Commons:Categories for discussion/2019

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

January 2019

Category:San Pedro de Atacama

[edit]

A problem with Category:San Pedro de Atacama: It is both about a commune of Chile, larger than many countries (23 439 km²), and about its capital and namesake, a small town of less than 5000 inhabitants that covers less than 10 km² (this follows the duplicit definition of the English Wikipedia entry: «San Pedro de Atacama is a Chilean town and commune in El Loa Province, Antofagasta Region.»; my bolding). This photo was taken in the town, apparently, showing a remote view of mountains that are located within the much vaster commune the town is the capital of. It seems that splitting of this cat is necessary. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Category:San Pedro de Atacama (commune) (in Category:Communes in Antofagasta Region) and Category:San Pedro de Atacama (town) (in both Category:San Pedro de Atacama (commune) and Category:Towns in Chile) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We might we wise to create Category:Populated places in Antofagasta Region and each of the other regions as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will recommend to keep the existing category and not to split it in "commune" and "populated place". It will be harder to find photos of places of interest if distinguished between political, habitational and geographical zones. The geographical aspect of this category should prevail. The populated places of San Pedro de Atacama are villages named as Conde Duque, Quitor, Sequitor, etc. (about 19) that partially isolated but together form the populated center by tourists known as San Pedro, and others like Machuca, Toconao, Socaire, Peine, Tilomonte, and so on (about 12), that are isolated places up to 100 km and more away from it. Those with photos available have their own subcategories. WeHaKa (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WeHaKa: I think a well organized category tree always makes it easier to find something you are looking for. (What if someone is looking for images of the village, not the whole commune?). A less organized one, like this, might make it easier to stumble upon a nice photo of "place of interest", but I don't think that's the purpose of categorization. You could create a gallery image to accomplish that goal. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Themightyquill. Besides, what about some one needing photos of any Chilean (or, more strictly, Antofagastan) town — why should they have to rummage through photos of natural landscapes that would be (and are now) mixed in any subcat deep search? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin, Themightyquill, and WeHaKa: Closed (objection noted but geographic categorization is normally heirarchical, so such concern applies to all geographic sub-categorization; move Category:San Pedro de Atacama to Category:San Pedro de Atacama (commune)) Josh (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Joshbaumgartner: I think that Category:San Pedro de Atacama should be a disambiguation, not a redirect, but my point was procedural, not topical: I think that you, as some one who is not an admin, should not just close the discussion yourself, especially when there was no clear consensus, and especially when you feel you need to add an explanation (indeed: one more opinion) as the closing remark. If a non-admid can close a CfD, which I’m not sure about, at least let be those where there’s no doubts left about what to do among all participants. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: I understand your concerns. There is no reason Category:San Pedro de Atacama cannot be a disambiguation, and sorry if my comment somehow gave you the idea it should not be one. As for the issue of admin closure of CfDs, there is nothing in the process that specifies an admin as being required to close a category (see COM:CFD): "Typically, only users experienced in category discussions should close a discussion. However, if the discussion has led to a very clear consensus, other users should feel free to do so. The following is the normal process to close a discussion. Not all steps are necessarily required nor need they be done on the same day, but in general this is the appropriate order." The word 'very' is ill-defined, but having been involved in several hundred CfDs and having closed hundreds of them, I do have some experience in category discusssions. Reading the second sentence, it is clear that even users who are not experienced in category discussions may indeed close them, though for less-experienced users, they should only do so if the consensus is very clear. In this case, I saw a clear case made by yourself and Themightyquill for the normal structure to be applied to this category. A third user expressed concerns which were answered by Themightyquill and that user did not express any further concern in the following 6 months. The heirarchical structure of geographic categories is quite a broad consensus in and of itself. Josh (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: It is important to note that closure of a CfD is not akin to a court judgement or referee call. It is not the final say on the matter. It is merely moving forward with what at that moment appears to be the consensus and that can be reversed or re-opened for discussion at any time either to evaluate new cases or new opinions, or even if it merely seems like the original closure did not turn out the way it was intended. Nothing done as a result of a CfD such as this one is irreversable or damaging. If we had been talking about deleting a whole category tree, that would be one thing, and indeed the threshold for closure would have been much higher, as it would have required much more work to revert. But in a case like this where the created sub-category can easily be re-merged if the decision is reversed does not warrant keeping endlessly open. Josh (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: That all said, I have no problem, upon your objection, with keeping the CfD open for any further comments. As I understand you, you do support the "commune/town" split, and I would clarify that Category:San Pedro de Atacama should become a dab for them. Josh (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings in The J. Paul Getty Museum

[edit]

Redundant. Merge the it into Category:Paintings in the Getty Center and subcategories Multichill (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, First there are 2 different things, the Getty Center and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Then I think we need to differentiate images made by Getty, and images made by others. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I moved all categories under Category:J. Paul Getty Museum. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the J. Paul Getty Museum is an institution composed of the Category:Getty Center and the Category:Getty Villa‎. I would suggest we categorize like this:

...but delete Category:Paintings in The J. Paul Getty Museum, Category:Sculptures in The J. Paul Getty Museum, and probably Category:Illuminated manuscripts in the J. Paul Getty Museum‎ too. Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Auntof6, and Yann:  Question Where do paintings from this category go if they are in neither the Getty Center or Getty Villa, or if it is unknown which of those they are in at the time? Josh (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere, that's why I think deleting this is not really a good idea. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recategorized all files previously in Category:Paintings in The J. Paul Getty Museum into their corresponding category in Getty Center or Getty Villa. Considering that the vast majority of Getty Villa paintings are by unknown artists, I redirected Category:Paintings in The J. Paul Getty Museum by artist to Category:Paintings in the Getty Center by artist. DEGA MD (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Summer holidays

[edit]

Are this category and its subcategory about holidays in the sense of "holy days", or in the sense of leisure/vacation? If the latter, the contents should be recategorized because the holiday categories are for the former meaning. Auntof6 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to close and redirected to Category:Summer vacation, but now I'm having second thoughts. Category:Vacations links to Category:Tourism whereas summer holidays/vacation might simply indicate leisure time without activity/travel, etc. I wonder if we might move to Category:Summer break like Category:Spring break. We might create Category:Leisure times as a parent category for these (and Category:Weekend? and Category:Holidays?) - Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 and Benzoyl: What do you think of Category:Summer break? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I don't know. The more I look at it, the more I think a lot of this content doesn't need to be specifically under vacation, and maybe not under summer, either. An example is File:Dinosaur — Wall, South Dakota (7155779812).jpg: that may have been photographed during someone's summer vacation, but it's a general image of what I assume is a tourist attraction and it doesn't illustrate summer vacation. (Although now that I look at the date, it looks like it was photographed in May, so it wasn't during summer anyway.) --Auntof6 (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: 21:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC) I agree Category:Summer break. This is nice idea. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Benzoyl: I see that you renamed Category:Summer holidays in Japan to Category:Summer vacation in Japan. Please try not to rename categories that are currently being discussed. I don't think the new name fits, either. For example, some of the images of trains were photographed in summer, but there's nothing in those images that specifically says "summer" or "vacation". Another is of people doing homework: that doesn't seem to illustrate summer or vacation, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trains - Special events during Summer vacation. And, Homework - for (= during) en:Summer vacation (ja:夏休み) --Benzoyl (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Benzoyl: Are those trains used only for special summer vacation events? If so, it would be better if they were in a category for those events (like there are images in the summer camp categories), and that category were under summer vacation. Otherwise, they're just trains that are used for a lot of different things. If I went to New York City on my summer vacation and took a picture of the Empire State Building, there wouldn't be anything in the picture that illustrated summer or vacation: it would just be a picture of the building. Just because I happened to take the picture on my own personal summer vacation, that doesn't make it a summer vacation picture for Commons purposes. I wonder if something similar is the case with a lot of the images in the summer vacation categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Auntof6 has a point. Aside from Category:Summer camps and possibly File:Paris - 11 rue Augereau - Café de Mars - 20140813 (1).jpg, I don't see anything that needs to be in this category. Someone camping or being a tourist during the summer may also be doing it on the weekend, rather than summer break. There might, however, be other content that does fit here. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Category:Holiday camps to this discussion, because I think it has the same issue as my original point. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. It is a difficult CFD, but just some notices:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rivers of the United States by name by state

[edit]

I don't think this category is needed, at least not under its current name. The name implies that it's for different rivers in different states (something like "Rivers in <state> by name"), but it's for rivers that flow through multiple states. I suppose it could be called something like "Multi-state rivers of the United States" , but I don't know if the category is helpful at all. Auntof6 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is useful or not, but if kept, the correct organization would be:
Since the content is currently reversed from this, it was probably a misunderstanding of how to use 'by X by Y' categories (one I shared when first trying to use them). Josh (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the confusion issue already mentioned, this editor does not believe this category is necessary or even very useful. There are many larger rivers that are usefully divided in subcategories by state. However, since even the longest of them does not have more than a dozen states, these subcategories should be the first listed in the river's main category, not in a separate (by state) subcategory.
As far as the related category (Rivers of the United States by state by name), few states (if any) have a sufficient number of rivers to justify a separate category "by name" (Alaska included). If the list included all bodies of flowing water within a given state (creeks, streams, arroyos, etc.) there would likely be justification for such categories. An Errant Knight (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sheikhs from al-Azhar

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Sheikhs of al-Azhar.

We also have Category:Sheikhs of al-Azhar, opened by the same editor who opened this cat. I have a difficulty in understanding some of their contributions, like these ones. E4024 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologise if you find any difficulty. Sheikhs from al-Azhar means muslim scholars who have received their education at al-Azhar شيخ من الأزهر at a part time of their life. They are from all the islamic world. While Sheikh of al-Azhar شيخ الأزهر means yhe head of al-Azhar. Just recently, maybe in the last 20-30 years the Shekh of al-Azhar is refered to as Grand Imam of al-Azhar الإمام الأكبر. Al-Azhar is the largest Islamic University. In the past and until today, it teaches both religious and non-religuous sciences. The category is clear for Arabic speakers and for those studying Muslim studies. Sheikhs of al-Azhar is always one person, usually during his lifetime, same as the pope, usually of Egyptian origin. Sheikhs from al-Azhar are from allover the world. They used to add the suffix "al-Azhari" to their name. Regards. --Ashashyou (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Since one and a half year, this cat is only under Category:Sheikhs from Egypt and Category:Scholars from Egypt. Do I have to remind you that you opened the cat? I frankly recommend you to give a recess to editing Commons and use that time to try to understand our categorization system. --E4024 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashashyou: Wouldn't Category:Sheikhs from al-Azhar fit under Category:Al-Azhar University alumni? I think a rename would also be a good idea. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Azhar teaching system is a stand alone complete eucational system. The University is only one of the modern components. The First al-Azhar University was only established in the 1960s. Before the University establishment the education used to be in the al-Azhar Mosque. Currently there is "Azhari" primary, intermediate, and high schools. There count in Egypt (i think) is more than 20,000 educational institutes. They are not part of the al-Azhar University. But they are under the al-Azhar Mosque adminstration. Not all al-Azhar undergraduate schools alumni got the chance to get University education. The Shekhs from al-Azhar contain those may not have graduated from the University, plus those who are products of al-Azhar education before official"naming" of the al-Azhar University. I would like to mention that there is actually more than one al- Azhar University with separate colleges and faculties. There are Three major Azhar Universities. Azhar University in Cairo, Azhar University in Assuit (est. 1960s), Azhar University in New Damietta (est. Around 1980). As of Azhar universities outside Egypt: There is Azhar University in Palestine (est. around 1990s), i Think also there is Azhar University in Malaysia, and another Azhar University in Kazakhstan or Qirghizstan but not sure. All are under adminstration or supervision of al-Azhar. Each University has its own separate full adminstration. There's also some minor stand alone postgrad Azhar colleges e.g. at Tafahna al- Ashraf & Desouk.

