Hosta

See also: Category talk:Congo at the Olympic Games.

Problematic (?) and old (over three weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:ThomasPusch) rationale: this category to be moved to category:Republic of the Congo at the Olympic Games, because: "In fact it's about merging two existing categories of the same subject in Category:Countries at the Olympic Games. The longer name "Republic of the Congo" is more precise, see e.g. here Category:Sports in the Republic of the Congo or Category:Republic of the Congo at the Summer Olympics, and it's fairer towards Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo at the Olympic Games, which also is "Congo". Date: 2022-08-13 Estopedist1 (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to be noticed that we have:

• Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo at the Olympic Games
• Category:Republic of the Congo at the Olympic Games

Estopedist1 (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, therefore I proposed to merge the shorter and less precise Category:Congo at the Olympic Games ‎into Category:Republic of the Congo at the Olympic Games. In fact it all was just about one single cat Category:Congo at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics, by error created and now found at Category:Republic of the Congo at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics. Now that Category:Congo at the Olympic Games is completely empty, it doesn't really matter if to change it to a category redirect or to merge it or to delete it. I propose to simply make a category redirect.ThomasPusch (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 and ThomasPusch: What about making it a dab instead, since there are two countries that might be referred to as "Congo"? Josh (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose againt making it a disambiguation page, the more as it's empty anyway. It would only be good to have a decision at last. :-) ThomasPusch (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell arms in this category are examples of fantasy/fictional arms created by the same user with no indication of any real-world use. User appears to be using Commons as repository for their own artwork. Pseudomonas (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the filenames together with the contents has the potential to mislead webgoers (in the same way as bucket shops do, albeit in not such a profiteering way). Either they should be renamed to clarify their attributed/unofficial status and marked with {{Disputed coat of arms}}, or deleted. Arlo James Barnes 14:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like these aren't really even disputed; it's one person who's come up with all of them as an art project. If there's evidence that some people are using them but others say they shouldn't, that's disputed. If no-one's using them they're… hypothetical, I guess? Pseudomonas (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seek a name change to: Category:Camps McKay and Russell, Paekākāriki. There are two reasons: (1) the two Camps were close together as shown in the photo in the reference cited below. Many images in the category (such as those of the 70th Anniversary celebrations) will related to both camps, but there are some images that are particular to one or the other. Changing the existing Category name will enable some images to be put into new sub-categories. (2) The recognised name of the town near the former camps is Paekākāriki (spelled with macrons). Here is a citation: [1]. Marshelec (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshelec. * Oppose. Create a new category for Camp Russell, if needed. The spelling of the nearby town is a separate issue. If the town name is incorrect, a rename can be done. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic (?) and old (over three weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Crouch, Swale) rationale: this category to be moved to category:City of Newcastle, New South Wales, because: "The council of Category:City of Newcastle upon Tyne is just "Newcastle City Council" thus its often called "City of Newcastle"[2]". Date: 2022-08-18 Estopedist1 (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support per my reasoning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support plus DAB at original Category:City of Newcastle for the two uses. Josh (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. imo the title should be "by language pair" (singular) as per convention.
2. but, in addition, what's the analogous category title for cat:trilingual text or even more? it's surely not "pair". "by language group"? should we then use a single word/phrase for all bilingual, trilingual... cat titles? RZuo (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with language pair, but I don't think we need language group: there are only 6 dictionaries with more than two languages and none of them have the same combination of languages. There is really no need to categorize them beyond multilingual. --rimshot^talk 16:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, plural 'pairs' was a grammatical oversight. -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. I think this should be a redirect, and declined speedy deletion on that basis, but the category was renominated for speedy deletion. And:

• Category:Ünalan station
• Category:Tavşantepe metro station
• Category:Göztepe metro station (Istanbul)
• Category:Kadıköy metro station
• Category:Ünalan station

