot of late night shows and bands and so forth with very popular YouTube channels, but virtually no one actually calls these people "YouTubers", so we wouldn't categorize them as such. I think in 99% of cases, it will be somewhat obvious whether or not someone should be called a YouTuber (and for the other 1%, it can be sorted out in future discussions). –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support--Allforrous (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IagoQnsi: I suspect the split will be more 95/5 or worse. People will want to put Jack Black into YouTuber after he created "Jablinski Games", for example. But I'd allow some overlap when people dedicate exclusive content to YouTube which is not available elsewhere. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: I think it'd be fine to categorize Jack Black as a YouTuber; I just googled "jack black youtuber" and quickly found several reliable sources ([4] [5]) calling him a YouTuber. Meanwhile, if you Google late night television hosts (e.g. "jimmy kimmel youtuber", "conan o'brien youtuber") or musicians who have large YouTube channels (e.g. "ed sheeran youtuber", "katy perry youtuber", "ariana grande youtuber"), you will struggle to find results. This is how Wikipedia decides its categories based on their reliable sources guidelines, and it makes sense to me to follow Wikipedia's lead (English Wikipedia has Jack Black in "Category:American YouTubers", but none of the other names I mentioned in similar categories). I don't think we on Commons should be deciding who is or isn't a YouTuber based on criteria like exclusivity of content. –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no simple answer to this question. We can merge the two categories in "Youtubers" and discuss after if its right or no to consider some web personalities as Youtubers. --Mazuritz (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as merge per broad support for merging these categories and using the new name "YouTubers". –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same work as Category:Ichthyologie; ou, Histoire naturelle des poissons? Also has a redundant subcategory, Category:Illustrations from Ichtyologie, ou histoire naturelle générale et particulière des poissons Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Ichtyologie, ou, Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière des poissons (1796). There are some text-only pages, so we could keep Category:Illustrations from Ichtyologie, ou histoire naturelle générale et particulière des poissons if we wanted, to help with categorization. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Ichtyologie, ou, Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière des poissons (1796). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be renamed to "Category:Mísia (Portuguese singer)" with a capital "P". Thanks in advance. 78.152.228.188 22:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support but possible rename to just Category:Mísia (singer) per w:WP:SMALLDATAILS since the Japanese singer is "Misia". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crouch, Swale: I am hesitant to rely on an "í" versus an "i" to distinguish them, leaving nationality makes it easier for any user to quickly identify the one they are after. Any real problem with having the nationality in the dab? Josh (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem with the nationality if its needed, the nationality is the usual way to further DAB if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

use Mísia (Portuguese singer).--Roy17 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus move to Category:Mísia (Portuguese singer). - Themightyquill (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat, wrong name space for essays. Fæ (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete outwith the scope of Commons. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the category wasn't always empty—it was created to house the images from the advertising campaign (see archive copy at the Wayback Machine). The images were deleted after deletion discussions. - Eureka Lott 16:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep or move to The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign oder COM:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign.

1) It can be helpful to keep a category that should be empty to keep track of files that might be re-uploaded and thus can be easier and quicker deleted; also for history & transparency reasons as it has not been empty and contains multi-language explanations. A sign showing "This category should be empty" can be added. (Or does anyone expect some of the original photographers to publish their work correctly under a suitable licence?)

2) If admin/discussion decision tends towards not keeping it, moving it to another namespace would at least keep the history and explanations. --SI 19:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete If there is valuable history here and explanations that should be available, then they should be placed on a normal page and not left as a category header. That page then can be properly categorized, maintained, and cited as needed in the future. Josh (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Josh: so for the valuable history you are supporting a move, and not a deletion, right? --SI 04:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: moved to The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign per arguments above. A valuable information page where we can kept its history intact. --ƏXPLICIT 08:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not helpful to have a category that just contains user pages. For that we can go to Special:AllPages and filter by namespace. Auntof6 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And it's also empty. Delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mazuritz has redirected it to Category:Users by name. I don't think that's any better. It now contains only categories. I suggest moving the contents of Category:Users by name to Category:User categories and deleting both Category:Commons users by name and Category:Users by name, because it's also not helpful to have categories that duplicate the purpose of Category:User categories. @Mazuritz: please do not go ahead with that move until there is consensus for it here. Thanks.