Anyone both Egyptians or non-Egyptian who received a full degree or some significant education that doesn't end with a degree, e.g. "Rewaya" by attending the Fajr classic conventional non-degree ending education at the Mosque, all can use the title of alAzhari meaning a Sheikh from al-Azhar. Regards--Ashashyou (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ashashyou. I still wouldn't say that's 100% clear because it's all very foreign to me, but it does make some sense. If this category is not purely for people associated with Al-Azhar University, it shouldn't be a sub-category of Category:Al-Azhar University. Perhaps we need something like Category:Al-Azhar educational system or just Category:Al-Azhar educatoin (like Category:Montessori education?) as a sub-category of Category:Al-Azhar Mosque? And then, something like Category:People associated with Al-Azhar educational system would be closest to what you're using here. That said, I'm not sure what we normally categorize people according to where they have received some education. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashashyou and Themightyquill: It seems to me that where a person was educated is not material to most any of the actual media on the site, and I ask how does the media we have depict being 'from al-Azhar'? If it doesn't than what is the point of all of this category-building and maintaining? It may be straightforward for someone with a degree from Al-Azhar University to be under Category:Al-Azhar University alumni, so fair enough, but do we really need to categorize people under every school or organization they ever had even the most brief association with?   Josh (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an issue here. Azhar University contain both relidious and non religious schools. The word Azhar University is usually referring to the modern form of the classic teaching institute the "Azhar Mosque". The word Sheikh refers to a religious scholar, a head of a clan, a head of a profrssion...etc. No one refers to doctors graduated from Al-Azhar University school of Medicine as Sheikhs, same for engineers graduated from Azhar uni school of engineering and so on. The word sheikh is not given to all graduates of Azhar University. Also other religous scholars might not be graduates from Azhar University. For example they may be graduates from other institutes as Dar al-Ulum school of Cairo University. And so on. I hope this made it clear.--Ashashyou (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sheikhs of al-Azhar

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Sheikhs from al-Azhar.

We also have Category:Sheikhs from al-Azhar, opened by the same editor who opened this cat. I have a difficulty in understanding some of their contributions, like these ones. E4024 (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologise if you find any difficulty. Sheikhs from al-Azhar means muslim scholars who have received their education at al-Azhar شيخ من الأزهر at a part time of their life. They are from all the islamic world. While Sheikh of al-Azhar شيخ الأزهر means the head of al-Azhar. Just recently, maybe in the last 20-30 years the Shekh of al-Azhar is refered to as Grand Imam of al-Azhar الإمام الأكبر. Al-Azhar is the largest Islamic University. In the past and until today, it teaches both religious and non-religuous sciences. The category is clear for Arabic speakers and for those studying Muslim studies. Sheikhs of al-Azhar is always one person, usually during his lifetime, same as the pope, usually of Egyptian origin. Sheikhs from al-Azhar are from allover the world. They used to add the suffix "al-Azhari" to their name. Regards. --Ashashyou (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am even more sorry, Ashashyou, but if you open two cats to make "one" university "three" (see Category:Universitas Aegyptiaca and Category:Fouad I university) we may look with a magnifying glass to your edits, that is normal. Friendly hug. --E4024 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get your comment. Can you explain what is your opinion regarding the Azhar Sheikhs categories? What this has to do with Cairo University categories?--Ashashyou (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civil Rights Movement

[edit]

Category:Civil Rights Movement is redundant with Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). The former name is much shorter, but possibly ambiguous. The latter is unambiguous but quite long. Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Themightyquill This term is the one used on Wikipedia. Please see w:Talk:Civil rights movement# Requested move 18 February 2018. If you want to change the case form of the term to match the one on Wikipedia, then I'm not contesting it. Mitchumch (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mitchumch. I think we need to be clearer than Wikipedia, because it's easier to miscategorize content on commons. Perhaps we could keep Category:Civil Rights Movement (though possibly as Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement?) to encompass the whole period from the civil war until the 1970s, including en:Civil rights movement (1865–1896) and en:Civil rights movement (1896–1954)? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill Which content on commons has been or would be miscategorized as the Civil Rights Movement? Mitchumch (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is now? Certainly anything that corresponds with American Civil Rights Movement prior to 1954, and potentially, things related to the other civil rights movements in the united states and internationally, listed at en:Civil rights movements. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill Why not use the same set-up as Wikipedia? For CRM prior to 1954, use Category:Civil Rights Movement (1865–1896) and Category:Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). For things related to the other civil rights movements in the united states and internationally, use Category:Civil rights movements, Category:Movements for civil rights, or Category:Social movements.
Personally, I think Category:Social movements should be used. Category:Movements for civil rights only has 1 entry, while Category:Social movements has 51 entries. The term "civil rights movements" is less commonly used than "social movements". Therefore, "social movements" should be the default category term. Mitchumch (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mitchumch While wikipedia and commons can often use the same form, Commons often benefits from less ambiguous categories. Someone looking up a wikipedia article will quickly read the text and see whether it's the subject they are looking for. Someone searching for content on comments is often confronted with images that don't immediately reveal the precise definition of the category. Someone adding an image to a category with hotcat or the upload wizard is at an even greater disadvantage, so media very often gets miscategorized. In short, there's no real downside to disambiguation, but is a clear downside to not disambiguating. So in this case, I maintain that given the same purpose, Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) is better than Category:Civil Rights Movement.
If we accept using Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68), there are various options for Category:Civil Rights Movement. We could delete it (but keep Category:Civil rights movements in some form. We could make it a disambiguation page with links to various things including Category:Civil rights movements or Category:Social movements. We could keep it as an umbrella category for the various American Civil Rights Movement(s), with either Category:Civil rights movements or Category:Social movements as the grandparent category. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill Did you read w:Talk:Civil rights movement# Requested move 18 February 2018? Mitchumch (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but again, I think wikipedia has different requirements than commons in this case. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill I will leave the result up to you. I only wanted to perform clean-up to reflect the article title change on Wikipedia. I'm not interested in a full debate at this point in time. I'll return later. Mitchumch (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then, if needed, we can sort new categories by year, creating Category:Civil rights movement in the United States (1954–1968) (for en:Civil rights movement), Category:Civil rights movement in the United States (1865–1896) (for en:Civil rights movement (1865–1896)), Category:Civil rights movement in the United States (1896–1954) (for en:Civil rights movement (1896–1954)) and so on.--Russian Rocky (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli bread

[edit]

There is no such thing. Most images in this cat should go to their "real" respective cats, and those which cannot, to "Breads of Israel" etc. E4024 (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Israeli bread" is too broad and the same as "Breads of Israel", but a category Israeli pita bread is needed. This would include photos like sabich sandwiches in Israel and other pita wraps and uses of pita (specifically) in Israel and from Israeli establishments.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good category "Sandwiches of Israel" to which I added the images. Some of the other photos could go to "Breads of Israel". This category may not be needed. Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Bread dishes by country. Maybe Category:Bread dishes of Israel would make more sense? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports executives and administrators

[edit]

I am totally confused between this cat, that of Sports managers and directors (in spite of the explanatory note) and Category:Sports officials. Also these cats are placed -IMHO- under sportspeople and other cats (like businessmen, managers, administrators) in an arbitrary -so as to say it- way. I think someone capable should re-arrange these altogether. If not, people who do the same job for a living may end up in totally different cat trees. (Or maybe I am exaggerating, which is another valid possibility. :) E4024 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I'm the one who created this category ten years ago. It looks like I did it to move Association football executives and Baseball executives to something more specific than Sportspeople, and I picked the name to be consistent with en:Category:Sports executives and administrators. Sports managers and directors, which has no namesake on English Wikipedia, was created later by Skeezix1000 (apparently to put Ice hockey managers in it). Since they're no longer active, it's hard to ask them if they just didn't look at what already existed or if they thought the existing category wasn't good enough. Personally, I think Sports managers and directors should be merged into Sports executives and administrators (with the disclaimer that I'm pretty sports illiterate).
Sports officials seems to be for things like referees, judges, umpires tasked with upholding the rules of the game. The distinction between that and running the business of a team or series seems quite clear. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024 and LX: Categories with 'and' are not preferable. If sports managers and directors are the same thing, they should have one name not two. We do not need to list all of the possible variations of titles that might be assigned to a person in that role over all sports and countries in the name of the category. If they are legitimately different things, they should each have their own distinct category.

Category:Sports executives and administratorsMove to/Rename asCategory:Sports administrators
match sports executive (Q26481809); this is any role concerned with the business side of team management.
Josh (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sports managers and directorsMove to/Rename asCategory:Sports directors
match sporting director (Q1130252); this is an administrative position at the head of the business side of team management. This should be a sub-cat of Category:Sports administrators.
Josh (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another unfinished discussion and now we have Category:Sports businesspeople by country also. While some of us lose their time trying to find a consensus to arrange things, more and more new cats come in to make life even more complicated. A side note for "any" discusion: IMHO separate or delete each and every (i. e. any) cat that has the word "and" in it. (Soups and stews, companies and brands, executives and administrators, coaches and managers etc.) Apples and pears only come together under "fruits", separately. E4024 (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Joshbaumgartner, above I was referring to "broader" cats, not with names that have "and" in it. Cut the cake. I did not read the rest of what you said, but I give you the right to vote for me also; let us close as many discussions as possible and ASAP. E4024 (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion above, let me merge in Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Presidents of association football clubs to this discussion, as well as address the comments of E4024 above:

Category:Presidents of association football clubsMove to/Rename asCategory:Association football club presidents
Category:Association football chairpersons and investorsMove to/Rename asCategory:Association football club chairpersons
per comments in original CfD, 'investors' is not a meaningful categorization. Other rename is for consistent format with parent Category:Association football executives.
Josh (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sports businesspeople by countryMove to/Rename asCategory:Sports administrators by country

Effect of renames would be the following tree structure:

I agree with GRuban that 'investors' is probably not a very good categorization basis. Josh (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moluccan people

[edit]

What is the difference with Category:Moluccans? E4024 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's Category:People by ethnicity (individuals, sorted by their ethnicity) and there's Category:Ethnic groups in Indonesia for the ethnic group as a whole. In this case, I'd say these have accidentally been reversed. Category:Moluccans should be the parent category (the ethnicity) and Category:Moluccan people should be the child (individuals from that ethnicity). - Themightyquill (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Moluccans. In principle they could be reversed and Category:Moluccan people reserved for individual people, but looking at the current content this is absolutely not the case. Individual people are found in Category:Moluccans and Category:Moluccans in the Netherlands, and the rest of the content is placed indiscriminately in both categories. This shows that contributors have no idea of what is the difference between the two, and that we only need one category. Plus the difference between the ethnic group as a whole and individual people is easy to keep on Wikipedia, but not here: most content is for photographs of groups of people, which can be placed in either category. Place Clichy 07:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This shows that contributors have no idea of what is the difference between the two": Well, at least some of us have the curiosity to ask and learn... --E4024 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Moluccan peopleMerge intoCategory:Moluccans
@E4024, Themightyquill, and Place Clichy: Both categories are a mix of individuals and groups. Once merged, a sub-cat for individuals can be created with more purposeful sorting done if it is warranted.
Josh (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mzab

[edit]

Is Category:Mzab redundant with Category:Wadi Mzab? Both link to en:M'zab though en:Mzab is a disambiguation page. Themightyquill (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there is no redundancy. Category:Mzab is for a world heritage site, Category:Wadi Mzab is for a body of water. For other purposes there are several Categories in Ghardaïa Province. --Brühl (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brühl: Wouldn't it make sense to rename Category:Wadi Mzab to Category:M'zab river if it's just about the body of water, not the whole valley? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only idea I have to rename Category:Wadi Mzab, if necessary, is Category:Oued Mzab, because of https://www.geonames.org/2486599/oued-mzab.html --Brühl (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't both of those terms refer to the whole valley, rather than the river? - Themightyquill (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, [[1]] seems to refer to the watercourse, so maybe that works. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Malaysia of Malay descent

[edit]

Is Category:People of Malaysia of Malay descent redundant with Category:Malay people in Malaysia ? Themightyquill (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: this is probably much wider topic. One parent category is Category:People by descent by country and Category:Ethnic groups by country. Sidenotice: because of globalization, such ethnicity/descent questions probably become impossible to overcome--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but "by descent" is a sub-category of diasporas. Malaysians in Malaysia aren't a diaspora. I'd suggest redirecting to Category:Malay people in Malaysia. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aghas of the Ottoman Empire

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Aga Kurbanow.