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support redirect of Category:Ünalan metro station to Category:Ünalan Station (is currently a double-redirect which needs fixing).  Delete Category:Ünalan station as it is just a capitalization difference, so no redirect is needed. Redirect the other three as well (Tavsantepe, Goztepe, Kadikoy). Josh (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cuz wrong name *angys* (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@*angys* Please clarify "wrong name" 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 19:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This entity is named as Sultan Abdul Halim, while "Hamid" is being wrongly created before.*angys* (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @*angys* and Timtrent: Category:Sultan Abdul Hamid (Butterworth) Ferry Terminal is now a redirect to the current Category:Sultan Abdul Halim Ferry Terminal. Is there anything else here that needs doing? Josh (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner I imagine this issue is solved by the redirect. The nominator has clarified the matter. It was a slightly odd nomination in that it lacked sufficient detail to allow anyone to make a decision except those who knew about it. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect name is not existing in real life, should be deleted*angys* (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially duplicate to Category:Ilham Aliyev in foreign countries A1Cafel (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

although turtles and tortoises are not quite the same [3], it is difficult to make this differenciation in sculpture. My proposal would be to merge the tortoise branch to the turtles branch Category:Statues of turtles. best Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nom. Enyavar (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could (maybe should) be renamed to "LLM-VarioRay" since that's the Rheinmetall product name (see here). Dvaderv2 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No issues with that as long as there's a redirect. Richard Symonds (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original category is supposed to automatically become a redirect according to Special:MovePage, isn't it?

Anyway, since you seem to have no objections, I'll get on with the move sometime on Monday or Tuesday. Dvaderv2 (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Twould be neat if someone could close the discussion so that I can get on with the move. --Dvaderv2 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of category:Trinity Methodist Church, Barnard Castle WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: The incorrect one could be redirected or deleted. I'm sure you know how to redirect. If you'd like it deleted, you could use the {{Bad name}} template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

categorizing independent objects (a glacier, a mountain) in a shared / combined category like this makes it difficult to find images of one of the objects, e.g. the mountain (you have to guess whether the image of the mountain will be with/out the glacier). It is not forbidden to use two separate categories on all of these images. It is not obvious for someone not knowing that combined category to use it at all, thus creating additional maintenance effort. I propose to resolve this category in favor of having two independent categories. Especially as the images for the glacier Pasterze are split by year anyway. Alternatively we could have category:Pasterze by viewpoint Kaiser-Franz-Josefs-Höhe and category:Johannisberg by viewpoint Kaiser-Franz-Josefs-Höhe. Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! --Kuhni74 (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem for me as well. Eweht (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of category:Old Church, Eggleston Hall WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: The incorrect one could be redirected or deleted. I'm sure you know how to redirect. If you'd like it deleted, you could use the {{Bad name}} template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Les items situés dans cette catégorie sont des chapelles, pas des églises ; il faut rectifier le nom de la catégorie (churches > chapels) Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Une fusion avec Category:Saint Anthony chapels in Haute-Corse serait en fait préférable. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved all the entries to the chapel category. This category is now empty, so it could be deleted at some point. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic (?) and old (over three weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:212.251.181.252) rationale: this category to be moved to category:ESRB classification by date, because: ""by age" suggests age of audienc". Date: 2022-01-23 Estopedist1 (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Trade (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made this category by accident when I wanted to make Category:1775 flood in the Netherlands and it can be removed. Hobbema (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to rename it to Category:Mountains in Salzburg, as for all siblings. On the abstract level we collect mountains here on Commons, there is not much sense to differ by unsharp and poorly defined classes of height. Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fight for keeping the name of categories like this, but nevertheless I want to remark: Calling a small hill of 10 meter's height a mountain is not correct, for it's obviously different from a 2000s mountain. They are distinct from each other in the same way as a small chapel is from a cathedral. Thus, there are "chapels" categories beside "churches" categories (although it's often hard to decide whether a certain building is a chapel or a church). I admit, it doesn't make much sense creating "hills" categories, but why not keep categories like this one in question? They summarize all kinds of elevations better than only "mountains" would do. Combining churches and chapels is done by "religious buildings" categories, but is "mountains" a hypernym for both "mountains" and "hills"? Eweht (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your motivation. I understand your motivation, but don't feel much common sense and miss necessary abstraction as well as uniformity in cat name structure in it. Differing between hills and mountains needs to propagate up the category tree, otherwise you will find all the hills of Salzburg in Category:Mountains of Salzburg (state) by municipality -> Category:Mountains of Salzburg (state) -> Category:Mountains of Austria by state -> Category:Mountains of Austria -> Category:Mountains by country -> Category:Mountains by location -> Category:Mountains - no hills up the cat tree. You should start to contribute to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/05/Category:Peaks in Pakistan, if you want to change that. See also [4] best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a synonym of Category:Local museums in Germany (it is also a subcategory of), and - at least from the heading - a mixture with also non-Germany museums. It is non-english with english plural. I propose to merge it to Category:Local museums in Germany and delete this cat to avoid further entries. Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the content is a disaster. Still, disagree on a full deletion: "Heimatmuseum <town name>" implies something different than "Stadtmuseum" or "Ortsmuseum", and is a subcategory of "Heimat" which is wrong to apply to other local museums. Just an example, Fröndenberg/Ruhr has two local museums, one about the former industrial history of the town, and one Heimatmuseum about all other local history. I see plenty other local museums that are not "Heimat".