I have added a CFD template to Category:Users by name. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Auntof6, I cancelled my modification on Category:Commons users by name. I agree with the redirection or deletion of this category. On the other hand, I think it is important to keep Category:Users by name which is really practical. You can follow the tree structure Category:Users by name>Category:Users by name by country and the classification that allows. I am not against Category:User categories at all, but today it contains more 9,898 categories. Category:Users by name can effectively be a complement for it (maybe to rename in Category:User categories by name ? I'm open for ever proposition). --Mazuritz (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think this is useful. What's the benefit of Category:Users in Belgium by name over Category:Users in Belgium? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of what Mazuritz said in his last comment. Category:Commons users by name is effectively superfluous and should be deleted so long as Category:Users by name (which I'd actually like to see renamed to become Category:Users by username which is more explicit in its definition and purpose) remains alive and well. They're absolutely right when they make the observation that Category:User categories has reached an unwieldy size for a bottom-level category and requires further subdivision. While it may not be the entire solution to the problem, it undoubtedly represents a large portion of it. Furthermore the policy documents regarding User categories should be updated to guide users creating them that if they're making more than one that they should all be placed within a container category within this one. I believe that brings us much closer to an ultimate solution to the Category:User categories bloating situation. — ⚞🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk⚟ ^{My recent}
_mischief 20:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CONCLUSION: deleted by consensus. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 01:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Fairmont, British Columbia redundant with Category:Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia? According to en:Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia they are synonymous. Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are synonymous. Awmcphee (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be correct. We should move the only image in this cat (File:Hoodoos Fairmont, B.C..jpg ) to Category:Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia and delete Category:Fairmont, British Columbia. I'm not familiar enough with cats to know if the disambiguation rules for article titles apply to cats. If they do, we could probably move everything to Category:Fairmont Hot Springs. Meters (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirected to Category:Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia. @Meters and Awmcphee: thanks for your help!--RZuo (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Masjid Qubbat Bayt Az-Zum by year.

Creating by-year subcats is nonsense a) because there are 4 files only b) makes sense only if the monument looks different in a sequence of years. Achim (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Achim55 I recategorized the subcategories in this category to "Category:Mausoleum of Queen Arwa bint Ahmad Al-Suhayli", and likewise for other similar subcategories, except for the broader "Category:Queen Arwa Mosque by year", which was meant to de-clutter the number of files in its parent, "Category:Queen Arwa mosque, Jibla". Deletion of "Category:Queen Arwa Mosque by year" would clutter its parent category with extra subcategories. Leo1pard (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC); edited 05:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't. File:Mousoleum Hurrat-ul-Malaika Arwa.JPG (currently in Category:Mausoleum of Queen Arwa bint Ahmad Al-Suhayli in 2011) could easily go in both Category:Mausoleum of Queen Arwa bint Ahmad Al-Suhayli (with a current total potential of 4 images if we delete all the "by year" mausoleum categories) and Category:Queen Arwa Mosque in 2011 (with a curent total potential of 2 images if we delete all the "by year" mausoleum and Category:Mihrab of Queen Arwa Mosque in 2011‎). No definition of the word "clutter" refers to 5 images. The "by year" subcategories of Category:Minarets of Queen Arwa Mosque, Category:Courtyard of Queen Arwa Mosque, and Category:Minbar of Queen Arwa Mosque should also be deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo1pard: Can you elaborate on why it is useful to subcategorize a group of only five images into 'by year' categories? Josh (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those 5 images, on second thought, maybe not. Leo1pard (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Letters are symbols. The topic of the category is not clearly enough specified. I think Category:Unicode 02B0-02FF Spacing Modifier Letters is enough to serve this purpose, although a similar Unicode-independent category can be created, too. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Are you proposing to merge the contents into Category:Unicode 02B0-02FF Spacing Modifier Letters? Josh (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Yes, although the category's name on its own isn't synonymous. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have Category:Modifier letters. I suggest moving the discussed cateory there and delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as "Bad name" by Túrelio. GeorgHH • talk   15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/11/Category:Photographs.

