Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/07
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 July 2017
This previously contained one image (File:Wilfrid Laurier 1917.jpg), which turns out to be from 1906 and was mislabelled in the source. Commons does not seem to have any 1917 photos of Laurier. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll nominate it for deletion. --ghouston (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This is apparently a duplicate of Category:Cygnus. It was previously redirected to Cygnus by User:ComputerHotline, but recently recreated by User:Liné1. I think it should be converted back to a redirect, since most of its contents are also in Cygnus anyway. --ghouston (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- It is not really a duplicate. It is a category named with the vernacular name. We have thousands of them. Contributors don't like to have their pictures only in Category:unidentified Cygnus.
- So they put it in vernacular name categories.
- That is why there are 2 wikidata items: 'Category:Cygnus (genus)' (Q6405577)+'Cygnus' (Q29564928) (both involving scientific name) and 'swan' (Q34384) (involving vernacular name)
- PS: I did not say I like those categories, just that they are very very common on wikicommons.
- Regards Liné1 (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- In Commons we try to have a single category for a concept, not a separate category for every name it may be known as. I'm sure these birds are known as many other things too, in different languages. Would we want to create all those categories just so that speakers of those languages can use them? --ghouston (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think most of the vernacular named categories turn up as "Swans in <country X>", which at least is not a duplicate, as long as "Cygnus in <country X>" doesn't exist. --ghouston (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete Like it or not, this is redundant to Category:Cygnus, and that's more confusing to people than using latin taxonomy. We might create a disambig or a redirect, if that would be helpful. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- People who find Category:Swans won't necessarily realise that there's more stuff under Category:Cygnus. Alternatively, since Swans is a subcategory, we would be able to move everything from Cygnus down into Swans, leaving Cygnus as an empty and pointless container category. --ghouston (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Or move everything up to Cygnus. Isn't it the usual practice to use the scientific name (for example, see Category:Lions, which redirects to Category:Panthera leo)? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah Cygnus is the right one to keep. I'm just pointing out what silly things can happen if both categories are kept. Also intersection categories: we could make Cygnus hunting as a parent for Swan hunting, and Swan heads as a subcategory of Cygnus heads. --ghouston (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Or move everything up to Cygnus. Isn't it the usual practice to use the scientific name (for example, see Category:Lions, which redirects to Category:Panthera leo)? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- People who find Category:Swans won't necessarily realise that there's more stuff under Category:Cygnus. Alternatively, since Swans is a subcategory, we would be able to move everything from Cygnus down into Swans, leaving Cygnus as an empty and pointless container category. --ghouston (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please do what you want with Category:Swans. You can move its subcategories in Category:Cygnus, but not the pictures. Either they are already in a species category or they must be moved to Category:Unidentified Cygnus.
- Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll redirect it to Cygnus, recategorising the images as requested. There are only a few. --ghouston (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I move the category because I was wrong when I type the name. I confused the work made by the jolateros with the tinsmiths. Now this category is useless and I would to delete it because a redirection to "Jolatería in Arrecife" is wrong because it doesn't the same. Ivanhercaz (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment I have nominate this category for discussion because I didn't see the "Nominate to delete" link in the sidebar when I am in categories. I would swear that before it was in the sidebar... Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)- I have changed the redirect to a {{Bad name}} template. That is a way to handle cases like this without discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 19:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
no photos. Pitpisit (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- I marked it for deletion. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Empty cat. E4024 (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wiki doesn't understand the potential. Visaswises (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Done. --JuTa 15:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete the empty cat and warn the creator of it and similars. E4024 (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wiki doesn't understand the potential. Visaswises (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Done. --JuTa 15:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete this empty cat and similars by the user, they are bordering vandalism. E4024 (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wiki doesn't understand the potential. Visaswises (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: . --JuTa 01:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This maintenance category was historically used, when template {{Pixabay}} was newly created. Now it's quite useless: People who know the template will use it, people who do not know the template very probably will also not know this category, and hence they won't add it to new files. Speravir 18:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- See also Cfd/2017/07/Category:Pixabay files for migration/Migrated. The category creator is indef blocked and cannot react. — Speravir – 20:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This maintenance category was historically used, when template {{Pixabay}} was newly created, but now it's quite useless after migration process is finished. Speravir 19:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- See also Cfd/2017/07/Category:Pixabay files for migration. The category creator is indef blocked and cannot react. — Speravir – 20:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
error in typing...should be Literature of Mexico in indigenous languages Thelmadatter (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time you make a typo, Thelmadatter, you can just use {{Bad name|Category:Literature of Mexico in indigenous languages}} on the incorrect page to delete it without discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
wrong letter, letter mistaken, allready moved to wright cat. (della vs. della) LigaDue (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Closing: cat was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Is it different from the Category:Storytellers? E4024 (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a duplicate to me. Category:Storytellers has a better name and is defined better. Category:French story teller should perhaps be Category:Storytellers from France. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is a clear duplication case. The user who opened those cats is not active since 2015. Please do take the initiative to close the discussion and arrange things around here. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:French story teller moved to Category:Storytellers from France- Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Apparently a duplicate of Category:Modernism. It was previously redirected to Modernism by User:Beyond My Ken, but that was undone by User:RhinoMind. It's a redirection on enwiki. We could use Category:Modernism by country to hold the by-country cats. --ghouston (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously, I agree. "Modern movement" has always seemed to me to be an awkward expression that is not inherently clear about its meaning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Agree somewhat, except that Modernism is a philosophical movement while "modern movement" are various spheres influenced by that philosophical movement. That is Modern movement architecture, modern movement films, etc..
- I think these confusions goes quite deep in the category structure, but it would not solve much to put everything in one pot and mess things up even more.
