The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: We dont categorise people by place of birth. We use "people from" which is deliberately ambiguous. Both articles are already in appropriate categories.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not categorize people by place of birth. We categorize them by where they are "from". Exactly how long you have to be in a place is not clear. However this would lead to categorizing people born in a place if their parents were on a short-term vacation there, or even in some cases a day long plane layover.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Daimler AG
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The Daimler AG company was renamed earlier today as Mercedes-Benz Group. I suggest that in the main category and all the subcategories containing the text "Daimler AG" it should be replaced with "Mercedes-Benz Group".
Urbanoc (
talk)
18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Hint: the corporation section that produces trucks has been split off to an own stock market noted company some time ago and thus should not be included. --
Just N. (
talk)
14:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Democratic Labor Party members of the Parliament of Australia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:North American traditional music
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Folk music is a more consistent term than traditional music is, and is also more common to refer to this kind of music.
YellowJelly (
talk)
13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Isn't it problematic to subsum all traditional music as folk. Especially in the US a lot of them are IMHO unclear if they are not Alt Country or 'Americana' instead. If this is right we should rather keep 'traditional'. --
Just N. (
talk)
14:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Neither Alt Country nor Americana are folk/traditional music, and all "traditional music" under this is already also folk, so I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are trying to make, sorry. --
YellowJelly (
talk)
22:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as the "traditional music" articles/categories on the wiki refer to a hardly separable mixture of folk and classic/art music (mostly found in Asian cultures). This category is not intended to group classical music.
Solidest (
talk)
20:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I recommend that this category be deleted, and all accompanied images in the category get the {{Should be SVG}} tag removed. Tagging non-free images with this template is at odds with our non-free content policy. Per
WP:NFC: ... editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder.
Having these images tagged as such leads editors to believe that it is okay to have non-free logos vectorized by themselves or other users; I believed so for a long time, and such requests are made regularly at
Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. The only proper use of this category would be so that users know what non-free raster images exist, such that it would be nice if the copyright holder has released a vector version of said image – something that more-often-than-not does not exist. In all, the category serves almost no purpose and leads to misconceptions about Wikipedia's policy on non-free SVG logos. –
Pbrks(
t •
c)23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my nomination - After some thinking, simply deleting the category would likely not fix this issue. Changes have been made to {{Should be SVG}} in efforts to dispel any confusion about the vectorization of non-free logos. –
Pbrks(
t •
c)00:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Artist skateboarders
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge to
Category:Skateboarders. This is a trivial intersection. It appears cover musicians and other performers who like skateboarding and may also do it professionally. There might be scope for skateboarding performers, where skateboarding is part of the performance.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
User-created public domain files
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support and thank you for doing this! This was also discussed at
Template talk:PD-self#No Commons, and as such, I'll ping MGA73,
Magog the Ogre, and
Elli, all of whom also participated in that discussion. I said there that there's no point in creating monthly maintenance categories when we won't be able to do anything to maintain them for decades, and I still feel that way. Also note that if this passes,
Template:PD-user will need updating. -BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK)19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Support The idea about sorting the files in months was that it would be easier to check the files and move them to Commons (or nominate for deletion in unusable) if there were perhaps 100 or 1,000 files in the category instead of 137,000 files (or how many there was originally). I think we can easily live without the month categories now.
The idea about putting files that could not be moved to Commons in a different category is that otherwise users would keep checking those files only to find out the file could not be moved. I think that is still a good idea but there is no reason to sort them in month categories either. --
MGA73 (
talk)
21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: We dont categorise people by place of birth. We use "people from" which is deliberately ambiguous. Both articles are already in appropriate categories.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not categorize people by place of birth. We categorize them by where they are "from". Exactly how long you have to be in a place is not clear. However this would lead to categorizing people born in a place if their parents were on a short-term vacation there, or even in some cases a day long plane layover.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Daimler AG
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The Daimler AG company was renamed earlier today as Mercedes-Benz Group. I suggest that in the main category and all the subcategories containing the text "Daimler AG" it should be replaced with "Mercedes-Benz Group".
Urbanoc (
talk)
18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Hint: the corporation section that produces trucks has been split off to an own stock market noted company some time ago and thus should not be included. --
Just N. (
talk)
14:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Democratic Labor Party members of the Parliament of Australia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:North American traditional music
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Folk music is a more consistent term than traditional music is, and is also more common to refer to this kind of music.
YellowJelly (
talk)
13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Isn't it problematic to subsum all traditional music as folk. Especially in the US a lot of them are IMHO unclear if they are not Alt Country or 'Americana' instead. If this is right we should rather keep 'traditional'. --
Just N. (
talk)
14:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Neither Alt Country nor Americana are folk/traditional music, and all "traditional music" under this is already also folk, so I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are trying to make, sorry. --
YellowJelly (
talk)
22:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as the "traditional music" articles/categories on the wiki refer to a hardly separable mixture of folk and classic/art music (mostly found in Asian cultures). This category is not intended to group classical music.
Solidest (
talk)
20:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I recommend that this category be deleted, and all accompanied images in the category get the {{Should be SVG}} tag removed. Tagging non-free images with this template is at odds with our non-free content policy. Per
WP:NFC: ... editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com or Brands of the World where the vectorisation of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder.
Having these images tagged as such leads editors to believe that it is okay to have non-free logos vectorized by themselves or other users; I believed so for a long time, and such requests are made regularly at
Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. The only proper use of this category would be so that users know what non-free raster images exist, such that it would be nice if the copyright holder has released a vector version of said image – something that more-often-than-not does not exist. In all, the category serves almost no purpose and leads to misconceptions about Wikipedia's policy on non-free SVG logos. –
Pbrks(
t •
c)23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my nomination - After some thinking, simply deleting the category would likely not fix this issue. Changes have been made to {{Should be SVG}} in efforts to dispel any confusion about the vectorization of non-free logos. –
Pbrks(
t •
c)00:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Artist skateboarders
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge to
Category:Skateboarders. This is a trivial intersection. It appears cover musicians and other performers who like skateboarding and may also do it professionally. There might be scope for skateboarding performers, where skateboarding is part of the performance.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
User-created public domain files
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support and thank you for doing this! This was also discussed at
Template talk:PD-self#No Commons, and as such, I'll ping MGA73,
Magog the Ogre, and
Elli, all of whom also participated in that discussion. I said there that there's no point in creating monthly maintenance categories when we won't be able to do anything to maintain them for decades, and I still feel that way. Also note that if this passes,
Template:PD-user will need updating. -BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK)19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Support The idea about sorting the files in months was that it would be easier to check the files and move them to Commons (or nominate for deletion in unusable) if there were perhaps 100 or 1,000 files in the category instead of 137,000 files (or how many there was originally). I think we can easily live without the month categories now.
The idea about putting files that could not be moved to Commons in a different category is that otherwise users would keep checking those files only to find out the file could not be moved. I think that is still a good idea but there is no reason to sort them in month categories either. --
MGA73 (
talk)
21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.