User:MB-one has repeatedly removed the {{Photos}} template from this category, although it has been there for a long time. The second time I put it back, they accused me of edit warring. In order not to have the appearance of edit warring, I am starting this discussion. I believe there is a convention that all "Photographs of <foo>" categories are for subcategories only, not for files, so the photos template should remain here. Auntof6 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To further elaborate on the reason for the photos template, for those new to this issue: the vast majority of files on Commons are photographs, so "photographs" has become a de facto default. That means that it is neither necessary nor desirable to categorize photographs under a base-level photographs category. (To use the example of this specific category, files that are photographs of vehicles can just go under Category:Vehicles; they don't need to go in this category.) If we did categorize photographs that way, the photographs categories would be extremely large, to say the least. I have been asked at least several times to point out where this is documented. I don't believe it is documented; it is just a logical convention that has developed over time. However, perhaps it is time to codify it somewhere so that this kind of thing doesn't keep coming up. There is a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/11/Category:Photographs that addresses this issue. One proposal there is to rename this type of category to "Photographs of <foo> by characteristic". --Auntof6 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact, that there are many other types of media on Commons, it is still necessary to distinguish media files that have been classified from files that haven't been yet. Thus we do need a way to categorize any file by media type, including photographs. High-level categories can and should be kept clean by moving files to more specific categories, but it would be counter-productive to not be able to categorize files at all. The only type of categories, that should only include categories are meta categories (Category:xxx by yyy). --MB-one (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that there is at least one "Photographs of <foo>" category that is not only for subcategories: Category:Photographs of flags. That is because the main flag category is for flag designs (graphics) rather than photos. I thought I remembered a similar category for signs, but I can't find it right now. Aside from that, there are categories other than metacategories that should contain no files: that is why we have the {{Catcat}} template. That template is used for various purposes, including categories such as Category:Categories of France and Category:People by name. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 and MB-one: According to the template {{Photos}}, this category appears to be a perfectly valid place to use it. If its use should be more restricted, that should be spelled out on the template page at a minimum. Until then keep it on this category. Josh (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: So we agree, that categories "Photographs of <foo>" should not be treated as metacategories per default? @Joshbaumgartner: I agree, that {{Photos}} urgently needs to be changed in order to clarify, that it doesn't automatically apply metacategory properties to any "Photographs" category. Unfortunately, any such effort has been blocked in the past, despite the lack of consensus. --MB-one (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MB-one: Yes. "Photographs of <foo>" categories should contain only categories, but are not metacats. They need the photographs template on them, not the metacat template. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Yes, I agree. This is exactly the kind of category that {{Photos}} is intended for. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: I'm confused now. What to you is the fundamental difference between this category and Photographs of flags? --MB-one (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MB-one: The difference is that sometime in the past, it was decided that the default image type for flags would be graphics instead of photographs, and that photographs of flags would be in their own subcategories. This is different from most other topics, where the default image type is photographs. I don't know why that decision was made for flags. Maybe it was thought that graphics illustrate the flags' design details better. I don't necessarily agree with that decision, but that's how it's done. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: To help me understand, could you maybe link to the decisions about the default file type? Thank you. --MB-one (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't. I don't know where they are. I do see a note on Template:Photographs that says "This template should be placed on all "Photographs of [X]" categories.", if that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about two questions:

1. Should the {{Photos}} template remain on Category:Photographs of vehicles? Answers:
   1. Yes, this category appears to be a perfectly valid place to use it.
   2. Yes, this template is appropriate, not the metacat template. (I agree, JopkeB)
   3. No, this template needs to be changed.
2. Should this category remain? Answers:
   1. Yes, we do need a way to categorize any file by media type, including photographs.
   2. No, "photographs" has become a de facto default because the vast the vast majority of files on Commons are photographs, so this template is not necessary nor desirable; the files and subcategories in this category can be moved to Category:Vehicles and this category can get a redirect.
   3. (JopkeB) We do need this category to hold the current subcategories together, to prevent parent categories to become overcrowded.

Conclusion: There is no consensus yet.

