Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2015/09
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive September 2015
The category name doesn't correspond to the categorization - unclear scope and purpose of this category. ŠJů (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- At very least, rename to Category:Wikimedia Czech Republic Presentation & Outreach - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- ŠJů If you know how, could you please move it to "Category:Outreach activities of Wikimedia Czech Republic"? Thank you (on behalf of WMCZ), --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Moved. --ŠJů (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Done by ŠJů 17 November 2015. --Achim (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove. Empty category. Universal term and not in English. Jarash (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 4 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I can find only one in the whole of the English-speaking world, and I don't see the point of having this category for just one pub. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rodhullandemu, please tell us what Kirkmichael Arms is the name of. Road, junction, place, quarter, house, pub? --Achim (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a pub. One pub. In Kirkmichael. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Merged into Category:Kirkmichael Arms, cleared and tagged speedy. --Achim (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a pub. One pub. In Kirkmichael. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 4 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
нррн76щен846 109.174.112.67 13:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to do. Treated as test or vandalism. --Achim (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Löschen, da irrtümlich erstellt. Bodo Kubrak (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 4 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This incorrectly named category has been renamed to Category:Luigi Federico Menabrea and all its pages have been accordingly recategorized. It can now be deleted. --Lambiam 02:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Done, set a category redirect. Lambiam, in the future please move a category to its new name instead of creating a new one for its history is kept that way. --Achim (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Set a category redirect. --Achim (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Need more know idioma spanish Tusca~enwiki280 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- ¿Qué quieres decir? --Achim (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
This cfd request was a malformed DR that deals with French vs Catalan spelling. Achim (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved from Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Acte nacional de l'ANC a Ceret 2015: Achim (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)FAUTES D'ORTHOGRAPHE : 2 fautes dans une phrase. ComputerHotline 30 August 2015
Moved from Commons talk:Deletion requests/Category:Acte nacional de l'ANC a Ceret 2015: Achim (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reason for deletion is a mistake : there is no mispelling in the name of the category as it is in Catalan, and not in French as believed by submitter for deletion. Culex (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- The name of this event, even though it occured in France in Pyrénées-Orientales (also renamed sometimes as northern Catalonia), was organised in support of Catalan independance, by the ANC (a Catalan party for independance) and was held entirely in Catalan. This is why the category was named in Catalan and not in French. Culex (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your info, so I think it should be kept as it is even though one of its parent cats reads Céret. --Achim (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- The name of the event is Acte nacional de l'ANC [1] which is catalan ; the event has been held in Céret 2015, and we need to use the official graphic, which has an accent, so the name could be Acte nacional de l'ANC, Céret 2015 (comma preferentially used on commons) Acte nacional de l'ANC at Céret 2015 or even Acte nacional de l'ANC at Céret, 2015 Considering that Céret is in France, another possibility could be Acte nacional de l'ANC à Céret 2015, which is a undesirable mix of two languages - as in such a mix one of the two should be the commons primary english. I propose Acte nacional de l'ANC, Céret 2015. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would then prefer Acte nacional de l'ANC, Céret 2015, I guess. Culex (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree, then let's do so, thanks for telling your opinions. --Achim (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would then prefer Acte nacional de l'ANC, Céret 2015, I guess. Culex (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- The name of the event is Acte nacional de l'ANC [1] which is catalan ; the event has been held in Céret 2015, and we need to use the official graphic, which has an accent, so the name could be Acte nacional de l'ANC, Céret 2015 (comma preferentially used on commons) Acte nacional de l'ANC at Céret 2015 or even Acte nacional de l'ANC at Céret, 2015 Considering that Céret is in France, another possibility could be Acte nacional de l'ANC à Céret 2015, which is a undesirable mix of two languages - as in such a mix one of the two should be the commons primary english. I propose Acte nacional de l'ANC, Céret 2015. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your info, so I think it should be kept as it is even though one of its parent cats reads Céret. --Achim (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Acte nacional de l'ANC, Céret 2015. --Achim (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty category, created by a user who had a poor understanding of the category system. Unlikely to ever see use. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Hedwig in Washington 11 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Orphographic mistake Antonsnt (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Hedwig in Washington 9 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose to rename Category:Trägerbohlenwand to Category:Soldier pile walls. The current name is in German and originally this article lacked the English description. I added the "en" description but I'm not completely sure in the translation. If I got it right (soldier pile wall) then I suggest to rename the category. Salmin (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Salmin, I think you're right translating to Category:Soldier pile walls. Btw Trägerbohlenwand had to be renamed anyway as German engineer standards use Trägerbohlwand (see also de:Trägerbohlwand) instead. So I support your proposal. --Achim (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Soldier pile walls by Salmin/SteinsplitterBot. Category:Trägerbohlwand redirects there. --Achim (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. There is already Category:Ruble Belarusian sign Jarash (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Support: Other related categories also read Ruble. --Achim (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Hedwig in Washington 12 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Many images giving error when attempting to access File page (see the image). These seem to be all the titles beginning with "'Weisser Strand' am ..." such as file:'Weisser Strand' am Flakensee in Woltersdorf Juni 2014 - 01.JPG. The error message I'm seeing is:
"The page isn't redirecting properly
Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.