- RhinoMind (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- My primary concern is with the use of the phrase in connection with architecture. I would prefer a simple "Modern architecture" or "Modern style architecture" (or even "Modernist architecture") if "Modern" by itself is too ambiguous. Putting buildings into "Modern movement" categories just feels wrong to me, as they are not (generally speaking) philosophical constructs, but real-world objects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I can't find any discussions of any difference between "modernism" and "modern movement", just sites that say they are names for the same thing. Without some clarity in the definition, it's impossible to decide what goes in one category and what in the other, and with the content split in two places, users may find only half of it. I think there should be a single parent category, and the subcategories can be named as preferred: Modernist writers, Modern art, Modern movement architecture, or whatever. --ghouston (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, architecture, film, design, fashion, etc are clearly not philosophy. Should we really have a discussion about that? RhinoMind (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what modernist philosophy would entail, it seems to me more of a broad arts movement. Is there such a thing as as modernist philosopher? --ghouston (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, architecture, film, design, fashion, etc are clearly not philosophy. Should we really have a discussion about that? RhinoMind (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Oh, ok, I get your drift then. But you were trying to erase any distinctions between the sub-categories and the philosophy of Modernism. "Modernist architecture" or other names would be fine with me. The important thing for me is to not "put everything in one pot". PS: I am not overly stubborn about all of this, my main errant in this issue was to explain myself as I did in my comment above. RhinoMind (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say create a "Philosophy of modernism" subcategory, if you have some idea of what would go in there. --ghouston (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- I can't find any discussions of any difference between "modernism" and "modern movement", just sites that say they are names for the same thing. Without some clarity in the definition, it's impossible to decide what goes in one category and what in the other, and with the content split in two places, users may find only half of it. I think there should be a single parent category, and the subcategories can be named as preferred: Modernist writers, Modern art, Modern movement architecture, or whatever. --ghouston (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- My primary concern is with the use of the phrase in connection with architecture. I would prefer a simple "Modern architecture" or "Modern style architecture" (or even "Modernist architecture") if "Modern" by itself is too ambiguous. Putting buildings into "Modern movement" categories just feels wrong to me, as they are not (generally speaking) philosophical constructs, but real-world objects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- As per the link above, this has already been extensively discussed. Please consider adding your comments at the other discussion so we can finally resolve this. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a slightly different issue actually, since I'm not sure that Category:Modern movement refers exclusively to modern movement architecture. Well, it has mostly been used for architecture, but Category:Modern movement in Germany has a photo of a phone. However, merging this category downwards with Category:Modern movement architecture would work just as well as merging it upwards with Category:Modernism. --ghouston (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, not really, since you'd end up with links from Category:Modern movement to Category:Modern movement architecture, while I think the correct link would be to Category:Modernism. --ghouston (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a slightly different issue actually, since I'm not sure that Category:Modern movement refers exclusively to modern movement architecture. Well, it has mostly been used for architecture, but Category:Modern movement in Germany has a photo of a phone. However, merging this category downwards with Category:Modern movement architecture would work just as well as merging it upwards with Category:Modernism. --ghouston (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Looking at the actual editorial conflict, I think the discussion above is a bit derailed. The actual problem was that the category was redirected to Modern movement architecture.
Obviously, Modern movement (aka Modernism) comprise a plethora of disciplines, including literature, painting, design, philosophy, worldview, architecture, etc.. That is why the subcategories contains images related to all these different disciplines, not just architecture. And that was why the redirect was reverted.
If we need to redirect anything and make the category structure simpler and more useful, we could merge this category with the category of Modernism itself. Not Modern movement architechture, which is clearly wrong.
PS. I urge everybody to read the article on Modernism on Wikipedia. RhinoMind (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, it seems that I misread the page history and when I started this discussion and didn't notice that the previous redirect was to Modern movement architecture. It seems then that everyone agrees that Category:Modern movement can be redirected to Category:Modernism. --ghouston (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- FYI, I've moved the vast number of categories titled "Modern movement in X" to "Modern movement architecture in X" for clarify. The notable exception was Category:Modern movement in Italy which already had Category:Modern movement architecture in Italy as a sub-category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Good. I also created Category:Modernism by country. --ghouston (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll redirect Category:Modern movement to Category:Modernism. --ghouston (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete this empty category please. There is "Category:Unidentified people of Turkey". 176.239.80.192 22:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Empty. I marked it for speedy deletion and now trying to close a CfD for the first time. I hope all goes well. --E4024 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Accidentally created incorrectly named category. All media moved to correct Category:Eid ul-adha in Spain. Takeaway (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. @Takeaway: When you make small mistakes like this in the future, please use {{Badname}}, by putting (in this case) {{Bad name|Category:Eid ul-adha in Spain}} on the incorrectly named category. There's no need for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete this nonsense please. 141.196.218.36 05:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
DeleteReplace with Nollywood with civility to the user to improve editor/contributor retention: (updated Geekdiva (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC); Nollywood needs to be a category) It's actually not nonsense—it's misplaced content in a category created through a misunderstanding. It seems to be information that she intended to represent herself as a user, so it rightfully goes on her user page.
- I first posted an earnest comment on her talk page to explain all this and then copied the text and put it on her user page itself. Besides my post on her talk page, you can see my edit summaries for slightly more information.
- Thanks to the IP user for pointing this necessary deletion out. However, please consider in the future that no individual can manage this project by themselves, so even in a brief comment it makes sense to have a more civic tone (or even simply a less judgemental one) to encourage the viewpoint that not only is this a worthwhile place to volunteer, it is also enjoyable or at least one where people try to minimize stress.
- Otherwise, the amount of "nonsense" on this project will increase by leaps and bounds, because there will be fewer and fewer volunteers here to correct it. Sincerely, Geekdiva (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Geekdiva, for encouraging civility, especially with what might be a new user. I've deleted the category. Category:Nollywood would be fine, but the sole image in the category is almost surely about to be deleted anyway. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
One of a series of hundreds of bizarre "Downtown Historic" categories made by 104.243.164.1 and other anonymous IP addresses. Only file was File:WisconsinDellsWisconsinDowntown1.jpg, which I've recategorized. Closeapple (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 05:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I learned late that there were two singers with the same name. Sorry. Soosie. (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Puede decir más claro que es lo que ha pasado? Unir dos categorias por equivocación? No creo que sea un tema difícil de solucionar... --E4024 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Aprovecharé el español. Lo que pasa que trasladé la categoría «Yeoreum (Cosmic Girls)» a simplemente «Yeoreum» pensando que era la única cantante bajo ese nombre y resulta que existe otra cantante llamada Yeoreum, pero de un grupo llamado Hello Venus y jamás había pensado en que el nombre del grupo era para diferenciarlas, así que cuando me enteré ya era tarde.--Soosie. (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Bien. Yo traté de arreglarlo pero no he podido . Voy a pedir a un sysop que haga de "Yeoreum" una p de desam por «Yeoreum (Cosmic Girls)» y Category:Yeoreum (Hello Venus). Tranquila. --E4024 (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Aprovecharé el español. Lo que pasa que trasladé la categoría «Yeoreum (Cosmic Girls)» a simplemente «Yeoreum» pensando que era la única cantante bajo ese nombre y resulta que existe otra cantante llamada Yeoreum, pero de un grupo llamado Hello Venus y jamás había pensado en que el nombre del grupo era para diferenciarlas, así que cuando me enteré ya era tarde.--Soosie. (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- This may now be closed. Admin Daphne has kindly solved the issue. (I open many cat discussions but got no idea how to close them... :) --E4024 (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Category:Yeoreum is now a dab to the two singer cats. Daphne Lantier 17:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete, spelling error in the name Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Jan Arkesteijn: You could mark it with {{Bad name}}, giving the correct name. I would have done it for you, but I don't know the right name. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Willem Jan van Eys. @Jan Arkesteijn: As Auntof6 already suggested, please do use the {{Bad name}} template in the future for typos like this, which require no discussion. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Schoolors? Sorry? 176.239.88.122 16:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Empty cat with wrong name was deleted. --E4024 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Miscategorised person. Jorge Luis Alfonso López is a captured criminal, see here for an example image and news article and not a General. There are no current images of the man on Commons, with the exception of a number of a suspect house, which I believe belong better in a police aerial photographs category because they do not visually show the man himself at all.