This cat is not for people who happen to carry the word Agha somewhere on their names, less for mosques or other buildings. This is a military /civil rank-title in the Ottoman Empire, only people like "Kapı Ağası or Kapıcılar Ağası", "Kızlar Ağası", "Yeniçeri Ağası" and similars can be in this cat. The more experienced users should be more careful not to accept "second cats" for one person, like while we have Category:Diyap Yıldırım, opening -I hope unconsciously- another "Category:Diyap Ağa". If you do not know much about a certain country, you should restrain yourself not to invent things about there. I would never ever try to meddle in the Chinese or Indian societies, without first receiving some education on them. This is not passive aggressive, simply a revolt of a volunteer who has to follow several users who take the liberty to make a world of their own, without considering if they really know what they are doing. I want to add bricks, not patrol others. With all the due respect. E4024 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course Silahdar Ağa, Çuhadar Ağa and some other court/military people also belong in there; but not someone because his friends called him "Mehmet Ağa" to distinguish him from "Kel Mehmet" (Mehmet the bald) simply because there were no surnames to separate people and it was "better" to call "ağa" an influential person and not "bald" as if he were a simple peasant. Even in the case of peasants, if you have the smallest piece of land for agriculture on your own name, they call you an "ağa" in most parts, especially the south eastern parts of Turkey. --E4024 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Yes, the nominated category should consist of people who was given this honorary title. For surname, we have Category:Agha (surname). But to correct the whole thing, someone should have knowledge about surnames related to Ottoman Empire people--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aga Kurbanow

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Aghas of the Ottoman Empire.

Is this gentleman from Russia, or Central Asia, or some Russian territory in Caucasus or Central Asia? User Ashashyou, can you decide please? E4024 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Aga Kurbanov, 65 years old, volunteer in the Tsar's army, Circassian Legion", portrait drawing of prisoners soldiers from the Imperial Russian Army, also called the Czarist Army, painted by Hans Gyenis in the KuK prisoner of war camp Dunajská Streda (Dunaszerdahely).[2] - Themightyquill (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. No Wikidata entry and no adequate Google hits, yet we have two images for this inferior person. We know that his given name is Aga, but how do we know that he had honorific title agha?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turetskaya St., 12 (Simferopol)

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Brajkiewicz Manor.

This cat should be given a title that reflects the name of Lithuania and the word(s) "Consulate" or "Consulate General" whatsoever. I do not dare do it myself due to discussion at a similar case. Please see: Category talk:Brajkiewicz Manor. E4024 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have a lot like this. Category:House at 12 Piekary Str. in Toruń for instance. I guess sometimes the consulates change, and often the building predates the consulate (rather than new purpose-built consulates). I don't know what's best. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. This building is a cultural heritage monument. And the current title is in the line with the subcategories of Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Simferopol by type (buildings). I guess that status quo is acceptable solution--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harper's Bazaar, 1922

[edit]
Harper's Bazar cover, February 1922 - note spelling.

In 1922 and all years prior, what we now know as Harper's Bazaar was titled Harper's Bazar (no double "a"). The title reportedly changed in 1929 (1922 is the last category we have at present, to which the old name should apply). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the scope of your proposal? Rename just the categories for the years with the older title? Rename the parent categories, too, so that there are separate categories for the different spellings? Something else? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we should rename this and the earlier categories; but I'm open to other suggestions Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Pigsonthewing and Auntof6: we have definitely similar cases with newspapers/magazines. What is the common practice?--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Category:Headscarves in Turkey

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Women wearing headscarves in Turkey.

This new cat is redundant with Category:Hijabs in Turkey. Using English, Turkish, Alemannisch etc words at the same time create multiple identical cats. If a headscarf (TR: Başörtüsü) is not the "hijab" (religious) dressing element, we simply call it "eşarp". Non-Turkish speakers, I'm referring to what Grace Kelly wore while being driven in a red convertible. E4024 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is possible to wear an "Başörtüsü" that is not a "hijab" then why are the two redudant? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see from your other discussion that you're saying they aren't technically redundant, but the content in the two categories is presently redundant. A woman wearing a hijab could be in Category:Hijabs in Turkey and Category:Women wearing headscarves in Turkey. If we're talking purely about unworn articles of clothing, is there a visible difference between a hijab and another headscarf? If not, maybe it would make more sense to cut out the middle category and have:
Would that make sense? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hijabs is a sub-set of Category:Headscarves and should therefore be a sub-cat of it. By the same token, Category:Hijabs in Turkey should be a subcat of Category:Headscarves in Turkey. This would eliminate the redundancy, as all images of hijabs in Turkey would be sorted there while non-hijab scarves stay in the parent headscarves in Turkey category. Josh (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I managed to express what hijab is and what is is not at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Females wearing hijabs but still people "want to" take the hijab -which literally means "being ashamed of (someone), am I right, Doctor Ashashyou?- as a "dress" (clothing!) and impose it everywhere, reverting others who have no religious whatsoever prejudices. As we are very sensible to etiquette here, I will not give blue links to any particular edit; we all assume goodwill from each other. Indeed we should better have cats for "concrete clothing items" (headscarves, socks, shoes etc) and not a subjective "hijab" thing, because one can use a "wig" for hijab not to hide her beauty under a scarf or another can use a "burq"a to perform prostitution without being recognized. We should not tag people for religion here, except for those people who dedicate their life to or earn a living practicing religious duties. Full stop. --E4024 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women wearing headscarves in Turkey

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Headscarves in Turkey.

This and Category:Hijabs in Turkey -at present- save the same purpose. I would eliminate one, but with the "passion of Islam" that drives many Commons users, I would make this a subcat of the mentioned cat. Although, I believe, we are simply "overcategorizing" (id est: Putting an identical cat over another.) BTW why do these people never make cats for women wearing mini skirts (or shorts) in Turkey? Whatever... E4024 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a little weird that only women wearing headscarves/burqa are divided by country, but not women wearing any other clothing. The closest comparison I can find is Category:Women with earrings by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Miniskirts by country would be just as valid as a Category:Hijabs by country. It is normal to sort images by location, so I have no problem with either. I don't know why we need to differentiate between men and women wearing things. Category:People wearing headscarves in Turkey is more than sufficient. I do see the point in differentiating between a clothing item and people wearing the clothing item, though we may not always have media of both conditions for each type of clothing, so I would keep Category:People wearing headscarves in Turkey as a subset of Category:Headscarves in Turkey. Josh (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I managed to express what hijab is and what is is not at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Females wearing hijabs but still people "want to" take the hijab -which literally means "being ashamed of (someone), am I right, Doctor Ashashyou?- as a "dress" (clothing!) and impose it everywhere, reverting others who have no religious whatsoever prejudices. As we are very sensible to etiquette here, I will not give blue links to any particular edit; we all assume goodwill from each other. Indeed we should better have cats for "concrete clothing items" (headscarves, socks, shoes etc) and not a subjective "hijab" thing, because one can use a "wig" for hijab not to hide her beauty under a scarf or another can use a "burq"a to perform prostitution without being recognized. We should not tag people for religion here, except for those people who dedicate their life to or earn a living practicing religious duties. Full stop. --E4024 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Face in Hole

[edit]
See also: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/02#Noun?.

Starting this discussion following Commons:Village_pump#Wrong_category_names …

Category:Face in Hole and Category:Comic foregrounds are aimed at the same thing: Those boards with some kind of figure printed/painted on the front and a hole cut where the face would be. You stick your head through the hole and someone else takes a photo. However, neither Category:Face in Hole nor Category:Comic foregrounds are for this kind photo-opportunity exclusively:

Both categories strictly speaking also to not allow all pictures of this:

--El Grafo (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be considered funny to pretend you're some ace fighter pilot, but I get you point. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a board has to have a face stuck in its hole at any one moment to still be a "face in hole board". I would probably prefer to move all images showing boards with holes for faces to be inserted to "Category:Face in hole boards" or similar... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Face in hole boards I think it's good. --Benzoyl (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They go by many names.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Photo stand-in" is actually the best title. It avoids the requirement of a board or a face (which might not always be present). It's also clearer than "comic foreground" for reasons pointed out above. I wouldn't include the "bread cat" images here anymore than an image of someone sticking their head out a window or through a hulahoop. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that, unfortunately, most of these images could probably be deleted as derivative works, unless Freedom of Panorama is in effect or the art on the board is released under a commons compatible license... =( - Themightyquill (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: this is actually a pretty old tradition. See various examples here: http://www.laboiteverte.fr/des-photos-anciennes-dans-des-decors-2/. Many would be public domain now, the problem is putting an actual date on them. Some classic photo stand-in designs were made by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge, those would (mostly?) also be PD. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of "Photo stand-in" is not too clear unless you already know the term. Some alternative names are more intuitive... AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: Strangely, these things don't have a single uniform name: http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2015/01/search-engines.html, http://www.shadesofthedeparted.com/2009/03/friday-from-collectors-march-20.html:

We had a request for a photograph of one of those end-of-the-pier painted boards into which you stick your head to get photographed. But what are they called? No one seems to know. (..) Two Flickr groups featuring pictures of them have the titles Head Through the Hole and Things You Stick Your Head In (..) My search online found face cut-outs. Michael Hocken tells me that the Web site of a British seller of the things calls them head through the hole photo booths. (..) the invoices had called them photo cutout boards. (..) comic foreground, a name (and a genre) which Wikipedia claims was invented by the American painter and cartoonist Cassius Marcellus Coolidge (..) tells me that the French call them passe-têtes (..) Peter Casey discovered examples of carnival cutouts (..) Richard Beard, former director of the California Renaissance Faire, says such items are a stock-in-trade at US themed events and have the name lookie loo (..) another term used by a number of the US makers of such items is faceless cutouts (..) In lieu of a name that will be understood everywhere, a couple of readers suggested that they be called Headleys in honour of the questioner.

— Michael Quinion of World Wide Words
It wouldn't even be a bad name. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge them all I don't care what they're called, but hair-splitting debates about whether or not a face-is-in-the-hole are unproductive. A 1:1 correlation between every imaginable concept and category only leads to every image being in its own category, which defeats the purpose of categorization helping people find like images. A comic foreground is an entirely appropriate category name/redirect: we shouldn't avoid names just because someone may conceivably mistakenly place this image in the category. And yes, not all comic foregrounds are 'comical', yet neither are all comics. Comic is synonymous with graphic. FWIW, I don't think "photo stand-in" is the most common term, but if its the most inclusive term, by all means use it.--Animalparty (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Face in hole. Add a description (
    English: "Face in hole" is the concept of using a hole through which a human or animal face can be seen in order to alter the depiction of the person or animal for comedic or other purposes.
    Under this category, if the need exists, there can be categories to differentiate between the types of objects that might have such a hole (board, bread, etc.), whether or not a face is in the hole and what kind of face it is (cat-face-in-hole?), and what purpose the face in hole serves (comedic, etc.). I am not saying all of these are needed, but they can be created if needed. The point is to create Category:Face in hole as a parent category for all of it, regardless of subcats. Josh (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one did anything for three years, I merged the categories and added Josh's description (I found the discussion after uploading a nice vintage example from 1895). I also merged the two Wikidata items (one was just the link to the Commons Category without anything else). I don't have a strong opinion about which name to use, but there should only be one category. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edmund Johanson

[edit]

Do we need this cat for him, as he is on this file on top of the book? Sanandros (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably nominate that file for deletion as derivative anyway. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Edmund Johanson Category contains files related to the KGB general of the Latvian SSR, Johanson. On the file placed in this category is a book written by the general. The file is already placed in the article of the Russian Wikipedia - Йохансон, Эдмунд Волдемарович . Subsequently, other illustrative materials related to Johanson will be placed in this Category. -- Kalnroze (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: yes that I was also thinking that the file doesn't fulfill de minimis but I don't know latvian copyright rules.--Sanandros (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The category now contains a single image of a signature. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for hope of being able to find that signature. More images may be added later, but it is enough on its own, no? Josh (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. Still have one file depicting his signature. I would upmerge this one file and empty category to be deleted. But there are people who eagerly support one-member categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Capitals of former countries

[edit]