This problem can sometimes be caused by disabling or refusing to accept cookies."
(more or less). I have no idea what this means, but I clicked on over a dozen such images in the category trying to figure it out. Now you can scratch your head in puzzlement too!
- Oh, yeah... This is an older Laptop running XP+SP3, Firefox version 36.0.1 (kept retarded since the updates have already messed too much with my style of wiki editing.) // FrankB 13:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons:Help desk, please follow up there. --Achim (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Added FULL link, Commons:Help_desk#Images_giving_errors // FrankB 22:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons:Help desk, please follow up there. --Achim (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Out of process scope, moved to Commons:Help desk. --Achim (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
To deletion. Right category -> Category:Gdańska Street, Wrocław Adolf Warski (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 12 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Because there is no exact definition of gorgeous and because all flickr stuff that there is tagged gorgeous is dropped here automatically I propose to delete this category as it is useless. Achim (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- No objections for 2 weeks: Cleared and marked speedy. --Achim (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There is zero connection between the entries in this category, other than the belief of one editor in some kind of shared etymology. Note that a parallel category on the English Wikipedia is in CfD at en:WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_1#Category:Ribat_related_names. Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rupert, what do you propose? --Achim (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest deleting the category and removing it from all items categorized this way. There is no value here that needs to be preserved. Rupert Clayton (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest deleting the category and removing it from all items categorized this way. There is no value here that needs to be preserved. Rupert Clayton (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 13 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty category. Not needed. Ldorfman (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty category - not needed Ldorfman (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
To be deleted. Replaced by TørsbølPadborg Beethoven9 (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirected by Taivo 12 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose to delete this unuseful redirect. All the other categories are Paris Plages 20xx with the s letter of the plural Tangopaso (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty category. Not needed. Ldorfman (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 13 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Author surname change: all content has been moved to the new category:Quality Images by Jochen Teufel. Iotatau (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Author surname change: all content has been moved to the new category Photos_by_Jochen_Teufel Iotatau (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Please delete that category, because it is orphographic mistake Tatiana Matlina 15:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Tatiana, I don't get it. Category:Paintings by Petr Sharipa redirects to Category:Paintings by Piotr Sharipa which is a subcategory of Category:Petr Sharipa, at be:wp we read be:Пётр Пятровіч Шарыпа, the image is entitled be:Файл:Piotr Sharypa.jpeg and its description reads "Пётр Пятровіч Шарыпа". Petr seems to be the better variant. --Achim (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- In russian, belarusian, ukrainian and polish language this name is pronounced as pIOtr. See for example Category:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Piotr Michalowski, Piotrków Trybunalski and other. Tatiana Markina 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see. So Category:Petr Sharipa should be renamed too. --Achim (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- In russian, belarusian, ukrainian and polish language this name is pronounced as pIOtr. See for example Category:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Piotr Michalowski, Piotrków Trybunalski and other. Tatiana Markina 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be the regional equivalent to coffee shops, which already have Category:Coffee shops. Shall we merge and redirect? Or is it to be seen as a special kind of coffee shop that merits an own category? Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm from en-WP, I've created "Cafés and Coffee shop" in the en:Template:Gastronomy in Singapore, whereas I reference to: en:Category:Cafés in Singapore --Huggi (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I really don't think kopi tiams should be equated to cafés. That seems quite inappropriate, as cafés brings to mind Western-style establishments. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm tending to follow JackLee's arguments and would like to keep it separately as a subcat of Category:Coffee shops as it is now. Any objections? --Achim (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action, lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty category Druddigon (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 16 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty category. Not needed for now. Ldorfman (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 16 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
empty category Jarash (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Tagged also empty Category:Ivanauskaja street, Minsk. --Achim (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 16 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty category. Not needed. Ldorfman (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 16 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Out of project scope Ies (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo 17 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Recategorized stations into right categories Adolf Warski (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 19 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Falscher Name, siehe Category:Louis Michel Eilshemius Goesseln (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Though misspelled name created a cat redirect because of 300+ Google hits. --Achim (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Louis Michel Eilshemius. --Achim (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
empty category Jarash (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 18 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
merge into Category:The Hecht synagogue in the Hebrew University - more exact naming DGtal (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Tagged speedy, didn't set a cat redir as it is German spelling (upcase). --Achim (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Merged into Category:The Hecht synagogue in the Hebrew University. --Achim (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