I believe the confusion has come from (1) the filenames of most of the Police images in this category, which include the criminal as the first few words and (2) there is a General appearing prominently in the majority of the images (José Roberto León Riaño). However, the descriptions say "fue capturado por la Policía Nacional" which means he was captured by the Police, so it can't be referring to the General in the picture, rather all the drugs, weapons and goods that they found belonging to the criminal.
Propose deletion of this category and move images generally to Category:Confiscated goods in Colombia, or other relevant categories. seb26 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- U can move it if you want. I don't speak Spanish.--Sanandros (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I think it just needs to be deleted. There are no images of Alfonso Lopez to put inside this. seb26 (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I think it just needs to be
Done: cat deleted as per discussion. --Sanandros (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
empty no photo Pitpisit (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll nominate it for deletion. --ghouston (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Non-descriptive category name. All the files have been moved to Category:Aziz Dheri Stupa Takeaway (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Unclear name. Deleted in favour of Category:Aziz Dheri Stupa. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Moved all files to Category:Landscapes of Swabi District as "Swabian Landscapes" could be mistaken for referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swabia Takeaway (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged it with {{Category renamed}}. For future reference, uncontroversial cases like this can be handled without discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 19:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
doesn`t exist church with that name in the village Ehrlich91 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I marked the page as empty for deletion. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
empty category Robby (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I marked it for deletion. --E4024 (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by E4024. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Double entry: see category "Historical images of Stein am Rhein" Simisa (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- There's a difference between images and photographs. Some of the files in the images category are photographs and some are not. Is there a reason to combine them instead of having separate categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- There is unfortunately no rule. An image can be a photograph or a painting or anything else showing the subject. In this case I have opened both categories accidentally because "Historical images of Stein am Rhein" was not assigned to "Stein am Rhein". As there are also paintings, I have decided to request the deletion of "photographs". In some parts of the world everything is in photographs and in others everything is in images. Might be something to discuss. Simisa (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Close this now, please, the last time I tried, I failed. --E4024 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- There is unfortunately no rule. An image can be a photograph or a painting or anything else showing the subject. In this case I have opened both categories accidentally because "Historical images of Stein am Rhein" was not assigned to "Stein am Rhein". As there are also paintings, I have decided to request the deletion of "photographs". In some parts of the world everything is in photographs and in others everything is in images. Might be something to discuss. Simisa (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Category was deleted as empty by Krd while still under discussion here. If someone really wants to subdivide "images" with a "photographs" category, I think a legitimate case could be made. The category, however, was nominated by its creator the same day it was created. That's good enough reason to delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This cat should be deleted. It is the only "city" cat for the modern movement. If we do not neet this cat for New York, Milan, Paris or whatever, we do not need it for Yerevan either. The cat "Modern movement in Armenia" is more than enough for the only item in these two cats. E4024 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Modern movement architecture in Yerevan. I would have moved it earlier, but I was confused by the Modern Art museum content. But that's already categorized under "contemporary art museums" rather than modern movement museums. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
renamed as there are four Dutch cottages on Canvey WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Now the cat is empty and I marked it for deletion. This discussion may be closed. --E4024 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by E4024. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
To be deleted: 1. empty; 2. duplicate of properly capitalized Category:Blessed Sacrament churches in Austria Theodoxa (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Theodoxa: This kind of thing can be handled without discussion by using the {{Bad name}} template. I've put the template on the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Daphne Lantier 18:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Non-english category name, content consists of copyright violations only. El Grafo (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Speedily deleted files and category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be a category of mostly copyvios, due to the lack of freedom of panorama in the UAE. Guanaco (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- If all the files are deleted, we can delete the cat. If not, nothing to discuss here. --E4024 (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems there would be at least some non-copyvios here (e.g. views from the hotel, certain shots of the interior. etc) so there's no reason to delete the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Polynorm Bunschoten Johan278 (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty by Krd. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
empty category, empty for more then 6 months Robby (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I marked it for deletion. Nothing to discuss, really. Please close this chapter. --E4024 (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Daphne Lantier --Rahul Bott (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
empty category. Randykitty (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. Images were deleted here and here. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Most of the sub-categories here are Category:Embassies in X but some are Category:Embassies and high commissions in X. Should we harmonize? It has already resulted in Category:Embassies in Turkey and Category:Embassies and high commissions in Turkey. Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought all commonwealth embassies were called high commissions, but it's only the embassies of one commonwealth country in another. My mistake. Closing. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:Stores is an RD to Category:Shops. Indeed we only have cats of Department stores and Discount stores. No need for this cat. E4024 (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Shops in Ankara. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Empty category, containing no images at all. 99.121.209.170 13:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Then I marked it as empty for deletion. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: . --JuTa 16:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Who determines a person's ethnicity is a general problem when it comes to categories based on ethnicity. Unclear standards for what sort of crimes merit inclusion is also a big problem when it comes to criminals. Taken together, we have a hugely problematic and (regardless of intent in creating it) frankly offensive category which serves only to perpetuate stereotypes. I'll note that this appears to be the only category on Commons for criminals by ethnicity. English Wikipedia has decided twice to delete the corresponding category there: en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 31#Category:African American criminals and en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 15#Category:African-American criminals. en:WP:OCEGRS also provides a sound argument as to why a category like this is ill-advised. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I created the category and I totally agree with LX's comments above. I was trying to clear out a ton of items thrown into the categories "African Americans" and "African American History", and it involved creating a lot of smaller categories by profession. That's the original rationale for the category, but it makes sense to delete it.--Kenmayer (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I concur with the two above. Delete. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm puzzled about all of the Category:African Americans by occupation categories, since intersecting Category:Ethnic groups in the United States with Category:People by occupation seems like over-categorization, and doing it for just one of the ethnic groups is discrimination. Also, I'm not sure why being a criminal is considered an occupation. Some crimes like burglary, drug dealing or fraud can be turned into occupations, but in other cases people become criminals for a single act, or a series of acts that don't generate income. --ghouston (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as per request, support from Ghouston, and approval from category creator. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
active dell webcam 47.148.33.243 09:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Kept. Test edits by a new user IP. -- Rahul Bott (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
regional disk 2006{ phychology area memphis} warner brothers{ ]-______[ 167.29.4.150 16:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Kept. Test edits by a new user IP. -- Rahul Bott (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
This category already exists. Must be deleted. Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Arthur Crbz: Already exists as what? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
To be deleted, as wrong name (with dot on encd) Ciacho5 (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
bitte löschen Gerd Leibrock (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Empty, deleted. --Achim (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Category created in error by typo. Please delete! Motacilla (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I marked it for deletion. In these cases you can use the "wrong name" template or simply
{{empty page}}. --E4024 (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted by Taivo. --Achim (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
No such date Howard61313 (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Cat deleted. Closing. --E4024 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This category creates a cycle, which is contrary to Commons:Categories#Principles: "There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly)." Category:Rua das Janelas Verdes contains Category:Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, which contains Category:Things named after Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, which contains Category:Rua das Janelas Verdes. This category is also against the "simplicity" principle of Commons:Categories#Principles. Moreover, this is a useless and ill-formed category. "Rua das Janelas Verdes" is not named after the museum, but after the palace wich contains the museum, hence the different names. So there is no category about "things named after Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga". BrightRaven (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- OMG, BrightRaven, could it be that this cycle proscription you love so much doesn’t match reality? Categorizing a street for its name is trivial (cp. this, among so many), as well as categorizing a building within the street it is located at… Since many streets are named after an emblematic building they harbour, these cycles are bound to happen — and that’s perfectly natural and aceptable: Categorization links are hierarchical, but they are not necessarily synonymous. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete this cat, as the sole entry is not something named after the museum. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes it is. (Before I created this cat, I confer by phone with a brother of mine who is an historian specialized in the MNAA building, and he confirmed what’s written in the category description — did you read it, Auntof6? What’s your source to state the opposite?) Just a hint: "Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga" = "Palácio das Janelas Verdes"… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. This is just BrightRaven putting misguided, outdated rules above serious curation, with a dash of pearl-clutching for having been challenged. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I'd agree that the sole subcategory is named after Palácio das Janelas Verdes, but saying it's name after the museum is confusing and unnecessary. Even if we were to accept it was named after the museum, it's still a meta-category for a single category, unlikely to be expanded. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Só uma, claro. Nem mais é sequer pensável! Pois quando queremos saber quantas entidades categorizáveis há em Lisboa que tenham sido nomeadas em referência às Janelas Verdes (palácio, rua, bairro…) chamamos, sem delongas e em exclusivo, Themightyquill, esse eminente olisipógrafo. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please be civil, Tuvalkin. If you can populate a category for things named after Palácio das Janelas Verdes, then do so, but otherwise, you have no argument. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Two things:
- I was not being uncivil, just a bit sarcastic — that’s what you get when confronted with attempted distruction of valuable work.
- What’s on the table, then?: Is it the problem with categorization loops, or is it the problem with categories containing one single category? (Pro-tip: Neither is a cause for deletion in Commons.)
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Two things:
- Please be civil, Tuvalkin. If you can populate a category for things named after Palácio das Janelas Verdes, then do so, but otherwise, you have no argument. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Só uma, claro. Nem mais é sequer pensável! Pois quando queremos saber quantas entidades categorizáveis há em Lisboa que tenham sido nomeadas em referência às Janelas Verdes (palácio, rua, bairro…) chamamos, sem delongas e em exclusivo, Themightyquill, esse eminente olisipógrafo. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- 1. Hostile sarcasm is indeed uncivil and unappreciated. #2. Both reasons, combined with the fact that the single current sub-category is not named after the museum. You are offering no good reason to keep, which means consensus is being achieved in favour of deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Uncivil and unappreciated is busybodies gnawing away proper curation due to poorly understood poorly thought-out rules which Commons has outgrown of — so excuse my “just wrath”. I will try to explain, once again:
- You state that «the single current sub-category is not named after the museum». Well, you’re either not understanding what was said several times, or you’re deliberately gaslighting me. Yes, the so-called “street of the green windows” was so named refering to the “palace of the green windows”, which is nowadays the museum in question. (Yes the historical minutiae are unclear, but the same can be said about the connection between these two categories, and countless outher such pairs.)
- BrightRaven understood well the underlying concept — that the street has a semantic nexus to the museum in both senses: The street is named after the museum (parent cat) and the museum is located on the street (child cat). But that, although logical and analogous to every other street-named-after and building-on-street categorization, run against the no-loop rule. BrightRaven undid my categorization twice (almost reaching edit-warring level — yet another arcane rule at work here), so I decided to achieve the same curation goal (which is: properly categorize this street under its name and with the buildings on/in it) by circumventing the cat loop rule, and therefore I created an intermediate category that undoes it (see how categories which are children or grand-children of themselves are not immediate deletion candidates) and even adds some semantics to the relationship between the two concepts.
- But it’s Catch 22 and now the intermediate category seems to go against yet another a rule, one that says that cats cannot have single-kitten litters. (Where’s that rule stated so I can read it, anyway?)
