Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/07
heyligenstaedt 37.201.215.150 01:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Closed as nonsense. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Commons already has "Category:St Mary's Priory Church, Monmouth" for this church. This duplicate category was created unnecessarily. I propose its deletion. Motacilla (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Handy link: Category:St Mary's Priory Church, Monmouth -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It has already been deleted by Krd (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes), both were created by the same user, NeverDoING. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
No existe como capilla. Se trata de un pequeño mural cerámico situado entres dos capillas, en un lateral de la Catedral de la Almudena, Madrid. Riozujar (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It has already been deleted by Jcb (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) (Ya ha sido eliminado por Jcb). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
La creé por error si darme cuenta de que, en la Catedral de la Almudena (Madrid), hay dos capillas penitenciales (una en el lado del Evangelio y otra en la Epístola). Ya están creadas las categorías de ambas, con lo que ésta sobraría. Riozujar (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It has already been deleted by Jcb (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) (Ya ha sido eliminado por Jcb). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
typo. now exists at category:Little Comfort, Cornwall WereSpielChequers (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have marked it with {{Bad name}}, it was created today by the author and is implausible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It has already been deleted by Túrelio (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This category is mis-spelt. It should say "United", not "Untied". Motacilla (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Easy enough to rename. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Files are very obvious Flickr washing (example: this file which even got a watermark) by the same user. Probably there is even more than in this Category. 27.122.12.227 18:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. The parent cats are sufficient. Besides, "sexy" is subjective and doesn't belong in a category name. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as subjective. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This category was created at random by a new user. Doesn't merit keeping IMO Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment Even if kept it should be disambiguated, however its not clear what its about anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Done: No apparent use. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
صور بنت فيسبوك 129.45.12.143 18:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to discuss. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Category with no files and only one subcategory, which is also empty RL0919 (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Also Category:Zhu Zhe（thinker） See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Zhu Ming (thinker) They were all created by 58.40.223.165 who is checkuser blocked on English Wikipedia [1] in this case related to an LTA on the Chinese Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Done: Empty cat, deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Apprently created by zhwiki LTA: zh:Wikipedia:持续出没的破坏者/记录/朱明. GZWDer (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Also Category:Zhu Zhe (thinker) and Category:Zhu Zhe（thinker） They were all created by 58.40.223.165 who is checkuser blocked on English Wikipedia [2] in a case related to this LTA. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Done: Empty cat, deleted. --Achim (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Unused and never used. It could be useful but if it is needed a registered editor (not an IP) can create it. Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've tagged it as empty to get it deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Done: Deleted: Empty cat. --Achim (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Falsely named: Wrong language according to the naming conventions for categories, ambiguous, since it doesn't say which year's World Cup is concerned. The topic is already under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:2018 FIFA World Cup press conference of ARD and ZDF. Sitacuisses (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously not a formal name but a description. Category:2018 FIFA World Cup press conference of ARD and ZDF is preferable if there are any images to go in that category, otherwise delete both. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Done: Moved to Category:2018 FIFA World Cup press presentation of ARD and ZDF. --Achim (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Schnellboote 79.54.153.158 02:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Pls close this frivolous CfD. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Closed as frivolous nomination by anonip. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of Category:Old Town in Szczecin. Mistakenly created. Szczecinolog (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. @Szczecinolog: Next time you make an uncontroversial error, please use {{Bad name}} instead of starting a discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The "current/former member"s system is not viable on a long term as it requires a lot of maintenance (we had the same system on frwiki, and we abandoned it, because it requires to change categories on hundreds of different pages at each election). If not convinced by this sole argument, just take a look at the current category: it is linked (via wikidata) to the 49th House, while the header describe it as the 50th House. And if I am not mistaken, the current House is the 52nd. 2 solutions :
- the lazy one : merge the two categories in the sole "members of the NZ House",
- the wikiholic one : split the two categories in as many categories as there are legislatures (currently 52).
Rhadamante (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I set this up in 2011, i.e. the categorisation system predates Wikidata. It may well be easier to manage 'current' members via Wikidata these days. It wouldn't be overly onerous to manually maintain this category as we have 120 members, with between 30 to 40 new ones every three years. The "wikiholic" option does not make sense to me; this is overcategorisation and that kind of detail really should be managed through Wikidata. If the decision is for the 'current / former' split to remain I'd be happy to go through the category pages and make sure that they are up to date. Schwede66 20:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- My very point is you cannot easily maintain the system. The sole argument "Wikidata" or "it will be easy to do with Wikidata" etc., with nothing concrete behind, is just hand-waving. "It wouldn't be overly onerous to manually maintain", and yet, these categories have not be maintained since their creation, 7 years ago. You can personally promise you will maintain the system, but 1) you failed to maintain it since 2011, and nobody did it 2) even if you commit seriously to this (and nobody oblige you/should oblige you to do it), what happens if you cease to contribute in a next future? Who will maintain then? But again, the problem is not personal, it's systemic. This kind of system requires heavy maintenance, either manual or semi-automatic, and semi-automatic just means someone with powerful tools (ie scripts, either bot or WD). So in the end, it is still a human problem. Rhadamante (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete and upmerge to Category:Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives, which on reflection is the sensible thing to do. Schwede66 08:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete and either merge them to the parent or create more permanent sub-categories based on constant information. These kinds of categories have a double problem. On one hand they are impossible to accurately maintain. Additionally, if a photo is taken of a subject while they are a 'current' representative, then it is still a photo of a then-current representative even if the person later retires. We are having a similar discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Current Airbus aircraft of Tunisair. Josh (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As there is now consensus, I upmerged the two categories in their parent category, Category:Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives. Rhadamante (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Redundant to The Minster School, York. It's the same establishment, and I know because I attended this school between 1960 and 1964. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, bt we also have Category:Minster Song School, 8-9 Minster Yard, York and Category:Minster Song School. I'd suggest we delete Category:The Minster School, York in favour of Category:Minster Song School, Deangate, York. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, no, because since my time new buildings have been added, notably the buildings in Minster Yard, which IIRC were architects' offices in the 1960s. We need to keep The Minster School, York as the parent for all separately Listed buildings in Deangate & Minster Yard. All images in that category are of the Deangate building in any case, and a merge is required. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I see. Still, while we might need a category for that specific building, Category:The Minster School, York is ambigious with several other categories, so it's not the best name and should be made more clear. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- We should have The Minster School, York as the parent for the establishment, with child categories for the separate buildings at 8 - 9 Minster Yard, York, 10 Minster Yard, York and The Minster School, Deangate, York (not "Song", that was ditched years ago), with a redirect from York Minster Song School (its former name) to The Minster School, York. That covers everything with the correct structure. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I see. Still, while we might need a category for that specific building, Category:The Minster School, York is ambigious with several other categories, so it's not the best name and should be made more clear. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, no, because since my time new buildings have been added, notably the buildings in Minster Yard, which IIRC were architects' offices in the 1960s. We need to keep The Minster School, York as the parent for all separately Listed buildings in Deangate & Minster Yard. All images in that category are of the Deangate building in any case, and a merge is required. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Rodhullandemu: That makes sense to me. Do you want to go ahead and sort things properly, and then I'll close? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've done that. Can't find any images of 10 Minster Yard though. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Closing as resolved. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
poids gewichte 2A02:1810:BC0C:A400:9164:10EF:8FD4:7BD5 16:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Nonsense, nothing to discuss. --jdx Re: 08:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
name should be changed from army to more inclusive military Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree Rename to military; category includes more than just the army. Josh (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:License plates of the Australian military. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a completely unnecessary category that combines places across three different Ohio counties. Files can be moved into the more precise trees we have for Category:Akron, Ohio, Category:Canton, Ohio, Category:Cuyahoga Valley National Park, and Category:Chagrin Falls, Ohio. Eureka Lott 18:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support recategorizing as suggested. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- There's no reason to join these places in one category. Recategorize contents and delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete We don't have arbitrary groups of topics like Category:Asda and Tesco or Category:Uranus and Neptune, see COM:RENCAT#Subject identification. However if there is a specific unit like Category:Nedging-with-Naughton it can exist but no evidence suggests this, or why this selection has been chosen. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Files categorized. Category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Deletion: person does not exist Martintsmith (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- mmmmhhh ... http://www.smoothvibes.com/movabletype/archives/000996.html Mutter Erde (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Shivaune Field to match en:Shivaune Field. I see no evidence that she took her husband's family name. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Shivaune Field. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
SInce the category contains only prisoner uniforms from Nazi concentration camps, I propose moving it to Category:Nazi concentration camp prisoner uniforms (similar to the existing Category:Nazi concentration camp badges). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. We can recreate it as a broader category if there is need in the future. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Now contains images from other concentration camps... Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I removed the category from Guantanamo images since that is not generally considered a "concentration camp". Nice trolling, though. If we end up needing a general category, we can always make one. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Proof by assertion? Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to argue about it, I'm sure you can find someone willing to do that. Try Twitter or Reddit. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- I removed the category from Guantanamo images since that is not generally considered a "concentration camp". Nice trolling, though. If we end up needing a general category, we can always make one. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Nazi concentration camp prisoner uniforms - Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Request for deletion.All its files are copyvios. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I added a category redirect to Category:Association football, because this category is the Persian language term for football.—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 22:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Association football. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Empty category Renata3 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Still empty months later. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It exists the category Category:Lindau (near Kiel) – Mef.ellingen (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps delete. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This category can be removed: it is a double from Category:Fort Beekenburg, Curaçao DanielleJWiki (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- That is OK with me. At the time I could not find the right category. Sorry for the trouble. Kalbbes (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Fort Beekenburg, Curaçao. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Category:Salsa verde should be moved to Category:Salsa verde (Italy), and Category:Green sauce (Mexico) should be moved to Category:Salsa verde (Mexico). Ptko (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Salsa verde" of Mexico is known by that name, even in English. No one eats "Nacho chips with red sauce" - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Moved as per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't need another poorly named category for someone's collection of girly pics. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. Socks are braless, and the category doesn't have any of those. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete or fill with pictures of men and children who are also not wearing bras? =) - Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Create error Thyj (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Apparently deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
نانسي عجرم 129.45.43.126 12:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, what's the issue with that category?.--Zeroth (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination by anonymous ip. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
inappropriate content Finoskov (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Empty of images, text was advertising. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The entire "downtowns by city" category subtree doesn't make sense to me. In a category named "Downtowns in Arkansas by city", you would expect each subcategory to be for all the downtowns that are in an individual city. However, a city has only one downtown. The entries in, for example, Category:Downtowns in Arkansas by city should just be in Category:Downtowns in Arkansas. So far, these are only for the United States.
I suggest that we do one of the following:
- Delete the downtowns by city categories, up-categorizing as appropriate.
- Rename these categories to "downtowns in <whatever> by name".
- If the reason for these categories is to group downtowns that are in cities (as opposed to downtowns in towns, etc.), then they could be renamed to something like "Downtowns of cities in <location>)" if we want to have such a distinction.