mappa di rio preto 173.54.161.198 17:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is probably meant as a renaming request. The heading line of this cat reads Esta categoria inclui imagens relacionadas ao município de Rio Preto, Minas Gerais - Brasil and it is a subcat of Category:Municipalities in Minas Gerais. So there is no renaming reason given. --Achim (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action, nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
{{Delete|ist an copy from here: [[:Category:Chapeau! 150 Jahre Hutgeschichte(n)]]}}
1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 09:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann 19 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The category name is misleading. Puerto Rico is part of the United States. Calling someone a "Puerto Rican American" is like calling them a "Californian American". This category should either be renamed or be merged with "People of Puerto Rico". Auntof6 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Sorry for any confusion. Nightscream (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:American people of Puerto Rican descent by Auntof6 10 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
To upload videos 36.252.1.189 08:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, one can upload videos. --Achim (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action, nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
laisser alexie trenquil ok 74.14.135.76 02:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see what that has to do with Category:History, let alone be a reason to delete it. - Andre Engels (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action. Obviously nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty category Jarash (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Create by mistake, double of Category:Saint-Cergue railway station; should therefore be deleted. NAC (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Nyttend 22 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty category Jarash (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Pleclown 28 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Unsuitable category name (all files have been copied to Category:Schönheide) Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support deletion. Also note that more files have appeared in the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Pleclown 28 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
wrong address not No.1, but 6! Globetrotter19 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 26 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
please delete - I hit on the enter key by mistake and the category name is incomplete! Haendelfan (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio 29 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
91.42.78.185 05:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to do. No rationale given, test or vandalism by an IP. --Achim (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
A quick google search reveals no other references to "Rock of Ages" in Elora, Ontario outside wikimedia commons. Suggesting deletion, but perhaps I've misunderstood something. Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's called the "Tooth of Time". https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=elora+Tooth+of+Time+ Please research your entries. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , you are corrct I made an error. I drove through Elora a couple of times a month for ten years, and counted on my unreliable memory.
- I redirected the category to Category:Tooth of time, Elora, Ontario, as per above. Geo Swan (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't even know what the photo/category were attempting to depict, since the islet is fairly small within the photo. Anyway, glad it worked out! - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Tooth of time, Elora, Ontario by Geo Swan 21 September 2015. --Achim (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Empty, only ever contained one item added by initial creator, later removed. JesseW (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's a useful category in general, if only to serve as a parent to Category:Smoking permitted signs. Added some content … --El Grafo (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Contains now 1 subcat and 8 files. Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept without action. --Achim (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
There was no extermination camp in Spain in that age. There were concentration camps with hard conditions of life. This category must be deleted. Chamarasca (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. I speak a very bad English. The point is that there was no extermination camp in Spain. There were extermination camps in Germany and occupied countries during the II World War, but not in Spain. In Spain there were concentration camps. With very bad conditions, of course (in all the country the conditions were very bad), but concentration camps. That is the point you have ignored in your editions. If Geo Swan thinks that there were extermination camps in the Spain of Franco, he can explain his reasons. In my opinion, the name of this category is a falsity.
- Me explico en español. No hubo campos de exterminio en la España de Franco, sino campos de concentración. Los conceptos son muy diferentes (por ejemplo, hubo campos de concentración en Estados Unidos destinados a los ciudadanos estadounidenses de origen japonés, pero no fueron campos de exterminio). Por consiguiente, considero que el título de la categoría es una falsedad y por ello debe ser suprimida. Si alguno de los editores que han intervenido en esta página conoce alguna fuente fiable que afirme que existieron campos de exterminio en la España de Franco, le ruego que aporte la información.--Chamarasca (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- In English we distinguish between a variety of different kinds of camps.
- Summer camps are recreation camps, for children, where they learn swimming, boating, archery, horseback riding, etc.
- Refugee camps -- for refugees
- Internment camps -- for unwelcome refugees, or enemy aliens. Those held can't leave.
- Concentration camps -- authorities claim they are for simple internment, but they are really extermination camps.
- Extermination camps, or death camps -- more accurate name for concentration camps.
- If you really think these were concentration camps -- not more humane internment camps, you should not be surprised to see people think they are death camps. If, on the other hand, they are more humanely run internment camps, call them that.
- I saw Land and Freedom. I had an old Professor who was a veteran of the International Brigades. I know the Spanish Civil War was a particularly ferocious and brutal war, with atrocities committed by both sides. I've read that Franco wasn't really that different from Hitler. So I really want to hear the counter-arguments from User:Valdavia.
- Please use the {{Move}} template next time. Geo Swan (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see. Cambridge dictionary says:
- Concentration camp: a place where large numbers of people are kept as prisoners in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons.