Proposals

1. We place the {{Photos}} template here again, because this category is not for files and this is the best template to use here. If you think the template needs to be changed, then start a discussion on that template.
2. We keep this category because it is useful. If you do not agree that there should be categories for photographs, then start a discussion for the main category (Category:Photographs by topic).

@MB-one, Auntof6, and Joshbaumgartner: Can you agree with the resume and live with these proposals? --JopkeB (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. While I personally disagree with the resolution proposal (Photographs of vehicles is clearly not a metacat and thus can hold files directly in order for them to be further categorized), I'm willing to yield to the majority.
2. Strong support

MB-one (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise am not thrilled about the details, and the current way that media type categories are implemented is problematic. For one, I do not think relying on different defaults is a good idea--we should either categorize all by media type, or not. Otherwise this kind of issue remains inevitable and perennial. However, this is a lot bigger than this category itself, so I am fine with standing by under the caveat that this resolution does not represent a consensus on implementation of media type categories or {{Photos}} at large, just a way to move forward with this particular category for now.

Thank you, Auntof6 for putting the effort into this one and not just do edit jousting, sorry it took this long to get this through. Josh (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metacats are not the only kind of category that should contain only categories. As far as files that need further categorization, they could go in Category:Unidentified vehicles. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

1. As to replacing the template, yes. As for possibly changing the template: if the template doesn't quite fit what is wanted for this specific category, I would rather see a different template created. If it doesn't fit what is wanted in general for "Photographs of <foo>" categories, then the template could be changed.
2. Yes, the category is useful.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	1) place the {{Photos}} template here again  Done 2) Keep category
Participants	MB-one (talk · contribs) Auntof6 (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Notes	Actions are under the caveat that this resolution does not represent a consensus on implementation of media type categories or {{Photos}} at large.
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08/Category:Tollbooths.

I dont know the difference between toll gates and Category:Toll plazas. I'm not sure if i should connect one of them to tollbooth (Q1364150) either. Roy17 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08/Category:Tollbooths for more information. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, so now we have:

1. Category:Tollbooths
2. Category:Toll gates
3. Category:Toll houses
4. Category:Toll plazas

I've looked up their definitions in dictionaries and tried googling images. My conclusion is, tollbooth=tollgate, and toll plaza is a place where there is a line of tollbooths.

I propose to keep cat:toll houses as it is. Merge tollgates and tollbooths. Merge toll plazas up into tollgates.--Roy17 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, in cases like File:20180406 zaventem094.jpg where there are gates but no booths, the image could go in Category:Toll plazas instead. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tollbooth is a shelter where a tolltaker stands to take tolls from people who pass by the booth. A toll gate is a barrier that comes down in front of a vehicle until a toll is paid; some are automated and there may or may not be an associated booth. A toll house is a building where a toll collector lives (not as common nowadays). A toll plaza is a place where there is a line of tollbooths and/or tollgates. So gates and booths are not the same, but they are often in the same location so if we don't like having them separate, maybe we can combine them rather than having separate categories (or one redirected to the other). --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep My initial take was that there had to be some way to group some of these, but looking into it, it soes seem that each of the four categories is a valid and distinct concept. While there is certainly a good bit of overlap, in that most images depict two or more of the four elements, they can be combined in different ways or depitcted in isolation, so in the end I think we should just keep the existing categories as they are. Each image can be categorized in any or all of them as appropriate. Merging any of them may cause more issues than it is worth. Josh (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? Make toll plazas the parent cat of tollgate and tollbooth. In general I refrain from separating them, but if anyone wants to, it's a booth when a kiosk is present, or a gate when no booth but only a overhanging structure is present.--Roy17 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would work, because some toll gates (like this one) and some tollbooths (like this one) aren't part of a grouping. Toll plazas came about to accommodate motor vehicle traffic, but tolls were collected at booths and gates for centuries before that. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need a parent cat for all sorts of tollbooths gates etc. It's impractical to segregate these things by the presense of a booth or a human collector.

If that category is not toll plazas, then it's over-categorisation to cat an image by both tollbooth/gate and toll plaza. So in my first proposal, merge toll plazas up.