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Uncivil and unappreciated is busybodies gnawing away proper curation due to poorly understood poorly thought-out rules which Commons has outgrown of — so excuse my “just wrath”. I will try to explain, once again:
- Firstly, continuing to insult me and others as a "busybodies" is uncivil. I accept that this discussion is unappreciated by you, but that's not my problem or anyone else's. Unappreciated discussion is very different than uncivil discussion, unless you feel your edits are being intentionally targetted as a personal attack. I'm not sure why you don't see that you can be angry without being uncivil. Second, I think I was quite clear when I said "If you can populate a category for things named after Palácio das Janelas Verdes, then do so." The fact that various users have differing reasons to support deletion doesn't undermine the consensus to delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted for various reasons cited above. No strong reason for keeping, or effort to fill the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Should be merged and redirected to Category:General elections of Turkey. E4024 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Merged and redirected. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Jest utworzona: Category:Adrian Błocki Regan1973 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Reagan1973 created the new Category:Adrian Błocki and moved files there from the old Category:Adrian Blocki. It's not ideal to move things and then ask for discussion, but in this case, I think the new category name is better. The English language wikipedia article is at en:Adrian Błocki so I don't see any reason to continue using the old category. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me that there's much that's meaningful that would fit in this category. Images made on Tuesdays in the US aren't inherently different from those made on other days in the US or on Tuesdays in other countries. We don't seem to have categories for Tuesdays in other countries, and I think we can do without this one. Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm adding Category:Saturday in the United States to this request, for corresponding reasons. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with all the above. --E4024 (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no reason to categorize by day of the week and country. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with all the above. --E4024 (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, along with Category:Saturday in the United States. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This category refers to the same populated place to Category:Muliary, Viliejka District. However there are three villages with the same nama in Belaus. --Jarash (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's also in Viliejka District and it's currently empty, so there's no reason to keep it as a category. If you want, we could make a disambig page, but since we only have the one functioning category, it would be kind of strange. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I would recommend to move this cat to "Garlic soups", as "Sopa de ajo" cannot be subcat of Czech cuisine. We should accommodate Castilian soup, "sopa d'all" etc also under this "plural" naming. E4024 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- The Czech soups could be moved to Category:Česneková polévka or Category:Česneková soup or something like that. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- They can also be moved to "Czech style garlic soup", but the more important issue here is that we need a "mother cat" for Spanish, Czech, Peruvian, maybe Catalan (sopa d'all) etc all "Garlic soups". (Sorry for using bold letters, normally hate to do that in discussions.) --E4024 (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- To have a look at Category:Fish soup, its mother and children cats and the files in and out of them etc., may help us to find our way out of here. --E4024 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Created Category:Česneková polévka as a sub-category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a redundant category. E4024 (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- We already have Category:Adana Hilton SA Hotel. I have not been to Adana in years, therefore have no idea if there are two different Hilton hotels in that city. However, internet search shows only the Hilton SA. (Indeed "HiltonSA".) Maybe User:Zcebeci can explain us why he opened the discussed category. IMHO we need a cat on "HiltonSA" for these hotels. --E4024 (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also, the current title doesn't seem to be in a valid format; it's more in the form of a populated place If there are two hotels, this name should be the official name of it, or at least include the word "hotel". --Auntof6 (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Mister Cebeci can you spare a small part of your time to contribute to this discussion? @Zcebeci: Ping ping... --E4024 (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- E4024, actually they are the same. The name of the chain Hilton hotels in Turkey is "HiltonSA", so plase keep Category:Adana Hilton SA Hotel only. Thank you in advance. --Zcebeci (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Adana HiltonSA Hotel. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If this is about an ethnic group, a people or some nation why don't we name the cat as "Kabardinians" or "Kabardians", in plural form, as we generally do in similar cases? E4024 (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Kabardinians. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
................ 164.138.81.136 11:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I do not understand what this cat means. I also do not understand how it has stayed here without being
deletedfor so long. We shoulddeleteit. --E4024 (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC) - Look at and compare with Category:The Godfather (possibly one of the greatest films of all times) and you will be surprised... --E4024 (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Read my above words deleted and delete as "discussed" and "discuss": This must be one of the very few categories here which "invent" new cats (all in red, of course) for themselves. Is there probably a difference betweeen Category:Films of the United States and Category:American films? We noticed the lack of so many new film cats due to this cat/film? Why do other film cats not enter into actor/actress cats? And so on... --E4024 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't generally link films with the actors who appear in it. This isn't Wikidata, I guess. --ghouston (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Some of the red-linked categories seem to be copied from Wikipedia. I suppose they could be created if anyone was inclined. --ghouston (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Somebody removed a lot of the bogus categories, so I think this can be closed. --ghouston (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
We can't open a category for every restaurant where we ate a fried chicken leg and pictured the plate. The only picture in the cat does not even show us the restaurant table. I doubt we need this cat; of course as long as suddenly it is not filled with pics. E4024 (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. This kind of category leads to commons being used as advertising. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
High Commissions only exist in the Commonwealth countries; Turkey is not one of them. Delete the cat and warn the user who opened it. Or warn me for showing these mistakes. E4024 (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Category deleted. @E4024: Please stop asking admins to warn users. This is not a tribunal. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to Category:Who's That Girl World Tour following the actual article name in the English Wikipedia. IndianBio (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought of COM:EDUSE in combination with COM:ADVERT Steinfeld-feld (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete this unnecessary cat. The only file in it may be placed at Category:Blogs until its own deletion. --E4024 (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: deleted by Jcb. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Should be renamed to Graves of vocalists Hiddenhauser (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Support --Achim (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The title used in this cat is not so good, even for my poor English. Is this cat about "Retired personnel of (something)"? E4024 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think we don't need such a cat and would sugest to dete it at all because these people didn't became relevant during their active time in the ROKASF.--Sanandros (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Sanandros (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Only 2 images. Not an useful category. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- If there's no other category which would express the same relevant classificatory information, then it is a useful category... AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Kept, three images now and no reply to objection in half a year. --rimshottalk 00:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