- There are no definitions for "extermination camp" or "internment camp", but the meaning of "extermination" is very clear, I think. You have the article Extermination camp in Wikipedia in English. There are no article for "Concentration camp", but you have Concentration camp in simple English. Perhaps you will able to see the diference. This is what we call in Spanish "campo de concentración".
- Land an Freedom is a very militant movie; a fiction movie. Of course the civil war was very brutal; and the post-war was too. Many people went to prison. There were not enough prisons. So, the franquist authorities prepared concentration camps. The conditions were hard inside them; but were hard outside too. But they were not extermination camps.--Chamarasca (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Chamarasca in that the purpose of this camp was primarily not extermination. Also comparing the # of Google hits the cat name Category:Miranda concentration camp is to be treated the better one. On the other hand there is no need to delete the category redirection from Category:Miranda extermination camp thereto. --Achim (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I see. Cambridge dictionary says:
Moved to Category:Miranda concentration camp by Chamarasca 6 September 2015 and set a category redirect. --Achim (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Right Category:Railway line 285 (Poland) Adolf Warski (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirected there. --Achim (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
First, almost all the elements in this category are buildings. Second, I see no definition of what a "cultural heritage monument" is. I have a lot of experience observing a kind of category creep, when categories have ambiguous names, and no one who played a role in starting the category laid out what they thought belonged, and/or what they thought should be excluded.
In my opinion, it would be preferable to either:
- Turn this category into a subcategory of a broader category, like Category:Heritage structures in Toronto, and place all the elements that are buildings, in it. Reserve this category for genuine monuments, like statues and other artwork. Provide some help to contributors to distinguish between "heritage monuments" and other sculptures that shouldn't be considered a "heritage" structure.
- Create a parent category, like Category:Heritage structures in Toronto, as above, and lave the monuments here -- but put heritage buildings in another subcategory. We currently have Category:Heritage buildings in Toronto and Category:Heritage properties in Toronto. Category:Heritage buildings in Toronto redirects to Category:Heritage properties in Toronto, which redirects to this category.
For what it is worth the automated tool to help create this discussion page experienced catastrophic failure. It didn't say why. But it threw out my first explanation. Highly annoying. I suspect it failed because this category was created by a bot. I suspect the automated tool was designed not to leave messages for bots. Fine. But that is bad reason to throw its hands up in confusion, and drop a big mess on the floor. Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Geo Swan, I didn't count them but I suppose there are 1200+ categories named Cultural heritage monuments in .... Do you really think Toronto should be treated differently? --Achim (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- 1200+ categories? No I didn't know this. Okay, and how many of them are full of pictures of buildings? If most of those 1200+ categories are full of buildings, not genuine monuments, then, yes, I think they should all be renamed.
category creep -- a story - Once upon a time I was active in a small food coop. This was before even small organizations were computerized. We kept day to day track of our inventory on an old fashioned device called a rolladex. Each item we carried got a card. Related cards were grouped together behind tabs for broad categories of food. Like here, any volunteer could add a new card, if we started getting a new kind of food. Like here, any volunteer could decide a card was in the wrong category, and move it to another, or add a brand new categor.
- When I started volunteering there there was a category entitled "cereals", which contained the cards for wheat, barley oats, rice. At some point rolled oats, made it into the cereal category, although we had another category for flours. Over the time I was associated with it, my coop added new products. We started carrying an organic analog to cheerios, or corn flakes. I thought it was funny when it too was added to the cereals category. Then I went away for a while, and when I returned, I found that the "cereals" category had been entirely taken over by several different kinds of oatmeal, and dozen different brands of organic breakfast cereals. All the genuine cereals it had once contained had been placed in a new category named "grains and nuts".
- I see the same thing happen here, all the time. We don't have a single person appointed to be the chief datatbase manager, who maintains an overall schema. Practically every category is created by someone who thinks the categories contents are "obvious", so they don't bother to explicitly state what they think belongs in that category, and what they think should be left out.