I prefer the first option, especially since there doesn't seem to be anything in the categories without "by city" that isn't for specific individual places. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: Withouth participating in the discussion, Futurewiki has moved Category:Downtowns in Arkansas by city to Category:Downtowns of cities in Arkansas. This fits with your last suggestion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Futurewiki: Is it your understanding that these categories are for cities, as opposed to downtowns for towns, etc.? If so, are you planning to create categories for downtowns of towns as well? I'm not sure there's much meaningful difference between the two. Please give us your thoughts. In any case, when you move these the way you did, please remove the metacat templates as well. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Auntof6's first suggestion. For where we currently stand, categories like Category:Downtowns in Texas by city don't add anything to Category:Downtowns in Texas except for an extra click. - Eureka Lott 04:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. I hope we can come to a consensus soon, because more of these are being created by User:Futurewiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- It might make sense to consider Category:Downtowns in the United States by state capital as part of this discussion, too. It's an arbitrary grouping unlikely to help our visitors. - Eureka Lott 04:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. The "by" wording is misused here and in many of the other categories being discussed. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Auntof6 first suggestion, far better than the current situation that was created by Futurewiki. Rather disappointing that @Futurewiki: isn't engaging collaboratively by not engaging in this discussion and continuing to rename categories, even though there are clear concerns by others regarding naming of categories. Only reason I found this was looking at the user's talk page after they moved Category:Historic Downtown Lawrenceburg, Tennessee to Category:Downtown Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. Bidgee (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support Auntof6 first suggestion. I do not see the added benifit of a cities only version, considering the fact that the Category:Downtowns of cities in North Carolina has both towns and cities listed in it. Leaving them all together Category:Downtowns in North Carolina is fine. --Washuotaku (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: There seems to be unanimous support for your first proposal, if you want to go ahead and close. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thanks. I'll make the changes sometime in the next few days, then close this. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: There seems to be unanimous support for your first proposal, if you want to go ahead and close. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing: category and all subcats have been emptied and tagged for speedy deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This cat is categorized in altellery cats and in machine gung cats but it can't be in boath cats. Sanandros (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agree, "artillery" categories was removed. --Kaganer (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Done: now it's ok. --Sanandros (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
There is another ship at Category:Worcester (ship, 1842) however the only file in this category refers to the publication date of 1887 and being at Purfleet. There may be something at https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/history-on-river-thames/training-ships-moored-off-grays-town but that doesn't make reference to the date of Worcester. Either it should be disambiguated of the one with the longer title should be merged here as a duplicate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. There are also Category:HMS Worcester (ship, 1864) Category:USS Worcester (CL-144). --Auntof6 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Or make a new Category:Ships named Worcester and make a category redirect. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
No opposition. Redirected to Category:Ships named Worcester. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
inappropriate content Finoskov (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Not respecting Wikicommons criteria but rather from Wikipedia Finoskov (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC) --- Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Not respecting Wikicommons criteria but rather from Wikipedia Finoskov (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC) --- Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Not respecting Wikicommons criteria but rather from Wikipedia Finoskov (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as emtpy. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid the images in this category is a violation of copyright. The images comes from a game and nowhere can I find any information about content from that game put under CC-license. The uploader seems to think that taking screenshots is making them the uploaders own work? (see uploaders user talk) Vätte (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Vätte: If the files are copyright violations, please nominate them for deletion. Deleting the category will not make the files go away, but if they files area all deleted as copyright violations, the category will be deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Bherimalika is old name of Bheri municipality. 'Bheri, Jajarkot' page in Wikipedia is for Bherimalika. So this category should be moved to 'Bheri, Jajarkot'. Binod Basnet Talk 15:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Bheri, Jajarkot - Themightyquill (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Created for promotional purposes only (See User:Captainyoung) and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OMOTOSO OMOTOLA Kleuske (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Pride family Dianepride (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
[Redacted]!!! Liza haematocheilus (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge (and redirect) with the Liza Veniza category. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Sockpuppets of Liza Veniza. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
First, it is a banknote issued by the w:en:Bank of Greece (like all Greek banknotes since 1928), and not by the w:en:National Bank of Greece (NBG). Second, there are not any Greek banknotes issued by NBG (in the past) of this denomination. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. |Taivo (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Merge with Category:Eugeny Ksenevich Jarash (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Files moved to Category:Eugeny Ksenevich and deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The category seems an accident; most of the photos in it seem not related at all, no evidence of a radio station. XanonymusX (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Musicians. This does not appear to be the name of a radio station as its parent category suggestions. It is seemingly being used to categorize Spanish-speaking musicians who may or may not be here for self-promotion, but the category name makes no sense in that case. Merge is the best option to not leave the files uncategorized. ℯxplicit 07:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Single remaining file moved to Category:Musicians and category deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Category needs renaming. It's for a specific building in Ottawa, but it has attracted files for other law-related buildings because the name is so generic. Maybe "Justice Building (Ottawa)"? Help cleaning it out would be appreciated as well. Auntof6 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support If you think that it will be clearer, why not. -Fralambert (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support In a first time, wouldn't be useful to keep it as well for all justice buidings around the world ? For instance, this one, I don't know if the court is in Brazil or another country. --Papa6 (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- A category for all justice buildings would have the word "buildings", not "building", and that word would be all lower case. Besides, I don't think "justice building" is a general term: I think we have categories for these buildings in general, like Category:Courthouses. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- This buildings was not event a courthouse at the first place. It was named like this because it housed the federal ministry of Justice when it was builded. --Fralambert (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- OK, then "government buildings" and/or similar terms. The point is that the name can be seen as a generic term by people and/or bots who either don't notice that both words are capitalized or don't realize that the capitalization means something. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Papa6 and Auntof6: Done since there are no oposition for renaming. --Fralambert (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Fralambert: Thanks. I've tagged the old one for deletion -- if we keep it as a redirect, we'll just continue to get incorrectly categorized things under the new name. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- This buildings was not event a courthouse at the first place. It was named like this because it housed the federal ministry of Justice when it was builded. --Fralambert (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- A category for all justice buildings would have the word "buildings", not "building", and that word would be all lower case. Besides, I don't think "justice building" is a general term: I think we have categories for these buildings in general, like Category:Courthouses. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Closing: cat was renamed. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Recategorized some stuff, this is now in Category:JPG compression artifact example images and Category:JPG corruption example images. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:JPG compression artifact example images. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. and Alexis Jazz: I suggest analogically to EnWiki to redirect there Category:Images with excessive JPEG compression . -- User: Perhelion 12:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Works for me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Perhelion and Alexis Jazz: That works for me, too. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Done: thanks for fast reply and agreement. -- User: Perhelion 13:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
This category can be deleted: I accidentally made this category with the wrong name DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Accidental creation, the website I used uses the Wade-Giles romanisation while I had already created the Hanyu Pinyin romanisation prior to this. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Empty - duplication of Category:People's Vote March in London LG02 (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral- of the two, this seems the better title- then we can add Category:Stop Trump march, 13 July 2018- but any thoughts on March or march.ClemRutter (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. If we could rename Category:People's Vote March in London in replacement of this one, that would do the job. LG02 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree it is important to have all the photos in one place. I suggest that People's Vote March, 23 June 2018 would have been the better title, if only because there is ever another People's Vote March (and I believe there is one planned for later in the year) then People's Vote March in London will be ambiguous and we will be faced with having to move 1300+ photos to a disambiguated category. However what is done is done, and we will have to cross that bridge if-and-when we get to it. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds like an uncontroversial change then. I have put a {{Category redirect}} on Category:People's Vote March in London. I believe that this should trigger a bot in due course to move all the files to this category. LG02 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Category:People's Vote March in London redirected to Category:People's Vote March, 23 June 2018. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Wrong name see [3] Robotje (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Koos Verdam. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also nominating