• Counter-proposal 1: Make it a definition that only museums that are explicitly named Heimatmuseum/Heimatstube/Heimathaus/etc may be included, and that they are required to additionally be categorized under "Local museums of Germany/Austria/Switzerland". In that turn, move "Heimatmuseums in Bavaria" towards "Local museums in Germany". Then start recategorizing as per the new definitions.
• Counter-proposal 2: Categorize them all under the local museums as per the original idea. "Heimatmuseums" (and/or "Heimatmuseum" without plural-s) are kept but as disambiguation category pointing towards "local museums of...", so that future editors are guided towards the correct category. That disambiguation would also be categorized under "Heimat", again to point users to the correct cat-tree.

Do you agree with one of the proposals? I'm not sure which I would prefer, so I detailed both. Enyavar (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete "Heimatmuseums" as the plural form is nonsense in the linguistic sense; it simply a totally incorrect plural form. Delete this category completely, no redirect and move all content to Category:Local museums in Germany. --Msb (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, linguistically problematic, maybe  Keep as singular? de:Heimatmuseum shows that this is a subgroup of local museums (distinct from de:Stadtmuseum (Category:City museums, just for example). Having more experience now, I see both of my proposals last year as not the best idea: Instead Move all Germany-related content that is name-related to "Heimat" (-museum/-haus/-stube)" to Category:Heimatmuseum in Germany (same for "in Switzerland/Austria"), move all other content to local museums. --Enyavar (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it make sense to combine German terms and English terms in this way? "Heimatmuseum in Germany" sounds strange. Also, I can't quite follow your reasoning that a "Heimatmuseum" is something different from what is called a "local museum" in English. Msb (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each Heimatmuseum is a local museum, but not the other way around; and we have enough items here to make "Heimatmuseum" a reasonably large sub-category. Local museum is a much broader term, it comprises of anything local: a museum only about the local factory (Zigarrenfabrikmuseum, Industriemuseum) or even a local prison, like this castle/former prison: These are not about Heimat. Neither are Eulenspiegelmuseum (local legend) or Alamannenmuseum (local ancient tribe). The Heimatmuseum is usually located in smaller towns or villages, has displays of ordinary/folksy items collected from the region (instead of highly valuable objects), and has a tiny budget and no real theme/focus. Category:City museums are larger and usally also have more non-Heimat-related stuff. To distinguish one type of museum from the other, I really suggest just going by the names of the museum: Stadtmuseum, Heimatmuseum, Dorfmuseum; and anything else would be "local".

Also, there are plenty categories that mix languages, Maps of Landkreis.., Gravestone of Friedhof.. etc. But not in the same word, so I agree: no plural-S, please: Either "Heimatmuseum in Austria" or better, "Heimatmuseen in Austria". Best, --Enyavar (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples of language mixes are not striking since they reuse nomina propria of subjects. Hence "Heimatmuseum" is of different value here. All in all, I support to retransfer them to the "Local museum"-category branch. Your hybrid solutions with some variations of the german word "heimatmuseum" is not a good solution in my opinion. It has great potential to create confusion and inconsistencies in the category system. Alternatively, could you create an article on Commons that addresses this? Msb (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, maybe we should wait for another opinion, since I don't exactly get why you object to my proposal here. "Article" on Commons? You mean, a better category description text? Or do you mean, post the question on the Village pump? --Enyavar (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues:

1. name of the category in singular, should be in plural;
2. is this category precise enough to exist in Commons? What should be included here? Every category about compound that is classified as VOC (which would be define as...? definition of VOC is not very helpful here)? Right now there are two files in this category (both not used and of very low quality).