What was the need in opening this cat while we already had a Category:Former national capitals? The relation between these two cats (cat-subcat) is another mystery. Another question could be "which one is a better name"? E4024 (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals of former countries would be places that were capitals of countries where the countries don't exist any more. Former national capitals would be cities that used to be national capitals, but the country may still exist. For example, the US has at least two cities (Philadelphia and New York, I think) that used to be the national capital. So there could be some overlap, but they're not the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Category:Capitals of the Ottoman Empire. I also make mistakes -and try to correct them- but some users all the time make arbitrary categorization. (This is why I proposed the other day we should tell them to stop it.) --E4024 (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would fit better under Category:Capitals of former countries. Are you thinking we need only one of these categories? If so, I think Category:Former national capitals covers both circumstances.
As far as stopping arbitrary categorization, we're always going to have users who don't categorize correctly, either because they're not very familiar with how to do it, or because they aren't familiar with particular categories. I see no way around that unless we restrict who (or what, in the case of bots) can categorize, and I don't see that happening. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side Note: Aunt, I never check "by whom a cat has been opened" while I open cats to discussion. Afterwards, while I check my contributions, I see that the notifications for CfDs concentrate in several user talk pages, 4 or 5. You can find them out, easily. One (from my country, I guess) left us leaving a lot work to do behind. That's it. --E4024 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Former national capitals. I do not see any consistent element in the media warranting a distinction between 'cities that once were capitals of countries that still exist' and 'cities that were capitals of countries that do not exist any more'. Note that the vast majorities of images in the sub-categories have nothing to do with their status as a capital, so again, I am not seeing any value in sorting them by their capital status from a Commons perspective. Josh (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do it. What are we waiting for? E4024 (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic art of book

[edit]

"Art of book" sounds peculiar to me. What do you think? E4024 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the academic term for all arts relative to books in Islamic culture : painting, but also calligraphy, illumination, binding, gilding... Calame (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Islamic art of book" yields precisely 28 hits on google. I'm a little skeptical that it's an accepted academic term. A category with this purpose might be justified, but we can find a better title. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E4024 I'm ready to move this if you can think of a better name - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medieval Arabic anatomy

[edit]

Strange "Arabic" cat with "Persian" images in it. E4024 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to "some" of the content language. The category is referring to the "medieval Arabic civilization medicine". Its manuscripts are mainly in Arabic, some are in Turkish, some are in Persian and also in other languages. All written in Arabic script letters. Even latin translation of medieval Arabic medicine can be put here. In my humble opinion. If you check relevant language references, you would find that medieval Persian medical language was based on Arabic language. I advice you to read Gustav Lobon book "Arabic civilization", it would add much to your understanding of the relationship between Arabic language, script, islam,and other related terms. I would like to mention that there is a new political tendancy to separate Persian medicine from Arabic civilization medicine. However any fair person, would find it not making sense. Even Medieval great Muslim physicians as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and al-Razi (Rhazes), although they were from persian origin but all thier scientific legacy as al-Canon (Canonis) & al-Hawi (continentis) are in Arabic language as Arabic language was the lingua franca of science at that time, hence the name Arabic medici. Regards.--Ashashyou (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Medieval Islamic anatomy. This alleviates the issue of which is Persion or Arabic. Josh (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. Any objections for upmerging, as suggested by user:Joshbaumgartner? Pinging also user:E4024 and user:Ashashyou--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kebab wraps

[edit]

IMHO duplicate with "dürüm" but if the cat is confined to remote areas where the word dürüm is not known, or Pakistani people are confused with Turks, I have no problem. (Please note that I also have no problem with Pakistani people, with whom we Turks have a great feeling, mutually.) The issue is, as a person who lived in Spain and knows Pakistan, there is no "döner" in Pakistan's cuisine tradition and seeing Pakistanis opening "döner houses" in deeper Spain and being called "Turks", it was necessary to add this part. Take it as a parenthesis. E4024 (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a duplicate, durum is made with yufka, though it should probably be renamed "Kebab pita wraps". Durum also includes non-kebabs like spinach durum, or potato durum. I created this category because there was no existing category for our many images of pita wrapped kebabs.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see confusion is because all the dürüm in our category are tortilla wraps. This is pretty common because commerically produced lavash is flour tortilla. It's not very good but I will recategorize the miscats. I hope we can get some better dürüm pictures soon.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Shofet: Firstly, please give yourself some time to familiarize with our practice here. I understand your Commons adventure began the day before yesterday, right? Try to observe and read a bit, as a newcomer. Secondly, please write "dürüm" when you mention something quite notable; we have special letters aid. Thirdly, be consistent with what you say and do. (You can have a look at my reverts to understand the preceding sentence better.) Last but not the least, do not think that every country or everybody has the same eating habits. In Turkey we mostly put a "lavaş" or "tırnak pidesi" or "yufka" (in alphabetical order) or other flatbread on the plates, not because there is an obligation to make dürüm (there is none) simply for "presentation" and to remove the melting grease from sight. BTW in Turkey restaurants serve "dürüm" and "others" in different conditions, prepared in the kitchen, and generally with different prices. Come to eat with me some day, in the future, if you can become a habitué in Commons. --E4024 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Adana kebab in Ankara: Not a dürüm nor any "wrap" (sic). Many people simply eat it with fork and knife. The bread is a "bed".
    Pics also teach.
I understand to dispute inclusion of particular photos but not to delete category entirely. As I said, dürüm can be made not only with kebab so this is not duplicated. I made this category to improve problem you are describing. These pictures were previously categorized only by "shwarama" "gyro" "döner" and even cevapi and other types I am still searching for to add. I am sorry if I did something wrong from inexperience, but I think if they are cumbersome to navigate this way, categorization needs improvement.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so understand: Is durum a turkish word literally meaning wrap? If so then all kebab wraps in Turkey are durum, but not all kebab wraps everywhere are durum (they might be called something else), and not all durum in Turkey wrap kebab (they might wrap something else). Is that right? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Shofet tsaddiq: specific food topic, but I can see that: we have Category:Kebab wraps, enwiki en:Kebab wrap is redirected to en:Doner kebab (= Döner kebab), but we have also Category:Döner kebab. If "kebab wrap" and "döner kebab" should be distinguished, we definitely need explanatory hatnotes for both categories in question--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contestants of the Eurovision Song Contest by country

[edit]

Just a curiosity: A Turkish singer represented San Marino rather recently, someone from another country represented Luxembourg in the remote past, the relation between Greece and "Republic of Cyprus" (no, I'm not referring to 12 points :) as regards the use of singers... Maybe a "touch of detail" might be needed in the title. E4024 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Céline Dion represented Switzerland, Olivia Newton-John the UK (which is less weird since, in spite of being Australian, she was born in Bradford, Yorkshire). That said, I don't get the point. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let's see if anyone will get the point. If not, I will close the discussion. Sorry. --E4024 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: It seems there is no further discussion? Do you propose a change, or do we close with no action required? Josh (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, you were my last hope! :) If you did not get the point, no one else will. Do as you wish. --E4024 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: lol, I don't know if I got the point or not... I get that there is a difference between a person's country of birth/citizenship and the country they 'represent' when appearing in the contest. Perhaps a name like 'by country represented' or such would work. However, the Eurovision Song Contest and its rules are far from my area of expertise, so I'm happy to implement an agreed upon proposal, but not offering one of my own. Josh (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. Enwiki uses the cat name like en:Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants for Turkey (parent cat: Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants by country). Using "FOR" would solve our problems? At the moment we are using "FROM", eg category:Contestants of the Eurovision Song Contest from Turkey. Opinions @E4024, Blackcat, and Joshbaumgartner: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: no, definitely and unnegotiabily. "By country" criteria means already "By country" in the framework suggested by the mother category. So, if we are talking about association football, "Country" means a FIFA country (i.e England which is not a sovereign country but is a country for football); if we are talking about rugby union, the Island of Ireland is a "country" because its Union is the governing body of the game in the whole island. As well, "contestants to the Eurovision Song Contest by country" means the country they represent. On a side note, it's about too few exceptions for considering changing a whole categorization tree. --- Blackcat 11:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Firearms by calibre

[edit]

Why do we need this cat? Firearms are sometimes chambered in diffrent calibres. Sanandros (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • thanks you,

I'm Japanese and not good at English, so I'm sorry if I'm saying too directly or impolitely.

Reasons I made this cat was,

  • Same aim cat Category:Artillery by calibre is already exists and actually used. It is my understanding that over 20 mm caliber projectile weapons are "Artillery", and less than 20 mm caliber projectile weapons are "Firearms" .(is this understanding specific and peculiar to Japanese people only?)

I myself do not stick on this cat, thanks.--Brakeet (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros and Brakeet: The reason for this category is as an index of categories which group firearms by caliber, such as its one sub Category:7.62 mm firearms. However, only having one sub means it isn't very useful. Perhaps merge with the existing Category:Artillery by calibre into something like Category:Projectile weapons by calibre? Josh (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that then pictures are in this category. If we say only galleries are allowed I would not have a so much a problem but if we say also categories and with that also pictures are allowed in this cat then we have for example the problem that Desert Eagel pistols are in diffrent calibres like we have here a .44 Magnum calibre while this is a .357 Magnum calibre.--Sanandros (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Sanandros and Brakeet: enwiki has also en:Category:Firearms by calibre. I think this justifies the existence of this category in Commons also. Sidenotice: there seems to be mess with using "calibre" or "caliber" in category names, but this should be discussed at another CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fine for en wp but articels you can categorize in diffrent caliber while pics of firearms are always weapons in a single caliber, so we can say only galleries are categorized in this cat. Or we do sub cats of weapons which have diffrent caliber.--Sanandros (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peter Casey

[edit]

Just a name, no clarity about person, no biodata (occupation, place of birth, year of birth, nationality). There are severable notable persons named "Peter Casey" on Wikipedia's (en,ga,pl) and on Wikidata, this is not one of them. Paulbe (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment From what I can find, Peter Casey is the Director of News and Programming for WBZ. Bidgee (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulbe, Bidgee, and Crouch, Swale: Enwiki gives priority to Category:Peter Casey (entrepreneur). Maybe we should mirror enwiki solution. If so, then our Peter Casey to be moved under eg category:Peter Casey (radio personality). Also notice that en:Peter Casey (disambiguation) is rather scarce--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This category should become a disambiguation category, rather than picking a person. What works for Wikipedia, doesn’t necessarily means it will work for commons. Bidgee (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made the move, Category:Peter Casey is now a disambiguation category. Bidgee (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We normally have DABs even when Wikipedia has a primary topic, see Category:Perth and Category:Warwick for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct - October 22, 2011

[edit]

We need a more descriptive name than Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct - October 22, 2011. Something like Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct - 2011 pedestrian tour and partial demolition? Kind of long. Most of the photos are of the pedestrian stuff, but the partial demolition is important. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there should be one category for that day. Hoping to get some demolition photos today. Some of them can also go in Category:Views from Alaskan Way Viaduct or whatever. I just don't want to have to poke around to figure out what happened on October 22, 2011. Copule clues in the category name without getting too wordy. I've also been trying to categorize the 200+ photos there so they're easier to deal with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct on 22 October 2011 with images also catgorized under Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition as appropriate. Maintain the explanatory note on the category page detailing why that day was notable for the Viaduct. Looks like there was another event we have some media for to support Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct on 2 February 2009 as well. Josh (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, separately from this we now have Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Jmabel and Dennis Bratland: maybe Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition is unnecessary, because so far only two (?) demolitions have taken place (2011 and 2019; see en:Alaskan Way Viaduct). I suggest to create "Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition on Date/Date interval" and "Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition on Date2/Date interval2", these two categories are subcategories of Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two demolitions were really phases of one project, though. I'd really prefer to see a parent category lumping the demolitions, with a subcat (as we have here) for the one day for which we have so many photos. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female politicians of Portugal

[edit]