- Category:Ford Focus (2nd generation)
- Category:Ford Focus (3rd generation)
- Category:Ford Focus (4th generation)
We currently have "European" and "North American" categories where when you click those you then get "Mk1" and "Gen II" so having these categories just makes things confusing on the main category page, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
There are other topics called "Saintes" like Category:Saintes (Belgium) and ENWP has the article and category disambiguated. There is also a risk of Category:Saints ending up here. See Category talk:Saintes for previous discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Rename to Saintes, Charente-Maritime, like ENWP, and make this a disambiguation page. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- No opposition in nearly two months. @Crouch, Swale: If Auntof6's proposal works for you, I'd say go ahead and make the moves (including sub-categories, of course). - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- However Gzen92 (talk · contribs) probably would suggest using brackets per this move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- No opposition in nearly two months. @Crouch, Swale: If Auntof6's proposal works for you, I'd say go ahead and make the moves (including sub-categories, of course). - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Contents moved to Category:Saintes, Charente-Maritime, and Category:Saintes turned into a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Added parenthesis as well, like all communes names of France that need disambiguation (format : "commune name (Department)"). Moved to Category:Saintes (Charente-Maritime). Jack ma (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
There are multiple boats depicted here, so shouldn't the category name be Category:Tiger class patrol boats? Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest Category:Tiger class patrol craft. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: Does "craft" work for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Tiger class patrol craft? Okay by me. Cheers. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: The category has been renamed. Suggest to remove the discussion template. Greetings --Ein Dahmer (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: Does "craft" work for you? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tiger class patrol craft. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Move to "Women with firearms", to avoid the pejorative use of "females" as a noun to mean "women". Additionally, "female" refers to sex, which is based on sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics, neither of which we know from these pictures of women with firearms. "Women" refers to how people present themselves and identify, which we can see from the pictures, as the women pictured seem to present as women and are often identified in the photo captions as women. This will involve renaming the category's subcategories as well. See Category talk:Females with machine guns for more information. Chumash11 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Commons uses the term in a non-pejorative way in many places. We can't just rename them unless we are certain that all the people shown with the weapons are adults: "females" includes girls as well as women. In some of the images, we can't see the face of the person, so we can't tell. In others, the people could be underage. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- But that point was already explained that one could considere girls also as women.--Sanandros (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Where was that point made? In other discussions, I've seen girls not considered women. They are females, certainly, but not women. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- It was made on the Females with machine guns talk page. Elsewhere, I've often seen girls considered women. "Females" sounds overly technical and grammatically, not to mention derogatory. --Chumash11 (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with that opinion. If you look at Category:Human females by stage of development, you'll see categories for different ages of female humans: none of them are subsets of the others, and the specific age ranges are listed on all the subcategories. If anything, any "females" categories that are only for humans need to be renamed to "human females" or "female humans". Besides, people could be looking specifically for images of children, so why have a category called "women" include them when the common use of that word includes only adults? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- It was made on the Females with machine guns talk page. Elsewhere, I've often seen girls considered women. "Females" sounds overly technical and grammatically, not to mention derogatory. --Chumash11 (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Where was that point made? In other discussions, I've seen girls not considered women. They are females, certainly, but not women. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- But that point was already explained that one could considere girls also as women.--Sanandros (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
And on top of it all is that there are very few photos whose authors took care to provide description, specify age and marital status of certain female depicted. Asian ladies wear paranjas that hide everything and you can't tell for sure is that a woman or a shahid wrapped with explosives. Oppose per above. ВоенТех (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't don't know of any clear definition that says "females" refers strictly to physical sex and not social gender. Rather "female gender" is commonly used to discuss social gender. One can identify as female just as well as one can identify as a woman. The articles linked in the talk page oppose using the word "females" in place of "women", but that's clealy not what's going on here since we have a sub-category Category:Women with firearms. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Keeping per opposition above. BMacZero (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Not respecting Wikicommons criteria but rather from Wikipedia Finoskov (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted as empty by Túrelio. BMacZero (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Pas d'intérêt encyclopédique. Images utilisées juste sur des pages utilisateurs. 78.250.45.232 12:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support Ok for deleting this category and its pictures. 78.250.169.99 21:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- If the files aren't in scope, nominated them for deletion. So long as they exist on commons, it makese sense to keep them together in a single category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
No valid reason to discuss (and even less to delete). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no file that exists specifically for a WikiProject "Christianity", except 2 unused banners that I have proposed for deletion. BrightRaven (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Unless there is a different reason for deleting this, wouldn't it have made more sense to have just waited for the 2 files to be deleted, then this could just be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Speedy keep @BrightRaven and Crouch, Swale: . Just one WikiProject, same also in enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done: There are now used files in the category. BrightRaven (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be moved to Category:Cars like w:Car, see w:Talk:Car/Naming. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I have noticed that w:Category:Cars is a DAB page, maybe this should be left as it due to the new name being more ambiguous, w:Automobile (disambiguation) is less ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support Seems more sensible to me. When I think of a police car, I don't think of a police automobile. Alternatively, if ambiguity is really a concern, I would prefer "Cars (vehicle)" over "Automobiles". However, on Commons we shouldn't have too many images related to the movie or band with the same name. Or the song, for that matter. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support – The most sensible title is 'cars'. Automobile is dialect-restricted and relatively uncommon. RGloucester (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have created Category:Cars (disambiguation), considering that Category:Cars hasn't been converted into a DAB is evidence that there hasn't been a problem, considering that we use DABs more often here than at WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: should we move the DAB to Category:Car (disambiguation) in line with w:Car (disambiguation) or just link this DAB to w:Car (disambiguation)? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just link it...the singular makes more sense on Wikipedia than it does here. RGloucester (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- d:Q224743 d:Q405692. No link I guess. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- A DAB at Category:Car (disambiguation) could also be created for uses such as Category:Car (surname) and them both linked to each other. Or a local language link could be added to the EN DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- d:Q224743 d:Q405692. No link I guess. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just link it...the singular makes more sense on Wikipedia than it does here. RGloucester (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: should we move the DAB to Category:Car (disambiguation) in line with w:Car (disambiguation) or just link this DAB to w:Car (disambiguation)? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This is now at w:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 10#Category:Automobiles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- That discussion closed as 'move'. RGloucester (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have no real preference on this one but given that it's going to affect a great many categories beyond Category:Automobiles (which surely, only a few people follow), I would encourage you to note this to on the Commons:Village pump before closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, although this is now at CFD again on WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Luckily they didn't reverse it back to automobiles. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- We'll introduce a lot of ambiguity by replacing automobiles with cars. We also have the big categories like rail cars; then there are street cars, trolleys, cable cars, elevator cars, those thingamabobs in a Ferris wheel are called cars as well. Does anyone think that this can be a considerable problem for our non-EN speaking customers? In general I'm all for the move, tho. As long as we don't use motorcar.