Wostr (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think using this category to contain other chemical compound categories would be useful. Nearly every low molecular weight organic compound (hundreds of categories, certainly) could fit that criteria. But I think this category could be useful in terms of categorizing files related to air quality. I've added a few more images to the category based on a quick search, to show how this category might look if properly utilized. I think it would be reasonable to Rename category to the plural Category:Volatile organic compounds or perhaps, to emphasize a focus on the air quality aspect, to Category:Volatile organic compound monitoring withdrawn per Leyo's comment below. Marbletan (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of the images contained in this category deal with emissions rather than monitoring. --Leyo 20:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 23 files in this category. Is there any opposition against moving the category to its plural form (Category:Volatile organic compounds) and to close this discussion? --Leyo 12:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I would recommend. Marbletan (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition, Rename category to plural. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo: I still think that this category is too imprecise for Commons, but moving it to plural is a must, if it is to be kept. Wostr (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I moved the category to its plural form for now. --Leyo 23:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 February 2016 User:~riley moved Category:Files from bertknot Flickr stream to Category:Photographs by Bert Knottenbeld. Their edit summary said, simply, "Standardization".

I upload a lot of photos, but I am unaware of the standard ~riley implies exists.

~riley then deleted the redirect. I am going to admonish him or her for doing so. That was disruptive.

Some flickr contributors are prolific, and lots of WMF contributors have uploaded those free flickr images here. That is terrific!

Now, some of those flickr contributors have also made available their image on other sites, or have personally uploaded some of them here. For others, most I would guess, their flickr account is the only source of free images.

In my opinion, when some of a photographer's photos find their way here in some way other than twitter, then there should be a category like Category:Photographs by Bert Knottenbeld, and the category for their flickr images, Category:Files from bertknot Flickr stream in this particular case, should be a subcategory of that.

I think it is interesting, and possibly useful, to know whether a photographers photos came to us via flickr. I think it is interesting, and possibly useful, to know when a photographers photos came to us from both flickr and other sites, how many of them came from flickr.

No offense ~riley, but I wondered whether your assertion that you were following a standard isn't an instance of a phenomenon I have noticed. Us experienced contributors can entrench ourselves in strong opinions as to what does and does not make sense. It can be very tempting to jump from one's strong opinion as to what does or doesn't make sense, to thinking that one's opinion is so obviously correct there is no point asking fro other's opinions, to jumping to thinking that it is a "standard".

What we often find here is not one universally agreed upon standard, but rather contributors who focus on one particular topic will locally agree one a convention, and mistakenly THINK it is a unversally agreed upon standard, unaware that other good faith contributors, who focus on other topics, have adopted an incompatible standard over there.

Categories are a messy way to organize photos. I wish I had something better to suggeset. But I don't. What the crappiness of categories means is that we have to keep in mind they are a mess, and not blithely act like our own notions are a universally agreed upon standard. Geo Swan (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this category redundant considering that MM-14 is an indigenous Ukrainian design and that no foreign users are apparent? Dvaderv2 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. If anything, remove Category:MM-14 (which I'd support) and put this in its place.

Category:ММ-14 camouflage pattern with red tint of the Ukrainian military could then become a sub-cat of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what're the differences between these three??

• Category:Bowls (drinking vessels)
• Category:Bowls (kitchenware)
• Category:Bowls (tableware) RZuo (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: Good evening, I do not understand why this is not clear : 1 is for drinking, 2 is for cooking, 3 is for presenting and serving food. None for washing hands or feet... sincerely, --Bohème (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: number 3 is also very useful for keeping all these discusting food bowls away. Kindly, --Bohème (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And how can you see on a photo which category should be used? There are 387 files in Category:Bowls (vessel) which should be moved to probably one of these three. JopkeB (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed up-merging the category to "Murals by country". I don't see the difference of by country and by country of location A1Cafel (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK JLVwiki (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arms by family name - not specific enough. Does it include French, German, Spanish heraldry? Duplicate of and better to use Category:Coats of arms of families of (... country), all well-established specific cats. There are 169 subcats in this category, whilst there are over 2,800 subcats in Category:Coats of arms of families of England and over 2,000 in Category:Coats of arms of families of Germany, all listed alphabetically by family name.