dark spots on skin 105.232.100.226 14:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand you. I believe that academic categorization must prevail. Dark spots is not an acceptable denomination. They are two main types of neoplasms: benign neoplasms and malignant neoplasms or cancer (as well as neoplasms of uncertain behavior). --Jmarchn (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsensical request, probably vandalism. --jdx Re: 12:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ignore, should have been reverted. I have removed the template, please close down this discussion. --Fæ (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Closed, not a category discussion. A serious note: if you are worried about dark spots on your skin, please talk to your doctor. --rimshottalk 00:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Is the name of this cat correct? Shouldn't it better be "Arrangers" or "Musical arrangers"? E4024 (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Arrangers exists, so this is a duplicate, unless I've missed something. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Arrangers as per Themightyquill. --rimshottalk 00:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Certain user is opening many cats, as I complained before an admin, and then leaving them empty for centuries (por los siglos de los siglos)... We have this cat with children cats, which, altogether, in the end only house a Health Ministry building in Ankara. Ankara is "rather" a new city. It was made capital in the 20th century. Therefore, at least there are many public buildings in the city that would fit into this cat, like the Parliament buldings, government ministries, schools, universities, museums, theatres, the Opera House of Ankara, mosques, etc etc etc. We have, if not hudreds or thousands, tens of pics to fill these cats. What then prevents the cat-opener to just open them and then leave them forever as orphans? I repeat, this user should be warned to make a "follow up" of their own work. E4024 (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Commons is volunteer based. We can't force people to fill a category. If a category is unlikely to be filled, however, we don't need to keep it. I'm not convinced we should be categorizing buildings in Ankara by year or even decade. I don't see it happening for almost any other cities. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
No opposition in months. Deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any obvious distinction between current categories of Leading beacons and Range lights, and their content. So I suggest merger. Per w:Talk:Leading lights#Merger they could be merged as Category:Leading lights. 62.65.58.165 07:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nem con, I've done this merge. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Done: Per nom, makes sense. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This category is the same as Category:Risør - they overlap. I suggest keeping Category:Risør and deleting this one. Peulle (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep it. This is a work in progress. The town of Risør is in the municipality called Risør. These are logically speaking different entities, and there is an effort on no:wp to distinguish between town/communities and municipalities bearing the same names. Having two separate categories makes it much easier to know which images are relevant to which entries. Vinguru (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree; firstly, the county system in Norway is currently being changed, meaning that many counties will cease to exist and that it is better to use town categories only. Secondly, the town category must be placed in the county category, essentially meaning that using both these categories will be overcategorization.--Peulle (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- One municipality may in some cases contain more than one town plus other communities/settlements. A lot of work is being done to sort this in a logical and correct way, and not everything is finished yet. However, if these categories are deleting, hours of work will be spent in vain. Please stop it! Vinguru (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but files that have both the category "Risør" (the county) and "Risør (town)" will be overcategorized. May a solution be to make "Risør (town)" a subcategory of "Risør"? I also think the current category "Risør" - if we're keeping them both - should be renamed "Risør (county)" or "Risør (municipality)". Having grown up there, I can guarantee you that no user who searches for "Risør" will be looking for the county, they will be looking for the town.--Peulle (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- The overcategorisation problem is temporary: it takes time to do the research to determine what category an image belongs to, and you can only do so much of it before you get tired/fed up. Things will improve over time. It is not customary to add "municipality" (which is what we're dealing with here, not county). Municipalities have first priority when it comes to "clean" category names. Vinguru (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- So how should be handle the problem that people will use the category "Risør" when in fact they mean the town? As I said hardly anybody has heard of the municipality - Risør is known primarly as a town. I'm not satisfied with "waiting it out" for things to improve over time; this is a web based resource, not some book that becomes outdated, so we should strive to set up a correct category system now rather than hope for the encyclopedia to become correct at some point in the future.--Peulle (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- The overcategorisation problem is temporary: it takes time to do the research to determine what category an image belongs to, and you can only do so much of it before you get tired/fed up. Things will improve over time. It is not customary to add "municipality" (which is what we're dealing with here, not county). Municipalities have first priority when it comes to "clean" category names. Vinguru (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but files that have both the category "Risør" (the county) and "Risør (town)" will be overcategorized. May a solution be to make "Risør (town)" a subcategory of "Risør"? I also think the current category "Risør" - if we're keeping them both - should be renamed "Risør (county)" or "Risør (municipality)". Having grown up there, I can guarantee you that no user who searches for "Risør" will be looking for the county, they will be looking for the town.--Peulle (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- One municipality may in some cases contain more than one town plus other communities/settlements. A lot of work is being done to sort this in a logical and correct way, and not everything is finished yet. However, if these categories are deleting, hours of work will be spent in vain. Please stop it! Vinguru (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree; firstly, the county system in Norway is currently being changed, meaning that many counties will cease to exist and that it is better to use town categories only. Secondly, the town category must be placed in the county category, essentially meaning that using both these categories will be overcategorization.--Peulle (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 00:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
|
The right spelling of the writer is being discussed. See Category talk:Ángel Guimerá --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: already done. --ƏXPLICIT 00:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
deletion suggested. The vehicle in this category is the same as in Category:Dion Bouton and Trepardoux steam tricycle-CnAM 16387 Chief tin cloud (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: already done. --ƏXPLICIT 00:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
this should be one cat with Department of Drawings and Prints, Metropolitan Museum of Art at least related to Oursana (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Done: already redirected. --ƏXPLICIT 00:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This category is the same as Category:Risør - they overlap. I suggest keeping Category:Risør and deleting this one. Peulle (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep it. This is a work in progress. The town of Risør is in the municipality called Risør. These are logically speaking different entities, and there is an effort on no:wp to distinguish between town/communities and municipalities bearing the same names. Having two separate categories makes it much easier to know which images are relevant to which entries. Vinguru (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree; firstly, the county system in Norway is currently being changed, meaning that many counties will cease to exist and that it is better to use town categories only. Secondly, the town category must be placed in the county category, essentially meaning that using both these categories will be overcategorization.--Peulle (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- One municipality may in some cases contain more than one town plus other communities/settlements. A lot of work is being done to sort this in a logical and correct way, and not everything is finished yet. However, if these categories are deleting, hours of work will be spent in vain. Please stop it! Vinguru (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but files that have both the category "Risør" (the county) and "Risør (town)" will be overcategorized. May a solution be to make "Risør (town)" a subcategory of "Risør"? I also think the current category "Risør" - if we're keeping them both - should be renamed "Risør (county)" or "Risør (municipality)". Having grown up there, I can guarantee you that no user who searches for "Risør" will be looking for the county, they will be looking for the town.--Peulle (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- The overcategorisation problem is temporary: it takes time to do the research to determine what category an image belongs to, and you can only do so much of it before you get tired/fed up. Things will improve over time. It is not customary to add "municipality" (which is what we're dealing with here, not county). Municipalities have first priority when it comes to "clean" category names. Vinguru (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- So how should be handle the problem that people will use the category "Risør" when in fact they mean the town? As I said hardly anybody has heard of the municipality - Risør is known primarly as a town. I'm not satisfied with "waiting it out" for things to improve over time; this is a web based resource, not some book that becomes outdated, so we should strive to set up a correct category system now rather than hope for the encyclopedia to become correct at some point in the future.