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Hedwig in Washington: I don't believe those things will lead to any notable confusion. The current state of things, however, is very confusing for non-American speakers because "automobile" is an American thing. I got back to this discussion because today I was looking for a category like "dogs in cars". But I couldn't find it. Tried everything. How does a category for "dogs in cars" not exist yet? Well, it does, but it's called Category:Dogs in automobiles, so it's virtually impossible to find because nobody in their right mind would assume we would use the word "automobiles" instead of "cars" for this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, auto-mobile works for me as a native German speaker perfectly. Right, not everybody would think of automobile but most of auto. Tada, there is the category. Anyway IF we decide to move, we should divide up the work so we don't collide. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Hedwig in Washington: I speak Dutch. Dutch even has automobiel (but auto is much, much more common). I understand the words when I see them, but when searching for something the current state is hopelessly confusing. Search Google Books for "police automobile": 6070 results. Search for "police car": 1.480.000 results. 243 times more. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is extremely annoying. I have nothing against the word "automobile" itself, but I'm quite sure we're supposed to call things by the way people actually call them...and we all know that, in English, we call this thing a "car". It is so confusing to have sift through awkward constructions with the strange term "automobile" when "car" would be used in any normal discourse. This discussion seems to have been open for ages. I admit to not being familiar with Commons processes, but what is required to move this forward? RGloucester (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: Consensus, plus one administrator to confirm we actually have a consensus. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- How do we get an administrator look at a discussion that has been open for half a year's time? RGloucester (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: Consensus, plus one administrator to confirm we actually have a consensus. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is extremely annoying. I have nothing against the word "automobile" itself, but I'm quite sure we're supposed to call things by the way people actually call them...and we all know that, in English, we call this thing a "car". It is so confusing to have sift through awkward constructions with the strange term "automobile" when "car" would be used in any normal discourse. This discussion seems to have been open for ages. I admit to not being familiar with Commons processes, but what is required to move this forward? RGloucester (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Hedwig in Washington: I speak Dutch. Dutch even has automobiel (but auto is much, much more common). I understand the words when I see them, but when searching for something the current state is hopelessly confusing. Search Google Books for "police automobile": 6070 results. Search for "police car": 1.480.000 results. 243 times more. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, auto-mobile works for me as a native German speaker perfectly.
- @Hedwig in Washington: I don't believe those things will lead to any notable confusion. The current state of things, however, is very confusing for non-American speakers because "automobile" is an American thing. I got back to this discussion because today I was looking for a category like "dogs in cars". But I couldn't find it. Tried everything. How does a category for "dogs in cars" not exist yet? Well, it does, but it's called Category:Dogs in automobiles, so it's virtually impossible to find because nobody in their right mind would assume we would use the word "automobiles" instead of "cars" for this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- We'll introduce a lot of ambiguity by replacing automobiles with cars. We also have the big categories like rail cars; then there are street cars, trolleys, cable cars, elevator cars, those thingamabobs in a Ferris wheel are called cars as well. Does anyone think that this can be a considerable problem for our non-EN speaking customers? In general I'm all for the move, tho. As long as we don't use motorcar.