It appears that Category:Arms by family name is designed for English/Scottish/Irish arms (i.e. broadly speaking British arms). We already have 3 categories covering this area, namely Category:Coats of arms of families of England, Category:Coats of arms of families of Scotland, Category:Coats of arms of families of Ireland.

The rules of heraldry are set by each nation, all with different styles and traditions, there is no such thing as "British heraldry". English heraldry is regulated by the College of Arms in London (under the English heralds) and Scottish heraldry is regulated by the Lord Lyon King of Arms in Edinburgh.

What about English families with French names? Are French families to be included too? The category would be too large if every family in the world is able to be included, regardless of the nation concerned. These two over-lapping cats are confusing.

It is not difficult to determine what nationality a coat of arms relates to (generally the nation in which the family came to prominence historically), and then to add it to the relevant nation's cat. There exist Category:Coats of arms of families of France, Category:Coats of arms of families of Germany, etc, for all of Europe. Arms can appear in two cats, for example Bentinck, a family which achieved prominence in three countries, Netherlands, England and Germany Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OVERCAT Delete and upmerge to Category:Condensing steam locomotives. Not everything needs to be split by country and this is such a small group overall that it's merely adding layers of navigation to no purpose.

Likewise for Category:Steam motor locomotives by country Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to be a huge expansion, and clearly one editor, 27.215.57.147 (talk · contribs), is out to split every sub-category down into a '... by country' tree. Even such as obscure things as Category:2-10-4 locomotives by country and Category:Streamlined steam motor locomotives by country that are well under SMALLCAT. Care to talk about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steam locomotives with boxpok wheels by country This is getting ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category too vague and ill-defined. Contents moved elsewhere to clearer cats Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobsterthermidor: Please restore removed content so we can evaluate your proposal. Only remove content once the CfD is closed with a consensus to do so. Josh (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose until contents restored so it can be evaluated. Josh (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete title sounds like a convoluted way of saying Category:Coats of arms by country. RZuo (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion, too vague. Contents moved to Cats:Heraldry by religion & Heraldry by country Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobsterthermidor: Please restore removed content so we can evaluate your proposal. Only remove content once the CfD is closed with a consensus to do so. Josh (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose until contents restored so it can be evaluated. Josh (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion, too vague, contents moved to Category:Charges in heraldry by subject and to more specific sub-cats Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobsterthermidor: Please restore removed content so we can evaluate your proposal. Only remove content once the CfD is closed with a consensus to do so. Josh (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose until contents restored so it can be evaluated. Josh (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This strikes me as a poor choice of names. Category:Stone Distillery, Toronto, or Category:Stone building in Toronto's Distillery District, or a whole bunch of other names would all be superior. The trouble with broad names like Category:Stone Distillery is that anyone who comes across a stone distillery, anywhere, could try this category name, and assume it was appropriate, without actually checking to see if there multiple locations with a stone distillery. Geo Swan (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Geo Swan: Is the building, location, or company in question actually named "Stone Distillery", or is the term merely descriptive? If it is the proper name, then the category should be kept as is so long as we do not have media of another place with the same proper name. If not, then it should be renamed to reflect the actual building name (or street address). Josh (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Joshbaumgartner - Well, I have lived half a kilometre away, for over thirty years, and I have never heard it called, simply, "Stone Distillery". No, this is not a definitive test.

Category:Stone building in Toronto's Distillery District remains my preferred name. That district has street names, now. But I don't believe they are the original street names, or street numbering, because the whole campus was private property, for a long time, including the streets and alleys.