- So, are you aware of any meaningful consensus as to what a "cultural heritage monument" actually is? How does it differ from a plain ordinary monument? Are there "cultural monuments" that aren't "cultural heritage monuments"? Are there "heritage monuments" that aren't "cultural heritage monuments"? Geo Swan (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Hello? Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Still on board, real life requested some time... Well, there are - spoken carefully - immovable objects (buildings, memorials, etc.) all over the world that are specially protected by national or provincial law and by authorities that keep them in databases and have their eyes on them. These are covered by Cultural heritage monuments. There might be better names for this kind of categories but Cultural heritage monuments are common on Commons. I think it would be impossible to get a consensus for to change that. So the only thing we could do is some senseful categorizing below that level, but mostly it's not necessary: A church of Toronto might belong to Category:Churches in Toronto and additionally to Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Toronto. Best, --Achim (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cultural heritage monuments in Canada can include many different things, including cemeteries, cairns, cenotaphs, ships, individual trees (and in at least one case, the stump of the former tree), as well as buildings. My city tried to include a train engine on the list (it's been immobilized for decades, but still considered "moveable" and therefore ineligible). If you can find a better term to include all possible heritage items (not just buildings) other than "cultural heritage monuments", then please suggest it. Fungus Guy (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to close this cfd. Geo Swan, do you still have objections? Belonging to Cultural heritage monuments should be treated as an attribute an object either has or has not. --Achim (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept without any action due to lack of consensus. --Achim (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The 'Sas-hegy' cat. is the grammatically correct one. (Same content!) Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed. Globetrotter19, do you know whether district XI or XII is the correct categorization? --Achim (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sas-hegy is a hill, the peak and biggest part of its loc. in district XI (11th). Also there is a neighborhood named Sashegy which is fully part of district XI (11th). - -Globetrotter19 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see, so we should keep both categories and add a see also. --Achim (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept both categories and added see also there. --Achim (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
fr:Esplanade colonel Jean Morin Arnaud 25 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Apart from the Wikipedia article, I can't find evidence that a park by this name exists. It's not on Google Maps or OpenStreetMap. It's not on the tourist office's Web site. This makes it difficult to find the correct name for it. --rimshottalk 16:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The file might be named Esplanade_Jean_Morin, but the sign says Esplanade Jean Maurin. I propose therefore Category:Esplanade Colonel Jean Maurin. --rimshottalk 07:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Esplanade Colonel Jean Maurin. --Achim (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted work, the scene. FoP doesn't apply here: the scene has a 2 years life duration, then is rebuilt from scratch. Dereckson (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Info: DRs concerning files of this cat can be found here. --Achim (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, empty after the files in question were deleted. --rimshottalk 23:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in France, and this sculpture was finished in 2006. That's a problem. These may be useable in scaled-down form on English Wikipedia as fair use, but I'm not sure we can host them here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- That’s an issue that affects photos momentarily in this category; it is not a problem of the category, which may well be used to tag items pertaining this monument which do not transgress FoP. A Deletion Request of the delinquent iamges should be filed with the rationale above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Could you give an example of a free-to-use image that would be in this category? I'm failing to see what could be in here that wouldn't be in copyright, barring an official release by the artist's heir. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure:
- A hand drawn doodle or this thing.
- Photos of a warning sign cautioning pedestrians not to stumble on this thing.
- Photos taken facing away from this thing showing the shadow of its distinct contour.
- Photos of its construction site, showing bits and pieces of this thing laying about.
- Something akin to {{NoUploads}} and {{NoFoP-France}}
- Now, regardless of what happens to this category, the important thing is to get the copyvio photos deleted — no lawyer will praise us for deleting the category, not its deletion will ever serve as compensation for failing to delete photos — indeed keeping this category is a handy way to keep catching photos with FoP issues (compare with Category:Cloud Gate, a similar case). Adam Cuerden, since you’re so keen on deleting this category, could you file in a DR for its contents, too? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Point. And I have opened a deletion request already (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ddfemergente-4.jpg). Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why not all in one bundle? They share the same rationale, at least. (You do know about MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js, yes?) Either way, the others can be added manually to the DR. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: I figured it was obvious that the same rationales - and thus fate - applied to all images in the category, but I've added a list of all other images affected and tagged the files. 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not obvious at all: A CfD process, like this here, can result in a category being deleted (or renamed), but it doesn’t touch the files tagged with it (only to untag them if the cat is deleted, and even that is separate botwork). This is Mediawiki 101 — I obviously overrated your experience, probably I’m confusing your name with someone else’s and I appologize for bluntness. I suggest you read the relevant help pages, and recomend (again) MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js, which allows swift, yet detailed, proper filing of Deletions Requests, including of multiple files — from the same uploader, same category, or as the result of a search. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- You mean when I wrote something on the lines of "This same rationale applies to all images in the category" in the deletion request, it might be misinterpreted as "but let's not delete them"? I think this is less MediaWiki, and more expecting people to read the nomination. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- You mean the nomination in the DR, then yes — although tagging all the affected files and listing them (either manually or automaticly) in the nomination greatly simplifies any future work on them by other volonteers; however I thought you mean this CfD nomination, which is just the right point raised at the wrong venue. All clear now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- You mean when I wrote something on the lines of "This same rationale applies to all images in the category" in the deletion request, it might be misinterpreted as "but let's not delete them"? I think this is less MediaWiki, and more expecting people to read the nomination. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not obvious at all: A CfD process, like this here, can result in a category being deleted (or renamed), but it doesn’t touch the files tagged with it (only to untag them if the cat is deleted, and even that is separate botwork). This is Mediawiki 101 — I obviously overrated your experience, probably I’m confusing your name with someone else’s and I appologize for bluntness. I suggest you read the relevant help pages, and recomend (again) MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js, which allows swift, yet detailed, proper filing of Deletions Requests, including of multiple files — from the same uploader, same category, or as the result of a search. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: I figured it was obvious that the same rationales - and thus fate - applied to all images in the category, but I've added a list of all other images affected and tagged the files. 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why not all in one bundle? They share the same rationale, at least. (You do know about MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js, yes?) Either way, the others can be added manually to the DR. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Point. And I have opened a deletion request already (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ddfemergente-4.jpg). Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure:
- @Tuvalkin: Could you give an example of a free-to-use image that would be in this category? I'm failing to see what could be in here that wouldn't be in copyright, barring an official release by the artist's heir. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept with big warnings for potential future uploaders. --rimshottalk 23:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The University has been merged into the Aix-Marseille University. This categroy can be deleted. Superbenjamin (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mouais, le fichier qui était dans cette catégorie File:FacLettresAix.JPG n'est pas vraiment une image intemporelle d'un bâtiment mais celui daté d'une grève. Il est vrai que la banderole fait mention de la fac [d'aix] et pas de l'université.