--Peulle (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- The overcategorisation problem is temporary: it takes time to do the research to determine what category an image belongs to, and you can only do so much of it before you get tired/fed up. Things will improve over time. It is not customary to add "municipality" (which is what we're dealing with here, not county). Municipalities have first priority when it comes to "clean" category names. Vinguru (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but files that have both the category "Risør" (the county) and "Risør (town)" will be overcategorized. May a solution be to make "Risør (town)" a subcategory of "Risør"? I also think the current category "Risør" - if we're keeping them both - should be renamed "Risør (county)" or "Risør (municipality)". Having grown up there, I can guarantee you that no user who searches for "Risør" will be looking for the county, they will be looking for the town.--Peulle (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- One municipality may in some cases contain more than one town plus other communities/settlements. A lot of work is being done to sort this in a logical and correct way, and not everything is finished yet. However, if these categories are deleting, hours of work will be spent in vain. Please stop it! Vinguru (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree; firstly, the county system in Norway is currently being changed, meaning that many counties will cease to exist and that it is better to use town categories only. Secondly, the town category must be placed in the county category, essentially meaning that using both these categories will be overcategorization.--Peulle (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 00:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
How does this differ from parent category, Category:Building permits? Jmabel ! talk 23:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think they can be merged. --E4024 (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 00:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
We have a category for Category:Parsonsia diaphanophleba and for Category:Parsonsia diaphanophlebia. These appear to be synonyms, though sources seem to vary on which is correct. Either way, one needs to be rolled into the other Mark Marathon (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO be bold and do as you consider correct. Nothing is irreversable here. --E4024 (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:Parsonsia diaphanophleba was redirected by MILEPRI. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
We have a category for Category:Parsonsia diaphanophleba and for Category:Parsonsia diaphanophlebia. These appear to be synonyms, though sources seem to vary on which is correct. Either way, one needs to be rolled into the other Mark Marathon (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO be bold and do as you consider correct. Nothing is irreversable here. --E4024 (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:Parsonsia diaphanophleba was redirected by MILEPRI. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
According to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy, there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. This means that nearly all the photos of graffiti in Italy seem to be copyright violations, since in most cases the person who created the graffiti still seems to own the copyright. So I think most photos in this category and the sub-categories have to bee deleted. Stopselliese (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Stopselliese: I think you are right, but there are probably some exceptions, including but not limited to the ancient graffiti. You'll have to nominated individual files for deletion and if those deletions result in empty categories, we can delete the categories as empty. If you haven't already, you can activate VisualFileChange (in your preferences, under Gadgets/Maintenance tools) do perform batch tasks and nominate many photos at once. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Graffiti are illegal in Italy, therefore expressly excluded from copyright protection (such as pornography is as well). Only graffiti-art on private premises are. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This should be handled by Deletion Requests as necessary. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This cat seems to be a duplicate of another. E4024 (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Although I've had a couple of dogs in the past, I know very little about dog breeds. What made me open this cat into discussion is an observation that the dogs in this cat have a similarity with the dogs in the cat Category:Kangal Çoban Köpeği. Both cats have a gallery page and the dogs in these pages are also similar (not all, but most). Either we are speaking about two different breeds (and that some dog pics have been put into the wrong cat or wrong gallery page) or we have opened separate pages with the Turkish and English names of the same dog breed and therefore we should unite these two categories and the corresponding gallery pages. Am I wrong? --E4024 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like two breeds to me: en:Kangal dog vs en:Anatolian Shepherd. Actually, the former article even says, "While similar in appearance, the Kangal is a separate breed from the Anatolian Shepherd." - Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I checked the Wikidata data. I hope -and I really hope- someone who knows these breeds corrects the cats in the pictures; I mean those cats which could be wrong. My 2 cents... --E4024 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the item on "Anatolian shepherd dog" in Wikidata uses the File:Kangal-welpen-de 003.jpg as "image of the item". As the image title has the word "Kangal" in it, I guess either it is an "Anatolian shepherd dog" pictured in Kangal or the owner has named the animal "Kangal", or perhaps the confusion is bigger than I'm concerned about. --E4024 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- As the FCI has renamed Anatolian Shepherd as Kangal Shepherd (since 2018), I think these two categories should definitely be merged together. Preferably under the name Kangal Shepherd or Kangal Çoban Köpeği because that's how it is now known both in the country of origin, Turkey, and in the FCI. Canarian (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:Canarian, above you say "I think these two categories should definitely be merged together" but then you make this one a subcat of the other one. Quo vadis? --E4024 (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- As the FCI has renamed Anatolian Shepherd as Kangal Shepherd (since 2018), I think these two categories should definitely be merged together. Preferably under the name Kangal Shepherd or Kangal Çoban Köpeği because that's how it is now known both in the country of origin, Turkey, and in the FCI. Canarian (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like two breeds to me: en:Kangal dog vs en:Anatolian Shepherd. Actually, the former article even says, "While similar in appearance, the Kangal is a separate breed from the Anatolian Shepherd." - Themightyquill (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- User:William Harris, User:Cavalryman (I suppose you guys know dogs), and other people who know dogs, what do you think? Why did we leave this discussion orphan? Pinging everybody who loves dogs, like myself. E4024 (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Anatolian shepherd dog into Category:Kangal Çoban Köpeği and delete the former.
- This is a slightly complex one, in Turkey locals recognise w:Kangal Shepherd Dogs and w:Akbash dogs (along with a couple of other breeds). In the 1960s some of both breeds were imported into the US where they were believed to be of the one breed and given the name Anatolian Shepherd Dog, and these dogs became internationally recognised as Turkey’s national breed by everyone except ... the Turks. What followed were recriminations, Turkish breeders refused to recognise these American dogs as their own, claiming they were crossbreeds, and the American breeders accused the Turkish breeders of trying to invent new breeds to swindle unknowing foreigners. Anyway, in the last few years the w:Fédération Cynologique Internationale has recognised the Kangal (not the Anatolian), and have convinced the Cynology Federation of Turkey to drop the stick and accept what the western world used to know as Anatolian Shepherds as Kangals (confusingly the American Kennel Club refuses to rename their Anatolians and the Kennel Club in Britain recognises both separately, the latter a result of legal challenges decades ago).
- Now that I have completely muddied everyone’s understanding, I think they should be merged as the Cynology Federation of Turkey has permitted the merger of the breeds/crossbreeds. Cavalryman (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
- Hello All, thanks for the ping. For a Turkish dog, I believe that we should go with what the Turks think, which is what the FCI thinks along with an international breed standard. This is an international and not a US breed - what the AKC thinks is largely irrelevant. William Harris (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Closure time?
Hello Themightyquill, I think after almost four years there has emerged consensus to merge these categories Category:Kangal Çoban Köpeği. When you made your contribution almost four years ago separate categories were likely warranted, as you will not doubt see the enwiki articles have similarly been merged. Are you happy for this to proceed? Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC).
- @Cavalryman, William Harris, and E4024: I'd be happy to merge them. You think Category:Kangal Çoban Köpeği is better than Category:Kangal Shepherd Dog (per en:Kangal Shepherd Dog)? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , thank you for the ping. I am happy with the current category name as that is the Turkish language name for the breed (per the Turkish Kennel Club [1]). Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC).
- I concur - Turkish dog, Turkish name. William Harris (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: , thank you for the ping. I am happy with the current category name as that is the Turkish language name for the breed (per the Turkish Kennel Club [1]). Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC).