Originally, it was owned by Gooderham and Wortz. If I am not mistaken, the building now houses a museum, on the lower floors, and commercial tenants on the upper floors. Geo Swan (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with using the descriptive rename you propose, as it doesn't sound like "Stone Distillery" is a proper name...there isn't exactly a sign on/by the building with "Stone Distillery" as far as I am aware. Since no opposition has been posted in almost a year, you should be good closing this and moving forward with the rename. Josh (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical" is nonsensical in this context. This category has been created simply to avoid having scans of "Natural History of the Nightingale - John Legg" in the main category about the species. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The item is from 1779, that's historical by any sense of the word. The category could also be used for historical (out-of-copyright) photos and suchlike that are eligible for Commons but of low demand among using wikipedias; it's a useful subcategory type used in many other taxon categories - MPF (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When does historical end? 100 years ago? 50? Will you be moving all the images of the species of that age to his category? Since when do we categorise images or anything else according to "demand among using Wikipedias"? The only other category named "[taxon name] (historical files)" is Category:Medicago sativa (historical files), which is your own recent creation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of other subcategories have ill-defined or undefinable start- or end-points. Two options for defining 'historical' here, (a) historical is for files that are copyright-expired (with only a few exceptions [e.g. US-gov PD] a long gap to non-historical files starting with the creation of GNU and Creative Commons licensing), and (b) historical being for scanned material predating digital technology (less well defined by date, but actually gives a better break between generally low quality scans of printed material, and generally higher quality digital photos). There are lots of other categories named "[taxon name] (historical images)" and also "[place name] (historical images)". Currently Commons has very few historical non-image texts categorised by taxa, but that may change as more old scientific publications become available. - MPF (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we categorise, within subjects, by copyright status? Or by "born digital" status? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation is by whatever is most useful, so that similar items are grouped together. If someone wants to look specifically for a historical image, it is useful if they can all be gathered together in one subcategory, rather than interspersed among less similar files. - MPF (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: I agree with sorting material by age, but it is more useful if people actually know what age of material we are talking about. This is why categorization by century/decade/year (as appropriate for the topic) is far superior to subjective terms such 'old', 'historical', etc., as then users can instantly know exactly what age of material is covered by a category. Josh (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Pigsonthewing: I have added Category:Medicago sativa (historical files) to this discussion. Likewise, it should be deleted and replaced (if needed) by categorization by century/decade/year, as is standard for sorting material by age. Josh (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Just about every file is historical, which makes it automatically subjective as to exactly how historical it has to be to count as historical. This is why we temporally categorize by year, which is not subjective. This cat should be deleted, and if sorting out material this old makes sense, place it in Category:Luscinia megarhynchos in the 18th century instead which would be much more clear about what age we are talking about. Josh (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: - that would make sense, if we had hundreds, or even dozens, of such files; at the moment, we don't. It makes better sense to gather all such files in one category while there are still very few of them, rather than have numerous tiny subcategories cluttering up the taxon main category. Can you think of category name that would cover all such, and would be as compact as 'historical'? Further subcategories can always be created in the future should the number of files to go in them increase substantially. Not that my thoughts matter anyway, given that I've been labelled as a disruptive editor and don't have much wish to continue editing as a result. - MPF (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is precisely one entry in Category:Luscinia megarhynchos (historical files). It makes sense to leave it in Category:Luscinia megarhynchos.

Where were you "labelled as a disruptive editor", and by whom? I told you "your removal of such files [including PDFs & audio] to inappropriate categories [ending in " (illustrations)"], apparently because you want to keep parent categories for images in 'demand among using wikipedias', is not 'correct', it is disruptive.". It is; and "disruptive" is an adjective you yourself have used to describe others' edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. And to which named individual are you claiming that was aimed at?? How to p*ss off a long-established editor in one easy lesson. The antithesis of being kind. What is your reason for wanting to bully me off Commons? - MPF (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Natural History of the Nightingale - John Legg" is an article, which goes under "literature", which goes under ".. in art".

so if it's really necessary to create an extra layer for this single subcat, it should be "Luscinia megarhynchos in art" or "nightingales in art" first. this will go under Category:Birds in art by taxon. since nightingale is quite a popular theme in art, i think this subcat is ok and will fill up soon, even though its current contents might not be plenty.

"historical" should be mostly avoided.