Does not seem to be an helpful category, and discriminates and contributes to the gender gap by keeping women isolated from the main category of politicians. Darwin Ahoy! 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Shouldn't we do the same for the other 163 subcategories of Category:Female politicians by country? And what about everything else under Category:Women by occupation? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly separating women out from a main category where categories for men are kept is discriminatory. Many countries, however, have something in Category:Male politicians by country. This could be done similarly with Portugal and other countries that don't have "Male politicians..." categories. I can see advantages and disadvantages to subdividing each occupation by gender. Mostly disadvantages to be honest, but I think it will be a difficult sell to have them all deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Creating corresponding categories for men would also address the issue, but raise another one: some people don't identify as either male or female, so what do we do with them? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And yes we should do the same for the rest of Category:Female politicians by country. While Auntof6 (talk · contribs) is right that making them for men, and other gender categories I suppose, would solve the technical problem of unequal treatment, I question the value of gendered categories for something like politicians in the first place. Splitting politians by country, political sub-division, time/session, party/movement/ideology, or even voting record maybe makes sense, but gender, ethnicity, hair color, favorite food, height, shoe size, etc. is not really relevant. @Themightyquill: you stated you can see advantages to it, are there any you can elaborate on that might make it worth keeping this around? Josh (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Politicians haven't been traditionally been prevented from running for office because of their hair color, favourite food, height, shoe size, etc. It's not unlikely that someone might want to look up photos of female politicians from their country. Of course, it isn't strictly necessary to subdivide anything by gender and/or country. We could put Category:Maria da Graça Carvalho in Category:Women, Category:Politicians, and Category:People of Portugal, but there are obviously advantages to having Category:Women of Portugal and Category:Politicians of Portugal and Category:Female politicians. This is just another layer, that keeps Category:Female politicians from being incredibly full. I'm not sure what the best solution is. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Because enwiki has also massive gender-trees, eg en:Category:Women in politics by nationality, it is unlikely to be solved with this CFD. Future nominations should be discussed at higher level, and tendencies in enwiki should be taken into consideration--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alter-globalisation

[edit]

HapHaxion has suggested moving Category:Alter-globalisation to Category:Anti-globalisation with the reasoning "Better umbrella term. Alter- and Anti-globalization can also be split if needed." This seemed like it might be controversial. This category currently links to en:Anti-globalization movement on wikipedia, but en:Alter-globalization does exist. The former article notes that the term "anti-globalization" is disputed by many within the movement, but also notes the terms are essentially synonymous in common usage. Themightyquill (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don’t agree with this change, nor with the reasoning behind it. The crux of the matter is not globalization itself, but the unstated qualificative: Capitalist globalization.
    • Some are against it, and emphazise that they yes want a globalization, just not this one ("alter" means "other").
    • Others are in favour of it, and refuse the epithet, under the TINA worldview.
Changing "Alter-globalization" to "Anti-globalization" would amount to favor the latter interpretation over the former. Furthermore this change would fail to tell apart true anti-capitalist globalists from anti-capitalist anti-globalists and all sorts of anti-globalists. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Keep enwiki has both articles en:Anti-globalization movement and en:Alter-globalization--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cristoforo dall'Acqua

[edit]

User:Horcrux suggested that this category be moved to Category:Cristoforo Dall'Acqua; however, the authority control sources are fairly evenly mixed on the capitalization of the last name. I'm not sure which capitalization is more in line with how Italian surnames usually work. BMacZero (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samaritani also supported the capitalized last name on the category's talk page. BMacZero (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* I am the original uploader. Some Italian surnames have the lowcase letter "d" with the prefix "da" (meaning "from"), some others don't. My surname has a compulsorily capital "D" and "O", Dall'Orto (don't ask me why), but Lorenzo de' Medici is compulsorily lowcase. In general noble surnames have a lowcase "de / da" prefix, but this is not a general rule. So it must be checked case by case on a reliable source. If Enciclopedia Treccani has it as "D", then let's change it, I am not opposing it. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki also uses "D". If moving will be taken place, then Creator:Cristoforo dall'Acqua also to be moved--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Six and nine

[edit]

Is there a benefit to this category? To note the ways to distinguish 6 from 9 when "up" is unclear. We don't have Category:b, p and d. Could we at least phrase it better? Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me the title means showing the numbers six and nine together, which some of the images have. I don't see other categories for pairs of numbers, though, so maybe it is for what you say. With some of the images, only one of the two numbers is shown and you can tell which is intended. Where you can't tell, I would just leave the number off. In any case, I don't see the need for a category with this name. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think benefit. Other possible also, Bingo balls or Lottery card etc. Why is such fuzzy category name, The reason there are 2 type.
1. Underlining - "File:Orange, 10-sided die.jpg", 2. Underdotting "File:D14 cuboctahedron.JPG". But, It may be necessary, This category rename. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I agree with you both individually. If it's for images of 6 and 9 together, then we drop images which only show one number. If it's for "methods of differentiating between 6 and 9" (whether underlining or underdotting) then we should rename to something like Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 and remove images which don't include any features like this. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 - I think that very good. --Benzoyl (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Six and nine abolished, How does the parent category? --Benzoyl (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The differentiation rename suggestion sounds good to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of Category:6 with underlining and Category:9 with underlining makes overcategorization (parents and grandchildren) difficult to avoid. Maybe we should keep those two, but rename Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 to Category:Differentiation between similar characters or something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:6 with underlining and Category:9 with underlining be "kept", rename (these parent category=) Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 to (more broad sense name=) Category:Differentiation between similar characters that’s fine (I think so too.). --Benzoyl (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was Category:Slashed zero, I Created Category:Differentiation between similar characters.
I agree merge Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 to Category:Differentiation between similar characters. --Benzoyl (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is telling them apart, then I don't think this is arbitrary. Someone might want to illustrate methods for distinguishing between the two numbers when you can't control what direction they'll be viewed from. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't this also apply to "d", "p" and "b" and "n" and "u" and "w" and "m". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those rarely appear in contexts where they need to be told apart, but if we have such images, then yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill, Auntof6, Crouch, Swale, and Benzoyl: any new ideas? At least Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 seems to acceptable. One reason, why I want to delete the nominated category, is that it encourages to create similar ones, eg "One and six", "Two and four" etc, and these definitely are not acceptable per Commons category naming policy--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a sub category that points to keeping this one, if not the sub category should probably be deleted first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sazs

[edit]

"Sazs" sounds strange. We should make it "Saz". There is also a Category:SAZ from 2016. Therefore I propose to move "Sazs" to Category:Saz (musical instruments) (plural) and we should also rename Category:SAZ; and then make a disam page with "Category:Saz". Objections? Proposed names for "SAZ"? E4024 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says the plural is "sazes" or "sazzes" which we could use. The wikipedia article is at en:Bağlama so perhaps we could just use Category:Bağlamas? Is Category:SAZ the same as Category:SeAZ vehicles? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:SAZ is not the same as Category:SeAZ vehicles.
SAZ - Saranskiy Avtomobilnyy Zavod (Saransk Automobile Plant)
SeAZ - Serpukhovskiy Avtomobilnyy Zavod (Serpukhov Automobile Plant)
Zinnsoldat 13:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! So I propose we create either Category:Saranskiy Avtomobilnyy Zavod or Category:Saransk Automobile Plant, and then redirect Category:SAZ to a disambiguation page at Category:Saz. Category:Sazs moves either to Category:Sazes or Category:Bağlamas. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Police tactical units of the United Kingdom

[edit]

I have doubts that the two pics in this cat are showing police tactical units. Sanandros (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: : Would you care to elaborate? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know it in the UK but in CH also normal police members train storming a house with MP5. File:Day 214 - West Midlands Police - Firearms Officer uniform and equipment (7690257016).jpg says they train only 10 weeks which sounds for me very short to become a member of a police tactical unit. File:MOD Plod Ship 2007.jpg is nothing written which unit it is.--Sanandros (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sanandros. I see your point. en:West_Midlands_Police#Firearms and en:Authorised firearms officer shed some additional light on this. If a en:Police tactical unit is "a specialized police unit formed and trained to handle situations that are beyond the capabilities of ordinary law enforcement forces because of the level of violence - or risk of violence - involved" then perhaps an "Authorised firearms officer" would be considered part of a police tactical unit in the UK, even if a cop with a gun wouldn't be considered out of the ordinary in other countries? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I don't know anything about UK tactical police units as they use the SAS for these situations (like the Iran embassy hostage crisis). Also a quick literature research didn't reveal anything about UK police tactical units.--Sanandros (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: In the UK, police officers are generally unarmed and do not receive firearms training. The minority of officers that do receive firearms training are called authorised firearms officers (AFO). A minority of AFOs, receive further training to become specialist firearms officer (SFO)/counter terrorist special forces officers (CT-SFO) who form teams/a unit - a police tactical unit - which in the United States they would call a SWAT. 10 weeks is an appropriate time to train a SFO.--Melbguy05 (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we can do that. For me a weak defintion of a tactical police unit but ok for now.--Sanandros (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Power plants

[edit]

Hello. I've been around editing power station topics since 2009. The way power station categories are named has been bothering me since then, and I never considered actioning on it since the task is somewhat large (and hence will probably bother some editors). Today I decided that I should bring this to CFD so that it can be discussed, as the issue only seems to be getting worse.

  • The parent category Power plants seems to start with majority of the subcategories following the naming style "plants".
  • As you go deeper, usually beyond 3rd level you will start to see a growing mix of power stations (example) and also sometimes just stations categories
  • Note that Special:PrefixIndex cannot pick those up as the name variations are often in the middle of the term.
  • While a larger percentage on Commons use "power plant", the majority of Wikipedia and Wikidata use "power stations"

I propose that we standardise all generic categories to power station, for neatness, and also to match the more commonly used terms across Wikimedia projects (and probably in most countries outside the US). To be clear:

Examples of proposal:

  1. Category:Hydroelectric power plants in xxx to Category:Hydroelectric power stations in xxx
  2. Category:Xxx power plants by country to Category:Xxx power stations by country

Comments welcome. Thank you, Rehman 15:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is probably one of the AE/BE issues. For me, power station works as well as power plant.
    In regard to example 2. above (see the linked categories), please note that "solar power plants/stations" and "photovoltaic power stations" are not the same (different forms of solar power, PV is only one of them).
    Anyway, all changes would affect hundreds of categories (and many subsequent linkfixes on Wikidata and Wikipedias; this can not be done in one hour). Keeping redirects could be indicated in many cases. And it would be sensible to bring it up also on VP so that others can step in this discussion. --Te750iv (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Regarding solar, of course, hence the "xxx". I've also crossposted this here, here, and here so far (the biggest active areas for WikiProject Energy participants). I will also post on VP. Rehman 05:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this sounds like a reasonable proposal. Perhaps it's related to American vs British English, but I would think they could be used fairly interchangeably in most contexts, which makes it different than the petrol/gas station problem. I could be wrong on that though. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths by cause

[edit]

Killing, Killings by type, Murder, all subcats of this. How come? This cat and around was played with too much in the recent past and we came to have suicide as a crime, animal slaughter as a crime etc. (Maybe vegetarian people do those changes. :) I see myself not capable of arranging all this. Sorry, I'm only attracting attention to the issues. I hope more people than the couple of users -who must have already got bored of my CfDs- come to help with these issues. Someone may tell me "we do not need so much discussion, better dedicate your time and energy to categorization"; but we must also give some clasification discipline to each other here. I mean while some try to put things in order, if others enjoy "experiments" life in Commons cannot be easy. E4024 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC) :Can you explain more about your concerns with this category and its subcategories? It seems quite straightforward to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sub-categories should all be in the format Category:Deaths from X like those in Category:Dead people by manner of death? Or the category could be renamed Category:Causes of death ? It links, afterall, to en:Cause of death - Themightyquill (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think, why animals die should be subject to categorisation too. Therefore a category exclusively for human death should state clearly in the category nahme, that its subjet is human death. --Kersti (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Probably  Keep. Enwiki has also en:Category:Deaths by cause--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads and streets named after kings

[edit]