- Luckily they didn't reverse it back to automobiles. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, although this is now at CFD again on WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz and RGloucester: You'll need to bring this to the village pump and/or tag a lot of the subcategories (linking to this discussion) before I'm personally going to move this whole category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Again? Oh well, fine.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I see no gain here, much shuffling, and more confusion for people who speak Indo-European languages other than English. - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: You are from Seattle. I actually am from Europe. "automobile" is used only in the US and Canada according to Wiktionary, and it confuses me. I don't understand how you don't see the gain: I pointed out above I searched my ass off for "dogs in cars", unable to find it. And if I have trouble finding it, I'm absolutely certain many inexperienced users have the same problem. Perhaps less so for people from the US and Canada who might be more likely to think of "automobiles", but Commons is a global project and "car" is a global word. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is really nothing more than an anecdote, there should be no reason to disrupt everyone else because you found something annoying Oxyman (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: You are from Seattle. I actually am from Europe. "automobile" is used only in the US and Canada according to Wiktionary, and it confuses me. I don't understand how you don't see the gain: I pointed out above I searched my ass off for "dogs in cars", unable to find it. And if I have trouble finding it, I'm absolutely certain many inexperienced users have the same problem. Perhaps less so for people from the US and Canada who might be more likely to think of "automobiles", but Commons is a global project and "car" is a global word. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Categories are frequently at more formal names, and wikt:en:car is more polysemous than wikt:en:automobile. As above, it also seems more universal, which is not definitive, but it is nice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: what do you mean by "more universal"? If we stick with automobiles because it's less polysemous, we should create redirects for absolutely all of the subcategories, like we redirect Category:Bears to Category:Ursidae. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- More formal according to what? "Automobile" is hardly ever used in the UK, the only place I've seen is here on the other hand it seems that even in the US "car" isn't uncommon even if automobile is more common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- As above, it and cognate forms seem more common in other languages. I don't really care about redirects, but they seem like a noisy solution to handling alternate names, especially when it's just being done for English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: More common? Where? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- As above, it and cognate forms seem more common in other languages. I don't really care about redirects, but they seem like a noisy solution to handling alternate names, especially when it's just being done for English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support Cars. Oxford says automobile is North American a car. Cambridge says the same--automobile is US a car. People use car in East Asia too.--Roy17 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Roy17 Veracious (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support It brings us in line with enwp, where the article is at en:Car not en:Automobile. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, per previous discussions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: What previous discussions? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Previous discussion that supported the choice of "automobile" over "car" for our categories, against superficial suitabilty of the latter. I’m sure you’ll be able to find them, if you want to have your opinion against it challenged. I amd not likely to change mine. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: What previous discussions? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Must we? this is going to cause endless disruption for no real gain, automobile is still recognised outside north america even if it is used less Oxyman (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hedwig. Huge change that will haunt us for years to come and will cause dead links and inconsistencies while using a worse name. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per multiple reasons already listed above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose wait, what? I thought this was about renaming Category:Cars to Category:Automobiles, but it seems to be in the wrong direction. Multichill (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Multichill: How is Category:Police automobiles better than Category:Police cars? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- The use of "automobile" has been steadily declining for decades. Do we have to wait for it to become not just nonstandard but entirely obsolete in the US (it already is in most of the world) before we can do this? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Just drop it. You don't need to add a comment every five minutes if a discussion is not going your direction. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- This discussion might as well be closed as "no consensus to rename". But mark my words: this discussion has already been decided. The use of the word "automobile", even in the US, has been steadily declining for decades. If we were wise, we'd rename now instead of giving the future Commons community an even bigger renaming job. It is only a matter of time before automobile becomes a word so archaic, even more than it already is, it'll be downright ridiculous to maintain it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Done: No consenus to rename. --MB-one (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
ersetzt durch Category:Kunstschule Stuttgart Gerd Leibrock (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
"Snitter" appears to mean combine harvester in Danish, see da:Snitter. Also there is a fictional dog. Propose moving to Category:Snitter, Northumberland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- That makes logical sense and avoids confusion. Were you thinking of deleting Category:Snitter or creating a disambiguation page? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Snitter would become a DAB page, it is actually forage harvester. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: No opposition in years, if you want to go ahead with this. -- Themightyquill (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was disambiguate, no opposition. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Is it worth having both Category:Street food vendors and Category:Street food as separate categories? And Category:Street food vendors by country (and all its subcategories) as separate from Category:Street food by country (and all its subcategories) ? I recognize that there is a difference between a food and the person selling it, but the overlap here is going to be rather extreme, and the benefit minimal. Themightyquill (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- keep: Category:Street food should be used exclusively for files where the food is the dominant element and clearly identifiable; the Street food vendors category focusses on the specific activity of those vendors and contains files where the food is only one of many elements, not necessarily identifiable and even not necessarily shown. --Bohème (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I was wondering about that myself, Bohème. It could work, but we should make it clear in the description. Should the vendors be the parent category and the food the child, or vice-versa? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Bohème and I'd suggest that the categories don't actually belong in the same hierarchy because one represents a type of food and one represents a type of employment, but they should probably be linked with a {{See also}}. BMacZero (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is there such a thing as strong lack of opinion? Because that's my reaction. - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- keep: I agree with Bohème: keep both categories and make a clear distinction. And for what would be the parent and what the subcategory: like Category:Vegetables is a parent of Category:Greengrocers and Category:Snack food is a parent of Category:Snack bars (I guess because both type of foods can be sold by several types of retailing) I suggest the Category:Street food would be the parent of the Category:Street food vendors (as it is now). JopkeB (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. No consensus to merge. The result was keep both Category:Street food vendors and Category:Street food Estopedist1 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Over categorization. Three categories for a single aircraft? (Only one of this type was built) Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need:
To present understandably consistent entries within the parents of each category, I think we do need both Werkspoor Jumbo and PH-AFI (aircraft). However we don't need Werkspoor Jumbo of KLM.
The only purpose of Werkspoor Jumbo of KLM is to include the Werkspoor Jumbo as a KLM aircraft in Aircraft of KLM. That's a necessary function, we should keep doing it. However we could do that by placing Werkspoor Jumbo in there just as easily. The other "Rutland Reindeer of KLM" categories are named as such because they were a more popular aircraft type and there are example which were not operated by KLM. In this case there's no need to distinguish. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Andy Dingley: specific topic. I guess you are free to implement your suggestions. Just in case notifying user:Huntster--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I tend to agree that Werkspoor Jumbo and PH-AFI (aircraft) are useful categories. But Estopedist1, may I ask why I was pinged here? I'm probably just being dense. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Huntster: I was pinged you, because I know you have special knowledge about aviation :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Estopedist1: Hah, thanks! I do appreciate it. I occasionally just get oblivious. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Huntster: I was pinged you, because I know you have special knowledge about aviation :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley, Estopedist1, and Huntster: Closed (consensus to at least eliminate Category:Werkspoor Jumbo of KLM level, can reopen if further changes needed) Josh (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
What is the definition of less-lethal pistols? I think they are all blank pistols which are not firearms (like the Firat Magnum). Sanandros (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Less-lethal pistols - not kill, but cripple. Blank pistols - maybe not firearms, but anyway pistols, i think.--Иван Дулин (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes but pistols are an undercategory of firearms.--Sanandros (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Can we create Category:Blank pistols or is that redundant with Category:Starting pistols? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. @Sanandros, Иван Дулин, and Themightyquill: Enwiki en:less-lethal weapon is redirected to en:non-lethal weapon. Maybe "less-lethal" is better term, because enwiki defines as "... are weapons intended to be less likely to kill a living _target than conventional weapons such as knives and firearms with live ammunition". Sidenotice, enwiki en:starting pistol is put in the "Firearms" category--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- We can close it, its no more part of the pistol cat.--Sanandros (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | none | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
This category and its subcats seem to be for images that each show only one person or animal, not necessarily those that are actually lonely. Maybe the person(s) who created these didn't realize that "lonely" means a feeling of being unhappy because one is alone, not just the fact of being alone. I suggest moving the images to Category:People, Category:Children, etc., if they aren't already in subcategories of those.