But honestly speaking, it's impractical to distinguish booth and gate at the first place, because some photos would be too blurred to find out which one it belongs to. Tollbooths are also gradually replaced by automated gates. So I said, merge tollbooth and gate because there's no distinction in real life. Try Gooling either one of them and you will still find all sorts.

Or, solve this simplest problem:

I imported these files. They should go into a cat 中国公路收费站 or 中国收费站, but which one to use? Tollbooths/Tollgates/Toll plazas in China? There should be only one cat. And its name should be the most general term. To settle down on that term is the purpose of this CfD.--Roy17 (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: Your three images can be put in Category:Toll plazas. They should not be in toll gates or toll booths because these more detailed items are not distinguishable in these example images. However, if booths or gates are prominently visible in an image, it should also be categorized in Category:Toll gates or Category:Tollbooths as appropriate. There is no over-categorization violation by having something listed in more than one of the four categories since they are parallel under Category:Tolls. Toll booths and gates are two seperate things, and even if there is a modern trend to merge the two or replace one with the other, that doesn't change the fact that we have media of toll booths with no gate and toll gates with no booth, so two seperate categories are warranted. Those images that depict both can be categorized in both. As for photos that are too blurred (such as your examples), if a subject is to blurry to be identified, we shouldn't be worrying about categorizing it by that subject, as folks who are looking for images of tollbooths or gates probably aren't looking for images of blurred-out tollbooths or gates. Simply cat your examples under toll plazas and call it good. However, there is no reason that images should be restricted to a single category. Josh (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner:

1. A plaza is not a parallel term, because a plaza is by definition a line of tollbooths (or gates). It's a subset.
2. When booths and gates are separated into two cats, there should be an umbrella term. It includes everything that is a place/structure designated for toll. I have said, the purpose of this CfD is to find that umbrella term. Then I could create the cats in China accordingly.
3. There can be only one sitelink to a wikidata item tollbooth (Q1364150), which should be the umbrella term. It's 收費站 in Chinese and 料金所 in Japanese. Nothing ambiguous about it. But apparently in English yall suggest three parallel terms.
4. They are so categorised because they are tollbooths/gates, not because what you want users to find.
5. My personal standpoint is, the current distinction is superfluous. Take User:Auntof6's aforementioned examples. Where is the gate in File:Nieuwe tol ingesteld bij Lemelerberg, Bestanddeelnr 903-9157.jpg? File:Kingston Road toll booth.jpg has a gate.--Roy17 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a term: toll stations.

My new proposal:

Toll stations

|-Tollbooths

|-Tollgates

...

Toll plazas redirect to Toll stations.

How about this?--Roy17 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: That is fine. I do not see a particular need to gather these into a contrived category like that, but at the same time there is nothing particularly wrong with it. The media should still end up sorted the same amongst the original four categories. However, if the intent is to move all media which contain some combination of booth/plaza/gate/etc. up into this new parent, then I would disagree with that. Josh (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The plaza cat cannot be used concurrently with the booth/gate cat, because it's implied by the definition of toll plaza.--Roy17 (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, my point was that toll plazas should remain in Category:Toll plazas, not moved up to this new Toll stations parent. Of course an image of a toll plaza at large does not need to also be categorized by each component of it, just as a picture of a car doesn't also have to be under tires. Josh (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Auntof6 comment Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment [from the Philippines] in our case, I don't think treating toll plazas as "toll stations" is appropriate, because we do not use that term. We almost use "toll plaza" to refer to any of the structures that are situated on the expressways themselves where toll is collected. We use "toll gate" to refer to any toll-collecting structure found at interchanges or exits. For example:

• 
  Balintawak Toll Plaza of the w:en:North Luzon Expressway
• 
  A toll structure (we call it a "toll gate") of the southbound entrance of Paso de Blas Exit, also of w:en:North Luzon Expressway