Category:King streets has been moved to Category:Roads and streets named after kings. Is "King Street" necessarily a street named after a king? I would think "King Edward Avenue" is a street named after a king. "King Street" could also be named after Billy Jean King or William Lyon Mackenzie King, etc, no? Just a thought. Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we know that a particular King Street was named for a specific king, then I think these have to go under the general streets by name category. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding Category:Roads and streets named after queens to this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete @Themightyquill and Auntof6: What value is there to categorizing media by the namesake of the subject? Categorizing by name I get, but namesakes, while interesting to some, seem completely trivial. I recommend we delete both categories and re-cat contents appropriately. Josh (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Without categorizing media by namesake, then, for example, all the categories currently in Category:Things named after Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein will be dumped into Category:Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein. That's probably a mild example. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Thanks for pointing that out; there is an entire tree of namesake categories. Honestly, I think that whole tree is unnecessary, but that's probably a much higher-level CfD to have. I don't think that Category:Auguste-Viktoria-Allee (Berlin-Reinickendorf) should be in Category:Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein, because the link between them is a trivial one, so there is no need to have a category link. However, at least in that case, we are unlikely to have much categorized under Category:Things named after Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein by accident. Unfortunately the nominated category is different, as certainly not all "King Street" names are streets named after kings. Josh (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Joshbaumgartner: seems to be  Keep. Redirecting of Category:King streets may be deleted or not (if deleted then affected is also Category:Queen streets). If a street consists of the name "[K]king" and this street is not named after a king, then explanatory hatnote should be added--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I think we need to reinstate Category:King streets for streets that don't have a specific king's name in them. Same for Queen streets. So, some would be in both categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep For clarity, yes, I am fine with keeping this category for streets named after actual kings and removing streets that just have the word king in the name. If necessary, reinstate King streets to separate them again, though I'm far less convinced that we need a category at all for streets that just happen to have king in their name, as this is handled by the dab at Category:King Street Josh (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches and Chapels in North Walsham

[edit]

There's no Category:Churches and chapels category. We have Category:Religious buildings which contains Category:Chapels and we have Category:Christian chapels in Category:Christian buildings. Yet we have:

Just to emphasize, aside from those indicated with indented bullet points above, none of these are connected via any kind of category tree. It seems quite random. I would propose some combination of deletions, splits, and moves to Category:Religious buildings in X, Category:Christian buildings in X and Category:Churches in X. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I like this mix-up of churches and chapels, because we don't have a clear distinction between churches and chapels. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but:
So is a chapel a type of church, its own type of religious building, or a church element? If churches are by definition Christian, then chapels aren't always a type of church because we have Category:Jewish chapels. Since some chapels are separate buildings and some are physically part of another building or structure, maybe they can't all be classified as the same kind of thing.
But, to your point, we might be able to address some of these piecemeal. For those that contain only churches or only chapels, we can rename the category (and recategorize as necessary).
Those are just some that I spot-checked. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have been clear, but I support eliminating all "churches and chapels" categories. That would mean not upmerging to any such category. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bu "upmerge" I was meaning transfering the contents of Category:Churches and Chapels in North Walsham into Category:Buildings in North Walsham so yes that would mean eliminating all "churches and chapels" categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem number one is that we have no clear distinction between churches and chapels. So we would need to work that out first. Or let's simply rename all "Churches in ..." categories to "Churches and chapels in ...". -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's partially compounded by the fact that churches (at least as Commons defines them) are all Christian, whereas chapels (as Commons defines them) might be Jewish or interfaith. That's why Category:Christian chapels exists. So Category:Churches and chapels is a little ambiguous: Christian churches and any chapels or Christian churches and Christian chapels? But Category:Churches and Christian chapels seems rather strange. Better to use some combination of Category:Religious buildings or Category:Christian buildings + Category:Chapels or Category:Christian chapels. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Religious buildings... We do not need to have a clear distinction between churches and chapels to solve the category problem at hand. All "Churches and chapels ..." categories should be renamed "Religious buildings ..." (or upmerged into existing categories of this name). As for their subs, those that are churches can be put in the "churches ..." tree and chapels can go into the "chapels ..." tree. Some might go in both. If there is a problem with the existing definitions for Category:Churches and Category:Chapels, then a CfD can be raised there. Josh (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction between churches and chapels is really not clear, and can differ by country. Not only by religion, but also by type of structure. In Central Europe, chapel-shrines are also counted among chapels (while column-shrines are not), even though this type of chapels are not buildings but rather something like sculptures. The distinction between a small church and a big chapel is also unclear. There are several unsharp criteria but none of them is reliable. E.g. churches are owned by the church while chapels other belong to a school, hospital, castle or are owned by the municipality. Other distinctive criterion can be that churches shelter the Eucharist, however abandoned churches are all the time considered as churches. Other possible conception can be that chapels are a subtype of churches. Some protestants use different terminology and can be difficult to compare it with the catholic terms (e.g. in Czech, catholics use terms "kostel" for a church and "kaple" for a chapel, while protestants use rather "sbor" (assembly?) or "modlitebna" (prayer house) but also "kostel" or "kaple" for older buildings. And what about e.g. "Kingdom Halls" of Jehovah's Witnesses?

As regards categorization, at some levels, Christian "chapels" are concepted as a subcategory of "churches". The name "churches and chapels" is more precise but at higher levels of categorization, special subcategory of chapels should be not missing. Chapels are very close to churches by their purpose - they should have nearer one to other then to rectories, monasteries, provost houses, chapter houses, bishop's residences, church schools and hospitals etc. which are not ceremonial sanctuaries but are religious in a broader sense. --ŠJů (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Župa dubrovačka

[edit]

Should dubrovacka be capitalized or not? Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Not sure, it appears to be not so at both en:Župa dubrovačka and sh:Župa dubrovačka. We might be best keeping it as-is unless a better source turns up. Josh (talk)
@Joshbaumgartner: Then rename Category:Churches and chapels in Župa Dubrovačka and Category:Videos from Župa Dubrovačka? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all sub-cats should use the same format. In a case like this, some sort of explanatory note on the category might be warranted to let users know. Josh (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Because enwiki article name and first sentence contradict each other (dubrovačka or Dubrovačka), I opened a discussion here: en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Croatia#Name_problem_with_a_Croatian_populated_place--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Category:Pre-1882 Imperial coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Sultanic coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire.

Pre1882? Why? What happened in 1882? Sorry for my ignorance. E4024 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The official coat of arms was adopted by the sultan that year. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_Ottoman_Empire and sources given there. And I disagree on your bold move with regard to the title. It's self-evident that an empire's arms are "imperial", so this is a bit superflous IMO. The use of the term sultanic is practical, and based on parallel naming of other monarchial non-kingdoms' categories seen at e.g. Category:Royal coats of arms by country and Category:National coats of arms by country. - Ssolbergj (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What bold move? You just opened the cat. Did you ask my opinion? I do have reasons to be bold on Turkish issues. I did not learn our history from Wikipedia. I do not want to personalize things, but "bold move" is an insult. You have not been bold in your cat opening and then reverting me? Twice bold! (Sorry from others for the exclamation mark.) --E4024 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, keep but what? "Imperial" or "Sultanic" (sic). I have visited 19th century Ottoman Embassy archives and all the diplomatic Notes began with "The Imperial Embassy of the..." Never saw any "Sultanic" anywhere. (Sultana grapes, yes. BTW my text corrector underlines it with red every time I write "Sultanic"... :) --E4024 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may look it up in a dictionary, and a Google search for ‘sultanic’ + ‘ottoman’ gives many results. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssolbergj: If the issue is that these coats are not 'official', then the category should be renamed Category:Unofficial sultanic coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire. The problem is the clumping of different items by an arbitrary date. Josh (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssolbergj, Ricky81682, and E4024: Any objection to simply renaming it Category:Unofficial sultanic coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire to eliminate the arbitrary date issue? It does not seem there is a consensus to delete. Josh (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I guess. Otherwise, maybe they don't belong in the category at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raiffeisen International Bank Holding

[edit]

I am bad in German and i don't wish to use google translate as most of the time generate broken English. However, according to the primary source (2017 Annual Report of Raiffeisen Bank International and the timeline) "Raiffeisen International Bank Holding" is a defunct company since 2010. The successor is "Raiffeisen Bank International". It seem better to move the cat to category:Raiffeisen Bank International, instead of create yet another cat as box in box in box. BTW Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich (Category:Raiffeisen Zentralbank) had been defunct in 2017 also. Matthew hk (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Matthew hk: Enwiki article is under the name en:Raiffeisen Bank International, but the company recent history seems to be not easy to understand (eg "reverse-merging" etc; more info in the same enwiki article)--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wirral Urban District

[edit]

Delete as abolished in 1974. We only keep historical categories for media related to the history of such places and in 2019 the term is meaningless as a division of local government. All settlements within it are now within the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu and Crouch, Swale: Any further comments on this, or can we close and keep? Josh (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus either way yet. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point still stands that this is essentially for the unparished area of which was formed from the urban district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only the one unparished area and it is contiguous, fine, otherwise I foresee confusion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, see w:Civil parishes in Merseyside#List of civil parishes and unparished areas maybe we should move it to Category:Heswall (unparished area) or just merge it with Category:Heswall? like it was before. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think we need to confuse things. I see no problem for a typical user going to Category:Heswall and finding it's the unparished area as well as the town they know. That might offend a few pedants, but fortunately, they are in a minority. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also note that its normal to have categories for former units such as Category:Cumberland and Category:Worksop Rural District but the latter is only used for images of it, not places it formerly contained. Given that the unparished area is the same as the former UD we should probably keep it for both since any maps of the former UD correspond to the current unparished area. If the boundaries change because of a parish being created then we may need to reconsider. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Rail Class 357s in National Express debranded livery

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/07/Category:British Rail Class 171s on the East Coast Main Line.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:British Rail Class 350s on the Glossop Line.

This label is incorrect. These trains are in c2c National Express livery. The current Trenitalia c2c livery is similar but noticably different. c2c trains went straight from one to another. they have never been in a national express debranded livery. 2A00:23C5:6E14:A000:BCB5:FF65:2346:A852 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a debranded version of the National Express livery. It's the same livery as the 379s were delivered in. @Geof Sheppard: . -mattbuck (Talk) 20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
National Express logo
One of the side effects of the UK franchising model has been that, when a franchise changes hands, trains are often running for several months or years in their predecessor's colours. In Commons this is often treated as a different category. However I've just opened a random half dozen images from this 'unbranded' category and they all clearly have National Express logos. I suggest that we ought to go through them carefully and move any branded ones to a new Category:British Rail Class 357s in National Express livery and then see whether there are any unbranded ones left.
By the way, do we have any pictures showing the Trenitalia scheme? Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Mattbuck and Geof Sheppard: What exactly constitutes a 'debranded livery'? Does this just mean the paint/color scheme but no actual logos or branding, or does this mean a vehicle operated by the company but in some other scheme? Should the name be changed? Josh (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joshbaumgartner the original meaning was that the branding had been removed, for instance when someone took over the franchise and removed all the old TOC's names but hadn't repainted. I'm pretty sure that RAIL magazine and other sources used that terminology. A "vehicle operated by the company but in some other scheme" would be listed as (eg) National Express Baumgautner livery or some other name as appropriate. The livery names throughout the schema generally include the original TOC's name and then a descriptor, but just transferring from one TOC to another does not make a train a different livery, we have other categories for that. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck: Thanks for the explaination! So then any issue with going through and moving the actually branded examples to Category:British Rail Class 357s in National Express livery and then if there are none without a brand, we can eliminate this category? Josh (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
National Express livery
Joshbaumgartner that would be an issue, as the "National Express livery" refers to a different livery, pictured right. This features light grey/white in diagonals with dark grey doors, whereas the debranded version is just white with dark grey doors. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are both "National Express livery", just different National Express liveries!
I think the one used on the 357 is more common - it certainly looks more like their road coaches. As both have National Express branding we shouldn't call either of them "debranded". Geof Sheppard (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Store railway wagons

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Stored railway wagons.

I feel like the scope and purpose of this category needs to be discussed as opposed to a simple rename without discussion. My concern is that it seems to be being used as a catch-all for any railroad car/wagon not in immediate use, whether it is in storage or not. Several of the images in the category are clearly not stored but rather have been converted to entirely new purposes. It seems to me that either the scope needs to be redefined and the category name with it, or some of these images don't belong here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the apparent lack of input or interest here, I would suggest this category be deleted as ill-defined and therefore not useful in organizing images. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stored vehicles are those that are depicted in a state of storage, meaning they are not in active service and are being retained for possible re-use or re-purposing in the future. I think that is a sufficient description to warrant keeping. Josh (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Stored railway wagons. Even if we ultimately decide to delete, it should be named correctly until such time as that call is made. Josh (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
not ever going to be rail car again
After all this time I am unfollowing this discussion as I frankly don't particularly care anymore. But as I do so I'd note that the reason this came to my attention was that it was added to this upload of mine, of a very old Alaska Railroad car (I believe they changed the livery to our state colors of blue and gold upon statehood in 1958) that is over a hundred miles fromt he nearest rail, has no wheels, and has an addition on top that woud clearly make it entirely unsuitable for being re-introduced to service. This is in no way "stored" it has been repurposed as part of the ice making pant at our fish processing dock. Like several other entries in this cat it is a more obvious member of Category:Repurposed rail vehicles. The difference should be defined on the cat's main page if it is kept. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not all stored railway wagons are repurüosed. Not all repurposed railway vehicles are stored. These are two totally different things. IMO we cannot do more, ATM, than to correct the wrong grammar. Matthiasb (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colorful

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Colorful.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/07/Category:Colorful Art.