- File:FacLettresAix.JPG was previously in this category. This image shows of a strike in 2006 of Aix College and thus specifically Aix-Marseille I university at this time. Superbenjamin is the uploader of this image so I don't want to be annoying but it's my POV - Drongou (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Si on avait beaucoup d'images historiques du même type, pourquoi pas. Mais vu que c'est la seule et qu'elle est par ailleurs catégorisée sous Category:Demonstrations and protests against the contrat première embauche (CPE), je ne vois pas l'intérêt de garder la catégorie... --Superbenjamin (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- J'ai créé Category:Demonstrations and protests against the contrat première embauche (CPE) in Aix-en-Provence and Marseille. J'ai d'autres photos que je pourrais y verser d'ailleurs… --Superbenjamin (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Category redirected to Category:Aix-Marseille University. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Empty category that by definition cannot be filled with valid files because all relevant files are derivative works subject to copyright restrictions. Neelix (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like it's a handy honey trap to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Possibly, but don't we have a bigger warning for things like this? Something similar to {{NoUploads}}, maybe? --El Grafo (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It should be Category:Brushmaking, shouldn't it? Årvasbåo (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Both are valid spellings, with brushmaking leading only in the 19th century (Google ngram search). I've added a description, so that the category can be found by searching for "brushmaking" as well. --rimshottalk 23:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept as per myself. --rimshottalk 13:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Empty non specific category Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the category because you emptied it. The images in question are now in Category:Paintings by Pieter de Hooch in the Cleveland Museum of Art. If its name is unclear, why not rename the category instead of moving the images to a less-specific category? - Eureka Lott 17:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't that what I did? I moved the Pieter de Hooch images from a non-specific category Portrait of a Family Playing Music to a more specific category Paintings by Pieter de Hooch in the Cleveland Museum of Art. The category Portrait of a Family Playing Music is still available for any family playing music, but I suggest to delete it, because it is not very specific. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Portrait of a Family Playing Music" happens to be the English name of a painting by Pieter de Hooch. Besides, because of the upper case, this category name would not be appropriate for random pictures of families playing music. As a matter of fact, the upper case makes this category specific: it is the name of a specific painting. Olivier (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, you moved the images from a category about a single painting (very specific) to a category about a painter by museum (more general). A more appropriate response would have been to rename the category to Category:Portrait of a Family Playing Music by Pieter de Hooch, or something similar. - Eureka Lott 20:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have moved the 3 pictures of the Portrait of a Family Playing Music painting by Pieter de Hooch to Category:Portrait of a Family Playing Music. If you believe that the name of this category is not specific enough, then I can easily change the category name to Category:Portrait of a Family Playing Music (1663 painting). Olivier (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not specific enough. How to be sure that no other painter made a painting with that subject. I suggest to follow Eureka Lott's naming proposal. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Many painters made paintings with that subject, but none other that I know has made a painting with this title. A Google image search for "Portrait of a Family Playing Music" basically only returns the Pieter de Hooch painting. Therefore, I do not see any reason to disambiguate the title of this category. In the unlikely event that other non-de Hooch paintings land into the category, then it will be time to create more specific category names. Olivier (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on where you look. Pieter de Hooch never titled that painting. The Netherlands Institute for Art History (de Hooch was a Dutch painter) calls this image Portret van een musicerende familie or in English Portrait of a family making music. So why not use that name? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Olivier. I don't see a need to add disambiguation to the category name at the moment. I'd also suggest deleting Category:Paintings by Pieter de Hooch in the Cleveland Museum of Art as an unnecessary layer, since this is the only object by Pieter de Hooch in the museum's collection. - Eureka Lott 23:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Jan Arkesteijn: are you now suggesting to delete the category or to rename it? Olivier (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I started this discussion with a deletion proposal, but since some objected I suggested to follow Eureka Lott's naming proposal. However, it seems that the status quo is likely to by maintained and this is my final contribution to this discussion. I thought I made an improvement, that's all. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Jan Arkesteijn: are you now suggesting to delete the category or to rename it? Olivier (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Many painters made paintings with that subject, but none other that I know has made a painting with this title. A Google image search for "Portrait of a Family Playing Music" basically only returns the Pieter de Hooch painting. Therefore, I do not see any reason to disambiguate the title of this category. In the unlikely event that other non-de Hooch paintings land into the category, then it will be time to create more specific category names. Olivier (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not specific enough. How to be sure that no other painter made a painting with that subject. I suggest to follow Eureka Lott's naming proposal. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have moved the 3 pictures of the Portrait of a Family Playing Music painting by Pieter de Hooch to Category:Portrait of a Family Playing Music. If you believe that the name of this category is not specific enough, then I can easily change the category name to Category:Portrait of a Family Playing Music (1663 painting). Olivier (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't that what I did? I moved the Pieter de Hooch images from a non-specific category Portrait of a Family Playing Music to a more specific category Paintings by Pieter de Hooch in the Cleveland Museum of Art. The category Portrait of a Family Playing Music is still available for any family playing music, but I suggest to delete it, because it is not very specific. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the category was fine as is, but I also don't object to having a museum category for just one painting and have seen this in other places too. I would keep it as is (original category as no disambig is needed, and that is a sub category of the museum category). --Jane023 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The capitalization and singular "portrait" indicates that it's the title of a single work. The category had three images in September 2015, and it has three images in February 2017, so I'd say it's not causing a lot of confusion. If other images with this name appear or other images are ending up in the category for other reasons, I'd suggest a move to to Category:Portrait of a Family Playing Music by Pieter de Hooch or Category:Portrait of a Family Playing Music (1663 painting). The nominator has lost interest in the discussion, so I'm closing as keep for now. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
start copied content from Village pump
- Category:Heat haze seems to be the one you're looking for. --El Grafo (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Heat blur is more appropiate. In the category heat haze there is no distinction between the two effects of heat. The bleuish tint of particles in the air (haze) and the visual distortions caused the way ligth travels through the air. The heat itself does not cause the distortions but temperature differences in the air. Heat blurs can even be seen in the Artic. The distortions become a diffuse blur with a long fotografic exposure, but a fast exposure freezes the distortions. (The distortions are fast moving)Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I propose a rename the Heat blur category into: Air refractions caused by temperature differences. I also explained the effect in the category text. De image effect is different depending on the exposure time of the image.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Smiley.toerist, I'm pretty sure "heat haze" and "heat blur" are two words for the same thing. en:Mirage uses the term heat haze for the blur/distortions/refractions, saying "Heat haze is not related to the atmospheric phenomenon of haze". This seems to be a fix term, so we should use it. I'd propose to
- move everything that has to do with actual haze (particles/aerosoles) out of the two categories, as they belong in Category:Haze, Category:Mist, Category:Fog, Category:Smog, or something similar.
- then move the contents of Category:Heat blur to Category:Heat haze and create a redirect
- remove Category:Heat haze from Category:Haze, as these are two totally different things (leaving a "see also: Category:Heat haze" at Category:Haze)
- add a description to Category:Heat haze that makes clear that heat haze doesn't have anything to do with actual haze (and links to the relevant section of the Wikipedia article)
- We could also call it heat blur, -distortions, -shimmer or whatever. But as far as I can see we don't need a category for the combination of heat and actual haze (particles/aerosoles/water droplets/…). --El Grafo (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Smiley.toerist, I'm pretty sure "heat haze" and "heat blur" are two words for the same thing. en:Mirage uses the term heat haze for the blur/distortions/refractions, saying "Heat haze is not related to the atmospheric phenomenon of haze". This seems to be a fix term, so we should use it. I'd propose to
- I propose a rename the Heat blur category into: Air refractions caused by temperature differences. I also explained the effect in the category text. De image effect is different depending on the exposure time of the image.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Category:Heat blur is more appropiate. In the category heat haze there is no distinction between the two effects of heat. The bleuish tint of particles in the air (haze) and the visual distortions caused the way ligth travels through the air. The heat itself does not cause the distortions but temperature differences in the air. Heat blurs can even be seen in the Artic. The distortions become a diffuse blur with a long fotografic exposure, but a fast exposure freezes the distortions. (The distortions are fast moving)Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
end copied content from Village pump
- This proposal sounds reasonable to me. I know the photographic phenomena as heat blur, but I am satisfied with any categorization, as long as we can sort the images into an appropriate category and keep it separate from the haze as a mix of two different aggregation states --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nice category. Thanks to mentors, creators & file movers. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As per consensus, redirected Category:Heat blur to Category:Heat haze and added description taken from en:Mirage. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Per Currency:Macedonia and List of countries' copyright length, Macedonia currency issued after December 31, 1944 is copyrighted, so any image in these two Categories will always be copyrighted and deleted using Template:{{Copyvio}}. Note Macedonia has only been independent from the former Yugoslavia since 1991, so none of its currency is Public Domain until 2062.----ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is a warning box now, so I think the categories can be kept. If they are deleted, they are bound to be recreated. --rimshottalk 20:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Too small categories. Upmerge both to Category:Money of the Republic of Macedonia. Petr Matas (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- The coins category was deleted by JuTa in April 2016 but this discussion was not closed. I agree with Petr Matas that the banknotes category should also be deleted - Category:Money of the Republic of Macedonia should be sufficient, since it should be empty or near empty. I've nominated the banknotes images for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Both categories deleted. Category:Money of the Republic of Macedonia should be sufficient. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The explanation on the page Category:Naval engineers is about Naval architecture; en:Naval engineering concurs that these are synonyms, so the info should be moved to Category:Naval architects. However, many of the contents of the category relate to the broader field of en:Marine engineering; there is a page Category:Marine engineers, but this currently redirects to an even broader head category Category:Marine engineers and naval architects. There was a like-named combined category in enwiki, but it has just been split to en:Category:Marine architects and en:Category:Naval architects. I suggest removing the redirect from Category:Marine engineers, and moving most of the contents there. Category:Naval engineers should then be redirected to Category:Naval architects. --Fayenatic london (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- No opposition in well over a year, Fayenatic london. I think you're clear to go ahead with the move. I don't know how to sort the images and sub-categories appropriately, so you'll need to do that, I'm afraid. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Themightyquill: Thank you, I have implemented all that, and nominated the former combined category for deletion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02#Category:Marine engineers and naval architects. Fayenatic london (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorting complete. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The files have been categorised under the different campuses of the University. This categroy can be deleted. Superbenjamin (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
On August 16th, User:Auntof6 had this category renamed "Architecture of Belgium by style" with the argument that it does not include periods, but architectural styles. Another user has reverted this on September 7th. In my opinion, most of these are actually styles (gothic, romanesque, Art Deco...), where others are clearly periods (Medieval, empire). A true "by period" category should include centuries or decades. Henxter (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think this category has a mix of periods and styles. To me, "period" relates to time and "style" relates to design and/or appearance. Many styles certainly started during a certain timeframe, but can continue and have continued to be used since they started, so they aren't limited to a specific timeframe. It might be a good guideline to look at what's under Category:Architecture by style and what's under Category:Architecture by era (although I see that Gothic is in both). Whatever is decided here should probably be extended to the categories for other countries and places. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with those arguments. Any cat by era should be replaced by precise, time related (Century as a start). Styles are more subjective, but often with clear added value. For ex. the limit of Art Nouveau appears somewhat country specific, and even confused with Art Deco. The same with Baroque! The message is thus let us try to avoid those cats which are too subjective.
Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- We need consistency in our categories. Otherwise we will have the mess that is actually e.g. in art and architecture categories of Slovenia. For Italy we had years ago the same problem. Finally we decided to use the form by period and not by style because most styles are also periods (for example Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, etc.), but many periods are not styles (e.g. Prehistoric, Medieval, etc.). --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I've tagged a bunch of related categories to seek more input on this. A quick glance suggests we have nearly an even split between "by period" and "by style", though possibly more of the latter. We have several countries with both "architecture by period" and "architecture by style" categories, including Croatia, Japan, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Ukraine. I agree with DenghiùComm that we should have consistency/symmetry, but I would tend to agree with Auntof6 that we should try to follow the models of Category:Architecture by style and Category:Architecture by era. There are going to be big differences country to country (e.g. the periods of Japanese history and Japan's architectural styles are wildly different than the periods of Italian history and its architectural styles) but the principles could stay the same. As the wikipedia article says, "en:Romanesque Architecture is an architectural style of medieval [period] Europe." - Themightyquill (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's important to make consistency in each country and not for all the countries. Like Themightyquill says, there are large differences concerning the different countries about architecture and art. Sure there is an impossible mess of cats in the countries where is no consistency between period and style . If you look at the cats of Slovenia, you can see that the "holes" they are in the cats by style are present in the cats by period . And this is absurd! --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is overlap between period and style at times, but I think it can be avoided here. There's certainly no reason to have both Category:Renaissance-style architecture and Category:Renaissance period architecture. But we can have Category:Renaissance architecture (by style) and Category:Architecture of the Early Modern period (by period) (which might well include Category:Renaissance architecture and Category:16th-century architecture, etc.) Currently, Category:Renaissance architecture is in Category:16th-century architecture, which doesn't logically follow. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)