Merged to Category:Kangal Çoban Köpeği Themightyquill (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
No reason to make a separate category for a plant that is common to all the mediterranean. This cat should be deleted and its contents placed in Category:Pistacia terebinthus. E4024 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Alternately, it could be moved to Category:Pistacia terebinthus (fruit) (Category:Pistacia terebinthus fruit?) if we wanted to separate those out from other images of the plant. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever you wish, but there is no reason to use the "thing"s Kurdish name. I could prefer saying "menengiç", someone from Italy or Spain another name in their language, etc. Qezwan is out of logic. --E4024 (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Redirect is done. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
There are many "event venues" cats but most are not in this one. Why? Could it be because no "country relation" is established? "Cities" are too vague, IMHO. E4024 (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- We have lots of "by city" categories without country attached. If this one is underused, we can simply add more categories (that already exist) to it. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Just the related category trees need to be expanded Estopedist1 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ridiculous level of over-categorization. There is only one example that fits this triple intersection category Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- And for that matter, these should go too:
- Category:Triplanes with 6 piston engines
- Category:Aircraft with 6 push-pull piston-propeller engines
- Category:Aircraft with 6 push-pull propellers What does this one even mean? How is it distinct from piston engines? Are there some jet engines "pushing" and others "pulling"?
- Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Populate it? With what? Are we going to create four new categories for each individual and utterly obscure aircraft? What's next? "Three-legged dirigibles"? "Helicopters with trumpets"? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: in answer to your question "How is it distinct from piston engines?": It's not, it's a parent category and thus includes piston engines. However, there are more ways to power a propeller than just the reciprocating piston engine. Josh (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think also this is over-categorization. It is not useful to combine all properties like Category:Aircraft by number of engines, Category:Aircraft by type of wing and Category:Aircraft by propulsor type in new categories.--Avron (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete no longer new, still not enough to warrant it. Josh (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The category in question is meanwhile deleted by user:Túrelio. Can we close this discussion, @Andy Dingley, Joshbaumgartner, and Avron: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
close it.Avron (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I have now discovered that such categories were created by vandals. Categories with separate locomotive numbers should be removed as decided below. You see here User talk:5.174.117.225 and here:
[2]
[3].
This category should be Delete.
--Marokobu (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Rodhullandemu og I did a lot of clean up in such categories two years ago. Much of them were rather useless with just one or two in each. I did however leave some categories like this with multiple pictures. The locomotive in question belongs to a museum, so multiple pictures of it are to be expected. In such case a category may make sense. But not for every locomotive of the class of course. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. The category in question is changed to the redirect. I propose to delete this redirect, giving a signal not to encourage such ambigious category creation in future. Objections @Marokobu and Dannebrog Spy: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Marokobu was blocked in 2017 due to use of multiple accounts.
- The category name Category:ÖBB 152.3109 does indeed make more sense than Category:52 3109 as more people know ÖBB as the Austrian federal railways than people who knows the German classification of the steam locomotives. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as "misleading" by Túrelio. GeorgHH • talk 18:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this a formal group of museums, such that "Museus Histórico e Pedagógicos de São Paulo" is a proper noun? Otherwise, cat name should be in English and without extra capitals, "Historical and pedagogic museums of São Paulo". Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- No proper noun or formal group here: One is "Museu Histórico Pedagógico" and the other is "Museu Histórico e Pedagógico". The mother cat should be in English. --E4024 (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Delete and upmerge to Category:History museums in São Paulo. It also seems that there are no well-established English names, hence we keep local names--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Upmerged. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Where is the difference to Special economic zones? -- GDAL (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- @GDAL: en:Free-trade zone says that "free-trade zone (= industrial free-trade zone) is a class of special economic zone". Sidenotice: we probably should rename Category:Industrial free trade zones to Category:Free-trade zones to mirror enwiki solution--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Stale - doesn't appear to be a strong reason to change this. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/07/Category:British Rail Class 378s on the Brighton Main Line. I think this category should be deleted because the images in this category are in the York railfest and I don't think any of these trains are on the east coast main line. However, I think some discussion is still required before deleting it.Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ping @Geof Sheppard: , @Oxyman: .
- Yeah, it's a bit of a conceit this one. There are quite a few similar examples where the train is at the National Rail Museum, and for convenience they're listed as ECML. What to do about it though is another matter. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I must admit that I don't usually put line categories on in these circumstances (it's not just at the NRM that this can be a problem) unless it is a train operator and class that is usually seen on the line. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I was about to make a separate Category:Treacle but now I'm second guessing myself. According to wikipedia, Black Treacle is molasses, but there are other kinds of treacle as well. Thoughts? Themightyquill (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Stupid question: Does chancaca have anything to do with these concepts? We could have a cat for chancaca... --E4024 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. en:molasses and en:treacle are different articles, however en:treacle mentions black molasses. We can ask in Wikipedia for clarification, but if no one asks, we can keep both categories separately. Sidenotice: also en:Chancaca is a standalone article--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
No action needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The dish was in a cat dedicated to a Spanish regional cuisine. Now that I added a Chilean "carne mechada" and looked into the issue, I see that there is also a Peruvian stew, Cuban dish etc, all with the same name! People who know better Ibero-american cuisine and Spanish lexicon could do something to clear things. Certainly these are not the same dish, just a coincidence of names... E4024 (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think this is similar to the Chicharrones : an ancient dish that in different places evolved into specific cookings. Different bus-categories can be the solution --El Pantera (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea if the dishes are ancient but I'm sure they are different. El Pantera, as the creator of the category you could take an initiative to arrange things here. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, E4024, I will arrange things when I'll have time (unfortunately not at the moment). Anyway, as this is a open collaborative wiki you or anyone else can help meanwhile. Thank you --El Pantera (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea if the dishes are ancient but I'm sure they are different. El Pantera, as the creator of the category you could take an initiative to arrange things here. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @E4024 and El Pantera: on November 2021, user:Scudsvlad has redirected the nominated category to Category:Shredded meats. Could we accept this redirect? Or is this redirect redundant simplification? Unfortunately en:Carne mechada is a red link, but Spanish Wikipedia es:Carne mechada is a disambiguation page--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Disambiguated by Melsj. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Is this category intended to host media about savoury pies that have both chicken meat and mushrooms or pies made with any of them? If so, why do we have a separate category for "Mushroom pies" (with only one image inside)? E4024 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please also consider Category:Chicken pot pies. --E4024 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would think it's for pies that contain both. On another note, the country-specific parent categories should be removed, because there's nothing in the category name that limits it by cuisine or location. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. Category name is OK, same in en:Chicken and mushroom pie. @Auntof6: this notice about country-specific categorization seems suspicious. See also parent categories used in enwiki article, and also subcategories' names in Category:Savoury pies of the United Kingdom--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: When you say "this notice," what are you referring to? My comment about removing the country-specific parent categories? I still think they're not needed, but they're probably outside the scope of this discussion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: yes, this country-specific categorization of food stuff is outside the scope of this discussion. We can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Per Estopedist1 this is about pies with both chicken and mushroom. No valid reason to delete. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)