The term "colorful" is vague: how much color, or how many different colors, must there be for something to be considered colorful? Maybe this should be renamed to "Multicolored" (yeah, that's with no "U" because the proposer gets to name it!). That would match the Italian description, which says (as translated by me) "many different colors". Auntof6 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Info see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/07/Category:Colorful Art. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 16:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment What is the problem exactly? (a) The naming? Category:Colorful (American Englisch which is spoken by more people than British English) vs. Category:Colourful vs. Category:multicolored / Category:multicolor / Category:multicolour. (b) the definition? Colorful is anything with "2 or more colors", or maybe "3 or more colors". --Mattes (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry for the comment about the U in the word: I meant it as a joke, but I forgot that humor might not be understood by people whose first language is not English. I have struck out that comment.
The problem is that there is no specific definition of the word colorful that gives enough guidance about what can go in this category. In general use, colorful can mean that there are multiple colors, or that the colors are noticeably vivid. It also has meanings that have nothing to do with actual colors. That is why I think the categories that use this term should be renamed. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Per my comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Very (adjective). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • fix a whole lot. i see this as another very problematic category scheme. this is an entirely subjective term. any non b/w image may be deemed colorful. i can see 2 possible ways to keep the intent of highly colorful images together: images that specifically deal with the concept of colors, such as color wheels. secondly, images that have all the major colors of the spectrum in them, ie images of rainbows, rainbow flags, or any other image that has roygbiv in it, each prominent and approximately equal. perhaps "category: ROYGBIV"? otherwise, i must say i hate these subjective categories. just put the word in the description, if you have to.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too would imagine that "colorful" should mean "brightly coloured" rather than "multi-coloured", if the example swatch is to be believed. For example, a bright blue object could be described as "colorful", as in "full of colour" but not "multi-coloured". As to the above comment that American English is spoken by more people than British English, I suggest you visit India. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thgoiter, Mattes, Auntof6, Crouch, Swale, Mercurywoodrose, and Rodhullandemu: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly delete or maybe we should have a template for categories like this that notes files should be moved to a more appropriate category but still keep it for files that haven't been moved as appropriate kind of as a "dumping ground" category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arts occupations

[edit]

Is Category:Arts occupations distinct from Category:Art-related occupations‎ ? Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I agree, these should be merged. Josh (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


And what is the difference with Category:People associated with art‎? JopkeB (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: People can be associated with art without it being their occupation, so I see the purpose for that one. Josh (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exist today:

Others:

The first four must be merged into Category:Arts occupations. Allforrous (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous, JopkeB, and Joshbaumgartner: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413:

Merge Category:Art-related occupations into Category:Arts occupations.

Merge Category:Art-related activities into Category:Arts occupations as well. All of the current contents are occupations. However, Activities and Occupations are distinct concepts, so if actual arts-related activities (not occupations) are identified, this can be re-created as a distinct category.

Merge Category:People in arts occupations into Category:Arts occupations. Technically, people in an occupation and the occupation itself are distinct concepts, but practically in this case, it seems hardly a distinction at all between the contents. If someone can truly identify the kinds of content to make a 'people in' category meaningful, it can be re-created at that point with more meaningful scope than the current iteration.

  1.  Keep Category:People associated with art as this includes all manner of people that are not professionally employed in the arts.
  2.  Keep Category:Visual arts occupations as a sub of Category:Arts occupations, just as Category:Visual arts is a sub-category of Category:The arts, in accordance with the Hierarchic Principle
Josh (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Josh. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree with the proposal of Josh. JopkeB (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Starr Environmental

[edit]

Hidden cat. Please look at the structure of subcats 1997 to 2005 ("empty" ones) and the later years. (Many individual files are categorized both by year and in this general cat BTW.) I think something has to be done, but what? No experience on hidden cats... E4024 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I haven't touched this cat in a fair bit of time but last I remember was an IP adding cat redirect tags on each category (thereby screwing with the category). Will elaborate later. Hiàn (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyday I'm more convinced that we should do something to prevent IPS from opening cats, although I know RD is something different. --E4024 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another look at the situation and it looks like either mass editing or bot moves are required. There's a mess of duplicates (from ~1997-2002) and it looks like there's been intermingling between the main cat and the sub-cats. I'm not going to suggest something at the moment but I'll try and tag the dupes within the next few weeks. Hiàn (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are thee kinds of cats

Many photos have not yet been properly categoriced, therefore every single picture must be sorted by hand. I would prever a solution in which the pictures are sorted by year as there will be pictures of 2019 and it would be a real problem to find and categorice them in a category with more than 77.862 images. Therefore I think the pictures from Category:Starr Environmental should be sorted by year in the Category:Starr Environmental 1997 to Category:Starr Environmental 2018 categories, while categoricing them properly, than Category:Starr Environmental should be deleted as it is essentially the same as Category:Images from Forest & Kim Starr which mentions the full names of the Fotographers and therefore has the better name and therefore ist the better mothercategory for Category:Starr Environmental 1997 to Category:Starr Environmental 2018. Kersti (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The files from Starr Environmental 2010-2018 can probably be moved to the Images from... category safely without fear of duplicates. The files from 1997-2010 will likely need manual reviewing for dupes. Hiàn (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I wrote before you agreed? I said that is better to sort tham by year! --Kersti (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, haha. The year stuff works, too. Hiàn (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, the empty categories can be speedy deleted, no? Josh (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not! I will fill them while I do the work. There are thousands of pictures for each of them. Kersti (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kersti Nebelsiek: It is preferred to create categories only as media is added to them, not ahead of time leaving empty categories waiting around. Empty categories attract speedy deletion requests. That said, if you need some time to work on this go ahead, just be aware that empty categories sitting around are like a big red beacon attracting well-intentioned maintenance folks to come clean up. Josh (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago there were six more empty cats. I don't know exactly when I will add the first photos to the empty categories, but I think it will be within days. Kersti (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support categorization and support deletion of empty categories. After more than nine months since the last comment, I think we can delete the empty categories. I wonder if a bot or someone using AWB could categorize these images given the very large number but there's no reason to delete the categories just because they are hidden. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Category:Sheikh of the Egyptian Quran Reciters

[edit]

Totally unnecessary. Of course we have also a Category:Qur'an reciters from Egypt which has been kept apart from this cat. Probably we should make a separate exclusive Commons for Egyptian issues. E4024 (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Sheikh means head in this job title and official Rank. The Quran reciters are a specific group of scholars withs specific education. In Arabic شيخ المقارئ المصرية. It's an official job title. It's a high rank. It's present in Egypt and in other muslim countries. At any point of time there is one Sheikh of Quran reciter in each country. His job involves being the reference in all reciters and supervision of Quran recitation schools (12,000 official schools plus maybe same number non official schools allover Egypt).--Ashashyou (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked the category to the Arabic WP page. https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/مشيخة_عموم_المقارئ_المصرية. Regards. --Ashashyou (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regards regards. Certainly you have an explanation also for why you added it to Category:Qur'an reciters and not Category:Qur'an reciters from Egypt, which is also under Category:Sheikhs from Egypt, even after I attracted attention to this issue upwards. The idea is making "more visible" anything Egyptian, right? Continue opening parallel cats, please. --E4024 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a valid category to have 'leaders' of a profession as a subcat of that profession. Seems some recatting is required, but easily done. Perhaps it should be renamed Category:Sheikhs of the Egyptian Quran Reciters as there are more than one. Josh (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of the Americas

[edit]

Proposing deletion of the following categories relating to the supercontinent "the Americas":

Reason: The only content in these categories is subcategories for North America and South America. There is no need to have these categories for the supercontinent when the only content is specific to its component continents. I believe these categories were created when a user decided that "the Americas" should be considered a continent instead of North and South America separately, so this request is part of cleaning that up. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are there because they have a parent category where they should be located and found as expected. They don't add any irrelevant classification, are small, and avoid leaving files orphans in a less relevant category. So they immediately link to the North/South subpages where appropriate, and the fil upload wizards find their correct way to properly subclassify the pages.
They don't take space except a few entries, and require no maintenance. There are contents that are relevant to all the Americas and not just to one part of them and it would be unsuitable to classifiy them in just one or some of these parts.
If contents can then be subclassified in only one part, of course they can be moved there, just like all other parent categories in Commons.
It has nothing to do with your "considered a continent" argument. You probably still don't understand how upload wizards are trying to find relevant the most categories: they progress from any parent to find if there are child categories. Many users don't know how to properly subclassify contents manuyally, they just use the upload wizard which is then stuck and cannot subclassify correctly if there's no relevant parent category. This automatica classification is based on the description texts, which is often defective: if we provide at least a parent category, the uploader will also see candidate children categories and know where to place their content, and then can also adapt the descriptions. Suhc parent categories with little content (except subcategories, where apporopriate) really help the maintenance verdy_p (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't always need to make parent categories for every possible geographic level where a topic could be located. Categorizing by supercontinent isn't meaningful in most cases, because 1) most things are not specific to a supercontinent as a whole (they are specific to a smaller area), and 2) people don't tend to search by supercontinent. Most people probably don't give supercontinents any thought at all.
Note that I'm not nominating every "Americas" category: The specific categories I've nominated here don't have any individual files, and wouldn't need them because any given image would be specific to a smaller area. By the logic you describe, we would also need categories in every topic for progressively larger areas such as hemisphere and even planet. Those make sense for some things, but not for everything. Commons has standardized its continent boundaries so that all land is included in a continent, so most things, especially physical things, don't need to be categorized at any higher level. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I also think it's unnecessary and unhelpful. And its deletion would make its parent category, Category:Images by region, also unnecessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I would keep the parent category, America is a continent and therefore as we have it for Asia, Afrca, Europe and Oceania it makes sense. What it does not make sense in my view is the category "Images by region" where you have only Americas in it. That one should be deleted. Desyman (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Desyman: There are several ways of looking at where divisions between continents are, and some of them consider the Americas to be one continent, as you say. However, Wikimedia Commons uses a model where America is not a continent, but a supercontinent, and North America and South America are continents. The graphic on Category:Continents illustrates this. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Delete. Redundant clutter in the parent Category:Images of the Americas--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Al-Shafi‘i Fiqh

[edit]

The other "fiqh" cats -probably opened by the same user- do not have the Al- article. I'm sure there is an "Arabic" explanation to this; but Commons is in English. E4024 (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Category:Fiqh is a subcat of Category:Sharia, as "Fiqh" is the human understanding of "Sharia" (roughly equivalent to the concept of jurisprudence in other cultures), so "Al-Shafi'i" (the Sharia) seems superflous, and it would seem that "Fiqh" and "Al-Shafi'i Fiqh" would basically mean the same thing. Am I missing somthing or are these two equivalent? Josh (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The cat(s) opener has tried to create subcats for different schools of belief in Islam; but like in other cases, a bit disorderly, one begins with an "al" article, the other does not etc. (Maybe I am obsessed with order, that is another possibility. :) --E4024 (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: I get it, but since Commons is in English, it should really be "Sharia Fiqh", but as I said, this seems quite redundant as I am not aware of the idea of non-Sharia Fiqh existing. I would defer to one more expert on this question though. In any case, if we keep the category, it should be renamed. Josh (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SVG buildings in Russia

[edit]

