###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q50347426: Q50347426 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Only sitelink to Commons --- Jura 15:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC) On hold This item is linked from 1 other. -- DeltaBot ( talk ) 15:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : Be mindful of the first point of WD:N . Mahir256 ( talk ) 16:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Keep many, see hugely, item onlyone link and several have no link. And Paris = Q90 but Category:Paris = Q5626403, It's not the same thing. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 16:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC) 1) It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page , I do not understand the problem Camulogene77 ( talk ) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : Please read it more carefully. In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. Mahir256 ( talk ) 16:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC) yes, on main article items . But a category page in Wikimedia Commons has no connection, it's normal ? Camulogene77 ( talk ) 17:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 1) It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page , I do not understand the problem Camulogene77 ( talk ) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : Please read it more carefully. In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. Mahir256 ( talk ) 16:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC) yes, on main article items . But a category page in Wikimedia Commons has no connection, it's normal ? Camulogene77 ( talk ) 17:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : Please read it more carefully. In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. Mahir256 ( talk ) 16:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC) yes, on main article items . But a category page in Wikimedia Commons has no connection, it's normal ? Camulogene77 ( talk ) 17:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Merge to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) per Jheald. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 09:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC) please note the access problem before generalizing a disaster, all links in question will disappear from commons galleries. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 09:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC) please note the access problem before generalizing a disaster, all links in question will disappear from commons galleries. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 09:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 1) It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page , I do not understand the problem Camulogene77 ( talk ) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : Please read it more carefully. In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. Mahir256 ( talk ) 16:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC) yes, on main article items . But a category page in Wikimedia Commons has no connection, it's normal ? Camulogene77 ( talk ) 17:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : Please read it more carefully. In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. Mahir256 ( talk ) 16:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC) yes, on main article items . But a category page in Wikimedia Commons has no connection, it's normal ? Camulogene77 ( talk ) 17:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : Please read it more carefully. In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. Mahir256 ( talk ) 16:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC) yes, on main article items . But a category page in Wikimedia Commons has no connection, it's normal ? Camulogene77 ( talk ) 17:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Camulogene77 : This wording change was made by a zh-N, en-2 speaker long ago. We understand "main article item" to mean an item in the main namespace (Q items). The last discussion about this issue of Commons category notability was held in November . @ Jheald :, as the writer of that proposal. Mahir256 ( talk ) 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) @ Mahir256 , Jura1 , Camulogene77 : I would suggest deleting this item, and instead site-linking the Commons category directly to Ploumanac'h lighthouse (Q2084981) .  That is the de-facto accepted situation for most Commons categories at the moment, unless there is some other compelling reason to create a category item -- which in this case I do not see any evidence of. However, we probably do need to update current guidance to confirm that this is the recommended approach, so it is much clearer what is expected, especially to new users.  What I wrote in November appeared to attract broad support, but unfortunately fell off Project Chat and got archived before it was sufficiently resolved to move to a formal close.  I apologise for not having pursued it more thoroughly then; but from this it's clear that there's still a real and urgent need to bring the proposal back again, to properly clarify what is now the situation properly and the community's will.  So I will now aim to put up a text quite similar to that in November, probably at Talk:Notability, this time as a fully-consituted formal RfC that will have a proper close.  I hope to file that later today or tomorrow. Jheald ( talk ) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Commons category directly to item , it would be completely denormalized, why mix the item and its category (obviously, you have not noticed the problem of access to the label of the item). Why a wikipedia category can be the only link but not for commons? categories are created except for commons? all pages, of all wiki projects (especially the element and its category) should not be linked? If the category takes the place of the gallery, where should the gallery be placed and the category replaced by the gallery, where does the category go? In wiki projects, the element and its category are two things well distinguished, why do differamentally? do we respect habits or there will necessarily be problems. Camulogene77 ( talk ) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC) you decide to change the function of wikidata, when it suits you. The elements and their categories are two separate things in all the projects brother, but not in wikidata, who can it allow? You do not weigh on collateral damage. why not do things right from the start? Camulogene77 ( talk ) 14:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)