Categories included in this request are:
- Category:Lonely animals
- Category:Lonely children
- Category:Lonely females
- Category:Lonely males
- Category:Lonely people
- Category:Lonely people in art
- Category:Alone -- a redirect, added on 26 September 2018
-- Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that "lonely" seems inappropriate here, but it's also odd that we have (almost) every number up to 17 in Category:People by quantity (including Category:No people) but we don't have a category for "lone people." I'm not sure how we could name it to avoid including every one-person portrait on commons, but maybe there's a way? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's why I didn't suggest renaming the categories. I think "lone people" is a de facto default that doesn't need to be specified on every image showing only one person. And I don't understand the "no people" one: should it contain everything that doesn't show any people? It's a puzzlement. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: "Lonely people" and "1 person" are certainly different concepts. I agree that 'lonely' categories should be for images in which the subjects are expressing the feeling of loneliness (generally an unhappy one). Generally it would be groups of 1 person that would be depicted but I suppose there could be images of multiple people who all are feeling lonely (a couple where both people feel lonely despite being in a relationship?) Images in Category:Lonely people (and related) which merely show 1 person but not expressing loneliness, should be removed from that category. A note should be added to the header of those categories to give users help in populating them correctly. Josh (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Inappropriate language, as in colloquial modern English "lonely" is more common as descriptor of an emotional state than a number. "One" or "1" would be good alternatives if number is meant. ("Single" not a good alternative for people, as it can also refer to marriage status.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Infrogmation: No discussion in more than a year, I'm not seeing a consensus for a particular change. Is there anything more to add, or should we just close this one at this point? Josh (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like there's general agreement. Let's start moving. Majority meaning "one" moved to relevant categories; small number actually intending emotional state of loneliness moved to category of that name. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, media recategorized as appropriate. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Is there a clear difference between Category:Food stands and Category:Food stalls? I can see we might differentiate between "fruit & vegetable stands/stalls" or "grocery stands/stall" vs "prepared food stands/stalls" but I think the only potential difference between a stand and a stall is whether there are other stands/stalls around. Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest merging all three cats-stands, stalls and Category:Food booths. Hardly any objective criteria to tell them apart.--Roy17 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with that. There's really no objective difference between any of them. Into which category though? BTW, there's also Category:Street food vendors which is sorta similar and has an ongoing discussion about it. I guess it was also opened by Themightyquill. Perhaps they can shed some light on what the differences are? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 and Themightyquill: searching "food stand" and "food stall" in "News on the Web (NOW)" and "iWeb: The Intelligent Web-based Corpus" on https://www.english-corpora.org/ , results seem to suggest both are popular phrases. "food stall" might be relatively more popular.
- Since there are also other stalls under Category:Market stalls, I suggest Category:Food stands merge into stalls.
- Category:Food booths can be a subcat, since not all stalls are "booths", e.g. food trucks, stalls using a tent... but all booths should be stalls. Roy17 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with that. There's really no objective difference between any of them. Into which category though? BTW, there's also Category:Street food vendors which is sorta similar and has an ongoing discussion about it. I guess it was also opened by Themightyquill. Perhaps they can shed some light on what the differences are? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Roy17: Are you saying a food truck is a food stall? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've tagged Category:Food carts which might fall under some definitions of food stands. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- According to oxford dict, stall is "a stand, booth, or compartment for the sale of goods in a market or large covered area". There are markets where stalls are set up using food trucks.
- I'm just saying, not all stalls are booths. I assume booths must be some kind of overhead structures, but stalls have a broader scope, like they could be set up using trucks. Roy17 (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've tagged Category:Food carts which might fall under some definitions of food stands. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
@Themightyquill and Roy17: Without being aware of this discussion, I started a similar discussion about Market stands. There Adamant1 suggested that the difference between stands and stalls might be about the degree of temporariness. Would you please give a reaction about the proposed definitions? --JopkeB (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. I totally forgot about this discussion. I think the definitions in the other one will probably resolve it. Category:Food booths might need some clarification though, or maybe it can just merged with one of the other categories. I don't really think the distinction of a "booth" compared to a stall or stand is very useful. At least not in this context. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: There might be something to that definition, but I'm not sure it's useful here since most cases will be a grey area. In my experience, almost all market stands and stalls are only semi-permanent. It would be hard to draw a line between the two in a useful way. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reaction. Can the dividing line be drawn based on the appearance of the stalls/stands? I would like to have a category that is only for "structures of an elongated covered table (covered for instance by a tent roof or parasol) that can easily be moved and set up, used by merchants"; and at least one other for other kinds of stands/stalls. In the Netherlands all open air markets (each town has one, cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam have more) has that kind of structures and there are a lot of photographs of them. So I think it is useful to be able to make a distinction between those kind of stands and other ones. JopkeB (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: There might be something to that definition, but I'm not sure it's useful here since most cases will be a grey area. In my experience, almost all market stands and stalls are only semi-permanent. It would be hard to draw a line between the two in a useful way. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: I think that works in theory better than in practise. Would your definition apply to these: 1 2 3 4 5? It's hard to know. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
According to the definitions we use uptill now in Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Market stands:
-
1 - Looks permanent, stall -
2 - Has wheels, food vehicle -
3 - Looks more like a restaurant -
4 -I cannot tell -
5 - Looks permanent -
Stand, with a tent roof made of fabric/textile (I have add that to the definition)