I created the Category:Toll plazas in the Philippines by road and its resulting subcategories in January 2022 to sort out image clutter at Category:Toll plazas in the Philippines (inspired by Category:Toll plazas in France by road). Still I didn't categorize the ones at the "Category:Toll plazas of the Philippines" since these are essentially found at interchanges or exits of the expressways, not on the expressways themselves. In my opinion, for our case, those that are not toll plazas must be removed from toll plazas category, dumping them into Category:Toll gates in the Philippines. It is needed to sort them out by road for organization, however. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @HueMan1, TagaSanPedroAko, Ganmatthew, Sky Harbor, and Sanglahi86: for some input regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rough consensus to keep all four categories. The debate is mostly about whether Toll booths and Toll gates should be kept separate or not. So I've created Tollbooths and toll gates if the distinction between the two is not important. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:MacRitchie Reservoir. I dont remember there's a boundary in there that separates a park from the rest. I believe MacRitchie Reservoir and ..Park are synonymous. Roy17 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: Wouldn't the boundary be land vs water? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: No. The two terms are synonymous in local usage. Creating two layers for the same thing is redundant. If both are kept, most photos would be categorised under the park category since hardly any photo depicts the body of water only. More examples from Singapore where a body of water gives rise to a park: w:Template:Parks in Singapore.--Roy17 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: I'm not doubting that the reservoir have rise (and name) to the park or that the reservoir is part of the park (and should therefore be a subcategory). But just as there is a difference between Category:Panama City and Panama , there is a difference a body of water and the park surrounding and including a body of water. - - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There are images of the park that do not include the reservoir. They would have no home if the merge was done. Josh (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: home is Category:MacRitchie Reservoir.--Roy17 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: Yeah, that's wrong. The park and the reservoir are two seperate items. If one is wholly within the other it can be sub-cat, but the park is not wholly within the reservoir, so it should not be a sub of it. They can have a {{Cat see also}} to point to each other. Otherwise you endup with pictures that are not of the reservoir cateorized under the reservoir. Josh (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Roy17: there is no consensus to merge. I guess we can close this CFD. However, I am not sure which one is a parent category and which one is a child--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, no consensus to merge. Technically the reservoir would be within the park, so parent and subcategory arranged thusly - though which category images are placed in seem inconstant. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do the boundaries of the Category:Channel Islands and the Category:British Crown Dependencies overlap exactly? I don't know that we need to merge these, but if they are identical, it doesn't make sense to have both Category:Geography of the Channel Islands and Category:Geography of the British Crown Dependencies. One category (Channel Islands) could simply include all the islands by name, and the other (BCDs) could include organize things related to society, etc. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at w:Crown dependencies. It would seem that the Isle of Man is a crown dependency, but not part of the Channel Island, as it lies in the Irish Sea. --Ranveig (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ranveig. I should have checked that more carefully first. So the obviously don't overlap, but I still wonder if we need quite so much duplication here. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the issues here are the same as for continents and supercontinents. If there are any topics that apply to the dependencies as a group, then have a group "Foo of the British Crown Dependencies" category for them. However, I suspect that there are few, if any, such categories, so maybe the only subcats here should be the high-level ones for the Channel Islands (either together or separately) and the Isle of Man (and any other dependencies there might be). --Auntof6 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: And then the other categories like Category:Society of Guernsey would simply go in Category:Guernsey and Category:Society of Europe but nothing related ot the UK? It's tricky since they don't have a "country" category to go in, except via "Crown Dependencies" - Themightyquill (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I don't fully understand the status of the Crown Dependencies, so I don't know if they should go under the UK. English Wikipedia doesn't categorize them under the UK. Maybe we make special categories parallel to country categories, similar to the way Category:Dependent territories is under Category:Countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown dependencies are an odd bird to be sure. They have ever been part of the Kingdom of England or the subsequent United Kingdom. They recognize the same monarch and de facto operate as an autonomous region of the United Kingdom, but legally they are wholly seperate entities. In fact, the three dependencies are not even legally bound to each other, and they are really three unique entities all with more-or-less similar relationships with the United Kingdom, and thus they get grouped together. The Channel Islands on the other hand is an archipelago which just happens to be administered by two of the three Crown dependencies. I think we probably need to keep both categories, but their contents may warrant some review. Josh (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Category:British Crown Dependencies should be renamed Category:Crown dependencies, since as noted above there is no single entity with the proper name 'British Crown Dependencies'. Josh (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, kept, per discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)