@MPF, Pigsonthewing, and Joshbaumgartner: moving to "Luscinia megarhynchos in art", agree or disagree? RZuo (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: I am fine with that. Josh (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I don't believe that's how most people interpret - or use - our "in art" categories. Particluarly when the literature is scientific, or descriptive, rather than creative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pigsonthewing Category:Literature->Category:Literature by genre->Category:Non-fiction literature->Category:Scientific literature... happy? RZuo (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the reason already stated. I also note that Category:Literature‎ is not a subcategory of Category:Art. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good For You. RZuo (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As "Julto Pul" means "Hanging Bridge", the name is tautologous, and should be just "Julto Pul", or "Julto Pul, Morbi" if disambiguatuon is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this category, whatever is correct is fine with me. Thanks, Hmains (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Andy. In a quick search couldn't find any other bridge called "Julto Pul". —Frodar (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gujarati article gu:ઝૂલતો પુલ, મોરબી, the bridge is titled as the "Julto Pul Morbi" (Morbi suspension bridge). Preferably, the category name should be translated and changed to English as the "Category:Morbi suspension bridge". The current category name as it stands, makes no sense. Multituberculata (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Julto Pul Hanging Bridge to Category:Morbi Suspension Bridge per comments of Multituberculata (talk · contribs) with proper noun capitalization. Josh (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Julto Pul Hanging Bridge to Category:Morbi Suspension Bridge for the aforementioned reasons. Multituberculata (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed, misleading. "Cobblestones" are something specific, not a generic term for all pavement. I tried to bring this up on the talk page Category_talk:Wooden_cobblestones a few years ago. Category:Wooden pavements would seem the correct general category; possibly a subcategory "Wooden street pavements" might be of use, other subcategories could be created if someone felt them useful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrogmation: The word "cobblestones" is an attempt at a literal translation of the European term, which includes a surface made of pieces of paving (from various materials), but not a cast pavement (asphalt, concrete etc.). It should mean a paving from wooden cubes ("wooden cobbles"), but not a floor from wooden boards (planks) or flat parquet blocks. According to my dictionary, the word paving should have a narrower meaning than pavement in this sense, but is it really so? Could "wooden paving" be more fitting? Are you sure that the term "wooden cobbles" is not used for this historical type of paving? You can find some occurrences by Google. --ŠJů (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm sure that this is not the actual term. (Trying to accurately categorize images on Wikimedia helped inspire me to get into 19th and 20th century street furniture history and terminology.) In recent decades "cobblestone" seems to have informally become a generic term used by non-experts for non-continuous types of pavements, especially historical - but in many cases that is not the correct term, either historically nor by modern people who work professionally with these materials. (Eg, brick streets are not "cobblestones", nor are stone sett pavements... but for now let's deal with wooden blocks and such.) Let's try to use accurate terms in Wikimedia. Wooden block pavement (or wooden block pavers) would be the term for square or rectangular types. (See also en:w:Nicolson pavement, though I'm not sure if that term was much used outside of the USA, so I think it better to keep to the general term). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They could be wooden setts, but (as noted) never wooden cobblestones. But as we seem to have wooden pavements, isn't that sufficient? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to creation of "Wooden block pavements" as a subcategory of "Wooden pavements"; seems to be what was intended. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Category:Wooden pavements ? "Block" is implicit, as how else could it be? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden plank pavements eg File:Call of Heroes 2016 (011).jpg, File:Деревянная мостовая у парка атракционов в Мурманске.jpg; also Category:Corduroy roads. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have created Category:Wooden block pavements. Other subcategories, such as geographic, might be created if someone found that useful. Main point is that this category name seems to have been created from a mistaken understanding of terminology. (Cobblestones eg are by nature irregularly shaped and sized, rather the opposite of wooden blocks. I suppose it might be possible to make imitations of cobblestones out of wood, but I see zero photos of that here.) Since the existence of "wooden cobblestones" is hypothetical at best, and the name as applied mistaken or misleading, I suggest moving the media in this category to "Category:Wooden pavements" (or relevant subcategories of this if wished). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support for the last proposal presented above by Infrogmation. Keep the current category as a redirect to "Wooden (block) pavements". --Enyavar (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are no objections or modified suggestions, I will start moving media in accordance with the above after another week or so. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]