I would very much prefer that the definitions here and in Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Market stands will eventually be the same. --JopkeB (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Implemented the proposal by JopkeB at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Market stands by adding description and moving subcats. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The category description says "means basically the same thing as Category:Sleds" So why have two categories? If we want a category for animal-powered sleighs (to include horse drawn and reindeer drawn), let's create Category:Animal-powered sleighs or Category:Animal-drawn sleighs. Themightyquill (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- To me, a sled sits directly on the ground and is powered by either gravity (if you're sliding downhill on it) or human power (if you're dragging it on the ground, such as to transport objects). A sleigh is raised to allow for a runner assembly and is pulled by animals -- think carriages with runners instead of wheels. Is the usage different in different places? On another note, I saw a couple of things in the redlinked category Category:Sledges, so I recategorized them. When this discussion is resolved, we might want to create that category, even if only as a redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- The small vs large differentiation fits partially with the description at en:Sled though I guesst there's no clear rule. There's also Category:Toboggans for those that sit flat on the ground. Sleds can work as the broadest parent category? So maybe we just need category descriptions. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I've always seen toboggan used to mean a long sled that can take multiple people -- sort of a scaled-down version of a bobsled (aka bobsleigh). So to me, sled could be a parent for toboggans but not for sleighs, However, I've learned from my work on various Wikimedia projects that US usage can be different from that of other places, and that non-US usage usually prevails. I think the best we can do might be, as you say, to have good category descriptions and periodically recategorize things that go in the wrong cats. It might also be good to put a gallery on the top-level page as a guide to what goes where. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, is this object a sleigh (since it has runners) or a sled (since it's not pulled by animals)? Mindmatrix 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good question. There might be a different name for those. It might be a type of sleigh, but if so we might need to change our definition to say that they're pulled by humans or animals, to avoid upsetting those who don't want humans to be categorized as animals. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- The small vs large differentiation fits partially with the description at en:Sled though I guesst there's no clear rule. There's also Category:Toboggans for those that sit flat on the ground. Sleds can work as the broadest parent category? So maybe we just need category descriptions. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
stale discussion. Enwiki en:sleigh is redirected to en:sled. en:Toboggan has a standalone article, although it is defined as "a simple sled"--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Season. Sleds are categorized as Winter equipment but summer toboggans are under them. Trigenibinion (talk)
Closed, kept. Stale discussion; cfd header was removed from Category:Sleighs 2 years ago. Hatnote clarified; it is a subcategory of sleds, and the distinction seems of significance to some. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Verdam,_prof._mr._P.J._-_SFA008007380.jpg&diff=next&oldid=158789363){kind=link}
This category is useless[4], so it should be removed along with Category:Files from Photobucket. (Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Files from Photobucket) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that this discussion is also occurring at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Files from Photobucket so I'm moving my comment there. BMacZero (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | I'm closing this due to it being superseded by Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Files from Photobucket. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
I would be willing to take (another) fine comb to this, but without Category:Files that mention Photobucket (Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Files that mention Photobucket) I will have a hard time maintaining this. So we better get rid of it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to my approach I have found several instances of vandalism or just confusing edits like [5] and [6]. But what difference does it make anyway. I don't ask for much, nobody pays me to do this shit. If people then start yelling at you because you're doing it wrong.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vista_de_Osvaldo_Cruz.JPG&diff=149221303&oldid=30808951){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Locator_kabupaten_bojonegoro.png&diff=71782117&oldid=57621934){kind=link}
- I don't really understand the problem. This category is hard for you to maintain, and therefore, we should delete it? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I created it, there are some false positives here and people were offended by that. And they don't care if I fix my errors, which I did, instead accusing me of violating policies. In the end nobody (except me) understood why Category:Files that mention Photobucket had to exist, so that should be deleted. Without it, I can't maintain or continue to fix the errors in Category:Files from Photobucket, so we'll have to delete that as well.
- If this sounds batcrap insane to you, try to imagine what it sounds like to me.
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could create Category:Files that mention Photobucket as a your personal user category? (Category:User:Alexis Jazz/Photobucket mentions or some equivalent) It would be hidden that way, and less subject to complaint. I think it's worth discussing before going further. I can see why it would be useful in correctly categorizing Category:Files from Photobucket, so there should be some way to accomplish this task. On the other hand, you're essential categorizing these files by what they aren't which isn't how commons usually works, so that may be the source of confusion. Anyway, there's no complaint about the existence of Category:Files from Photobucket, and the fact that you created it doesn't mean you get to decide to delete it if the community feels its valuable. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think Category:User:Alexis Jazz/Photobucket mentions works. That is just a category named "User:Alexis Jazz/Photobucket mentions", that's worse than "Files that mention Photobucket". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could create Category:Files that mention Photobucket as a your personal user category? (Category:User:Alexis Jazz/Photobucket mentions or some equivalent) It would be hidden that way, and less subject to complaint. I think it's worth discussing before going further. I can see why it would be useful in correctly categorizing Category:Files from Photobucket, so there should be some way to accomplish this task. On the other hand, you're essential categorizing these files by what they aren't which isn't how commons usually works, so that may be the source of confusion. Anyway, there's no complaint about the existence of Category:Files from Photobucket, and the fact that you created it doesn't mean you get to decide to delete it if the community feels its valuable. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Worse how? If it's a user category (and obviously so), detached from the main commons categorization tree, and uses the HIDDEN_CAT tag, then I don't see why anyone would complain. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: it includes a fake namespace. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. The "user" ? That's not a fake name space, it just identifies you as a user. Look through Category:User categories and you'll find similar ones. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with deleting Category:Files that mention Photobucket, but I also agree with themightquill that Category:Files from Photobucket should be kept. Even if it can't be automatically populated by a keyword search, it can still be theoretically (optimistically, perhaps) populated by uploaders or manually, or by some other means. BMacZero (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Done | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | I removed the images from Category:Files that mention Photobucket and nominated it for deletion per the consensus. Category:Files from Photobucket will be kept since it doesn't seem like there's a consensus to delete it and it's clearly useful. About Category:Files that mention Photobucket, I created a similar category recently for files that contained the word "postcard" but weren't images of postcards so they would could filtered out of search results for postcards. Sadly it created a massive row with other users who thought it was the wrong way to do things. Fair enough. I eventually ended up just deleting the word from all of the files I could find where it didn't seem useful or necessary. I suggest you do that here. There's no reason a lot of these images need to have references to photobucket in the first place. So feel free to just delete them in cases where it's pointless and doesn't add anything. It's clear that there is no consensus for creating these types of maintenance categories though. But at least it's an easy fix in the meantime that you can implement on your own and hopefully without upsetting anyone. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||