Currently we have only Omon in this cat but i doubt that they are a police tactical unit. So I'm for deleting this cat. Sanandros (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

en:OMON is for the Russian equivalent, but it's described as tactical. What makes you doubt it here? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On de:OMON#Auftrag is written that the russion Omon is for riot control, critical situations where regular police can't cope, proteciton of objects, drug crime, organised crime, transportation of criminals. For me that sounds more like an elite police which can do everything better that the common police units, rather than a police tactical unit.--Sanandros (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's twice described as tactical, and mentions that it handles things like domestic terrorism. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no Omon on de is not in the police tactical units cat.--Sanandros (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the one item in this category is tactical or not, since there is only one, does it warrant having this category to hold it, or can it be upmerged into Category:Police of Belarus? Josh (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Currently has two subcategories, and fits well into the parent Category:Police tactical units by country. I guess that  keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close, kept per discussion -- 00:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Canadians of Armenian descent‎ or Category:Armenian diaspora in Canada. Themightyquill (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest make the redirect to c:Armenian diaspora in Canada. - Kareyac (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems these are three seperate concepts... Category:Armenians in Canada would be any image of an Armenian who happened to be in Canada at the moment. Category:Canadians of Armenian descent would be any Canadian with Armenian heritage regardless of where they are pictured. I'm not so clear on Category:Armenian diaspora in Canada as it would seem to mean people actually born in Armenia who emigrated to Canada, though it may include their descendants in which case I don't know the difference between that and Category:Canadians of Armenian descent. None of this is unique to Armenians or Canada of course. Josh (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Diasporas in Canada contain "Media and subcategories related to unidentified individuals, objects and entities (churches, statues, festivals, etc.) associated with ethnicities/nationalities in Canada". Subcategories of Category:Ethnic groups in Canada contain "Media and subcategories related to specific Canadian individuals, organized into subcategories by ethnicity/nationality (e.g. Category:Canadians of Jamaican descent)". - Themightyquill (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Category:Armenian diaspora in Canada. Category:Armenian diaspora in Canada is the topic category for the group, and Category:Canadians of Armenian descent‎ for individual people. We do not need a third category. Place Clichy 09:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Armenian diaspora in Canada per discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over categorisation. For comparison, we have Category:Notre-Dame de Paris by year, but not churches in Paris/France by year. Roy17 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Categorization by year if fine, and there are easily enough images to warrant it, but should be renamed Category:Temples in Thailand in 2017. Josh (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: this is one of the obviously wrong proposals I would not reply to, but since you would take silence as support for you, I will spell it out this time:

This category is redundant, because these photos should be first categorised by the exact temples, then if some temples have so many photos like Notre-Dame they can be cat-ed by year. If multiple temples have by year cats, they should first be cat-ed by Buildings of Thailand by year. Only if this contains too many subcats, then should it be subdivided to <certain types of buildings> of Thailand by year.

Now look at the photos, they are not even inside a Temple XYZ in 2017, why would we need this cat? Is there for example Churches in the United States in 2017 that directly contains random photos of American churches in 2017?

I consider categories by way of common sense and drawing comparison to most probably well-maintained structures, i.e. cats of US, UK and Germany, because most experienced Commons users come from these places. In this case, neither common sense nor analogy suggests this cat is useful. My two cents.--Roy17 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, silence would be de facto support for whatever conclusion was reached, so thank you for commenting. However, it is not clear either what proposal you are considering 'obviously wrong' or what you actually propose that we do. Since you brought this category up in the first place, care to actually specify what you would like to see done? Josh (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Delete. We haven't neither Category:Temples by year nor Category:Temples by country by year--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close, kept. No consensus to delete. Fits into now well used category tree as a subcategory of "Category:Religious buildings photographed in 2017". (Technically "Temples in Thailand in 2017" would seem to be a better English language name.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 Januar in Benrath.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Februar.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Maerz.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Mai.

German language category. Also most subcategories are affected. Ies (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Flora of Benrath along with subcategories. Josh (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ies and Joshbaumgartner: subcategories should be conflated into two: ie Category:Flora of Benrath in March and Category:Flora of Benrath in April. The concrete year and date should be redundant; see eg Category:Flora of Berlin in March--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Estopedist1 renames of sub-cats. Josh (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]