Delete. Not a useful subcategorization. It currently has only one file, and no obvious parent like Category:SVG architecture in Russia. Themightyquill (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not okay. I don't think it's a fundamentally useful category structure, but instead of engaging in discussion first, you've instead potentially made someone more work to delete all these new categories you've just created. These are "SVG buildings" (whatever that would be) -- they are SVG images that contain icons of buildings, floorplans of specific buildings or rooms in those buildings, generic floorplans of building types from a given country, 3d renderings of buildings, all with the most tenuous link of national boundaries. Over half of the sub-categories you've created still have only one or two images. I simply don't see the benefit of subdividing Category:Buildings in Turkey to Category:SVG buildings in Turkey or Category:SVG buildings to Category:SVG buildings in Turkey. It also contributes to the further intersection of content category tree with format category tree, which I think is a bad idea all around. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is working with SVG files not important for users? These are especially valued image. I created categories according to the pattern: Category:SVG Wikimedia logos (intersection of content category tree with format category tree). That's why I created these categories, because it is scientifically convenient to find the right building in vector format by country. Perhaps you have even better suggestions? Yours faithfully, — Niklitov (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scientifically convenient to find SVG images from some building, any building, in a country? How so? It doesn't follow the pattern Category:SVG Wikimedia logos - dividing logos (art) into the way they were created makes far more sense than dividing "buildings" into SVG images, much less subdividing that by country. Moreover, that category also would have an enormous amount of images if it wasn't sudivided, whereas Category:SVG buildings (already a problem in my view) would not even 200. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Niklitov: No, absolutely not. We create categories to organize what we have in a logical and useful way, or perhaps to mirror content on wikidata. Neither of these is true of this category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an explanation of where to place files, not how to create categories. Otherwise, we should create a category specific to each file. In that case, we could put File:Solikamsk dom voevody VL Plan.svg in a new Category:2010 black and white SVG images of the facade of Voivode House, Solikamsk.
:-), Yours faithfully, — Niklitov (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer, this applies equally to Category:SVG buildings by country and all subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Niklitov: Obviously no consensus to delete and Category:SVG buildings in Russia is not empty. I personally suggest to retain SVG categories only up to WikiProjects level: in this case category:SVG architecture, because we have Category:WikiProject Architecture; and some SVG Russia cat. In future there will be {{Catsbyfiletype}} anyway.--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was consensus at the end? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am out of this discussion. Just wanted to discourage not to make long category trees when dealing with file types--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars by religion

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Muslim scholars.

Category with a single subcat or "Category:Christian scholars", consisting of Category:Catholic clergy scientists and another cat. Although the people in there seem to be "religious people" I have my reserves against this kind of classification, except for "men of religion" like rabbis, imams, bishops etc. I also do not like so much similar categorization in other religions; -for example- "Category:Muslim scholars of Islam" although it has some reasoning (people who study their own religion).

BTW I may understand -not approve- cats like "Jewish actors" because "Jew" both refers to religion and ethnicity; at least this is the generally accepted view, and this people is dispersed all over the world.

In summary. I propose to get rid of categorization based on religion like Islamic doctors or Catholic scientists for civilian careers. Let us use the religion factor only for men/women of religion. E4024 (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we should not include the religion of a person (even where such religious affiliation is well established) except for those cases where it is specifically relevant. The religion of scholars in general is not relevant. If I am a scholar of military science, it is irrelevant what church I attend. If I am a scholar of religious studies, it IS relevant what religion I specialize in studying, but again, it is irrelevant what my personal faith may be. So it is fair to have a category of "scholars of Christian theology", but not relevant to have a category of "Christian scholars". Certainly, categorizing doctors or scientists or tax attorneys by their religious affiliation is completely pointless even if it could be verifiable (which is dubious). I agree with E4024 to rid ourselves of these categories. Josh (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Muslim scholars. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Desyman (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Here-lived plaques in Vienna

[edit]

Any reason all the subcategories here are in German? I would propose a move to Category:Plaque for X (Vienna, location). GuentherZ, you made many of these, so your thoughts are welcome. Similar categories at Category:Here-died plaques in Vienna, Category:Here-was-born plaques in Vienna‎, and a few other spots. Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should be in English and correctly formatted ("Category:Plaque for Name at Location"). This would apply to all similar categories. Josh (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Josh. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Auntof6: translation into English sounds reasonable, but seeing the details, it may be really challenging, eg "Category:Gedenktafel für NS-Opfer (Wien, Lainzer Straße 74, Familie Szeczi)", "Category:Hoepner-Gedenktafel", "Category:Karl-Lueger-Gedenktafel, TU" (the latter is also indexed in a public art catalogue of Vienna (Austria) under the number: 94744, hence the well-established-English-name question?)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Certainly challenging, at least for me. My German isn't good enough for me to be confident in translating these. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 and Auntof6: Even if we don't get all of them perfect, a mass move from Category:Gedenktafel für * (Wien, *) to Category:Plaque for * (Vienna, *) would be a big improvement. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: True. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stale stale discussion. I was also a little confused by the German category names. Gedenktafel is "commemorative plaque," but perhaps that is redundant. Some suggestions (and possibly a checklist) going forward:

1) It seems "Plaque(s) to" is more common than "for" in English-language categories, so perhaps "to" is preferrable?

2) The many "NS-Opfer" ("NS victims") categories should be renamed after the people they are dedicated to, such as:

The example above is found in Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of National Socialism in Austria, which a bit difficult to read since everyone is primarily an "NS-Opfer" and noone is sorted alphabetically.

3) Alphabetic sorting also needs to be done in categories where it is necessary, i.e. probably mostly in plaque-related categories.

4) Compound names such as Category:Hoepner-Gedenktafel should follow the naming standard we agree upon, but I think we should add {{De}} with the current German names on all category pages before renaming them. That way we preserve all existing German names that are possibly found in other sources.

Josh, Auntof6, Estopedist1, Themightyquill (on a wikibreak), does this sound like good strategy?

There's also a number of Category:Gedenkstein ("memorial stone") that this discussion may also apply to as well.

Sinigh (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would certainly be a big improvement. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim religious workers

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Islamic clerics.

The subcats clearly show this is a wrong categorization. Since when are poets (and the people under the other two subcats) "workers"? I would delete this cat, because the only people I could add there are imams, muezzins (who make the call to prayer) and "vaiz" (preachers by office) which would make none of them happy. "Worker" normally refers to people who work "physically", like making a wall. "Religious leaders"? Islam does not have such a hierarchy; Muslims do not need anybody to make their prayers. Delete the cat and let's all hope the cat-opener follows -at least, as they never participate in discussions- these CfDs opened continuously. E4024 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see just removing this category from the poets subcat, but maybe moving the missionaries and scholars up to Category:Muslims by occupation. By the way, I disagree with your definition of worker: not all work is physical. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muslim religious workers should include all who conduct activities (as a professional occupation or even on a voluteer basis) on behalf of the religion. I am not terribly familiar with the structure of the religion so I can't speak to particular jobs that may exist or not within it (imams, muezzins, etc.) However, it does seems that this category has cats like 'poets' and 'scholars' that do not belong here and yet is missing cats such as 'chaplains', 'imams', etc. Being an adherent of the religion, and even reflecting it in your work does not make one a 'religious worker', so even if a poet writes beautiful pieces centered on Muslim faith, they are not a Muslim religious worker. Josh (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could be worried that next step would be adding terrorists here, but then s/he can be accused of not believing in the good faith of people. I personally prefer "life experience" to naive internet rules. Whatever. Go on Josh, I like your contributions. (Oh sorry, I'm subjective again. Kudos! :) --E4024 (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added category:Muezzins here; but there is no obligation to be a Muslim, at least in secular countries, to sing the "ezan". It is a "job". Indeed fastly disappearing because today ezan is mostly given from recorded singing. --E4024 (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Moneychanger and His Wife - Marinus van Reymerswale (Musée d'Arts de Nantes)

[edit]

Category too precise: condemned a priori to contain only one file. Braaark (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. No one else can take a photo of that piece of art? There are 52 images in Category:Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Please return the image to the category while it's under discussion here. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
condemned a priori to contain only one file - just as Category:The Moneychanger and His Wife - Marinus van Reymerswaele (Museo del Prado), Category:The Money Changers - follower of Marinus van Reymerswaele (Bilbao Fine Arts Museum, 69/175), and Category:The Tax Collector and His Wife - Marinus van Reymerswaele (Alte Pinakothek). So there's four categories to delete. Sammyday (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sammyday's observation. It will always be time to recreate these categories if one day they become useful. For the moment, Themightyquill, nothing justifies that this work is treated differently from the others: very few are those which have a category entirely dedicated.--Braaark (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are most definitely not condemned a priori to contain only one file. You can certainly propose deletion the the grounds that they currently contain only one file, but surely they could contain more files. See Category:Two tax collectors by Marinus van Reymerswale (National Museum in Warsaw). If you delete them, your proposal is what? Upmerge the images to Category:The Money Changers by Marinus van Reymerswale even though they aren't all called that? Or upmerge to Category:Marinus van Reymerswale? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to Category:The Money Changers by Marinus van Reymerswale. The closer one. Sammyday (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to put paintings called "The money changer and his wife" or "The tax collectors" in a folder called "The Moneychangers." We could have Category:Paintings of money changers by Marinus van Reymerswale, but the tax collectors painting should not be a subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Do we really need to create these 1-2-members categories for the concrete painting in concrete location. I would upmerge the subcategories in Category:The Money Changers by Marinus van Reymerswale. Sidenotice: a gallery page may be possible: ca "Foo painting in art museums"--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep the one with multiple files. I'd also keep the one that's after van Reymerswale, just to emphasize that it isn't by the primary artist. And, outside the scope of this discussion, I'd put a gallery on the page to show each different one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raw beef dishes of Chile

[edit]

Does another raw beef dish from Chile exist? Upmerge Category:Crudo to the parent categories. Themightyquill (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. Nevertheless if upmerged, it should be "Crudo of Chile", since there are crudos in other places, and with diferent preparations and variations.3BRBS (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@3BRBS: I can't find any references to dishes called crudo elsewhere, though it does mean "raw" in Italian, which could lead to confusion. Perhaps we could move to Category:Crudo alemán? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That category proposed wouldn't be accurate, since it means in Spanish "German crudo", which implies is German, and the Chilean version is obviously not German but Chilean, eventhough it seems to have roots in the German traditions from the German immigrants to Chile. Also, no body calls it that way either, making it unclear (To clarify, "crudo" in Spanish just means "raw," and in this context is the "raw meat dish"). Moreover is it hard for me to believe that German immigrants would not accquire this tradition somewhere else, and if so, they probably have their own particular local names, and yet, it is also hard to believe that this receipe is not common to Austria, Poland and other close countries. So therefore the question. Why is so important this category in particular to you?3BRBS (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be fairly commonly used, and even if it's just a name that people recognize in Chile, it's clear enough. Just "crudo" is obviously ambiguous since, as you say, it just means raw. Category:Crudo alemán could stay in Category:Meat dishes of Chile. If the dish exists elsewhere, I can't find any references to it under that name. Variants might well exist in Central Europe but I doubt they would call it Category:Crudo alemán. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Category:Crudo chileno could be a good compromise, if needed at all. Cheers! 3BRBS (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and 3BRBS: enwiki article title is en:Crudos (Commons equivalent Category:Crudos)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles explain what they are about far better than commons categories do, so moments of ambiguity are a bad time to rely on wikipedia. And besides, wikipedia also has en:Crudo and en:Crudo (disambiguation). -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ship stations in Hungary

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Piers.

There doesn't seem to be a category tree at Category:Ship stations and it's not a term I'm familiar with. Is this redundant with Category:Passenger ship terminals? Or is there another category tree we could be joining? This applies to sub-categories too. Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a direct translation of "Hajóállomás" but it doesn't work in english (see en:Ship station). It could be translated as "port" or "harbour" but in this case, I think passenger ship terminals seems accurate. Globetrotter19 Do you have any better ideas? Category:Ship station in Vác would become Category:Passenger ship terminal in Vác unless Category:Ferry terminal in Vác (see Category:Ferry terminals in Hungary) would make more sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is problem. Also problem, there are varied type of "Hajóállomás" can be found in Hungary. The 'Passenger ship terminal' does not pass to it because is a subcat of the buildings (Transport buildings) and "Hajóállomás" is usually without building. Maybe the simply port or Passenger port will be better. The "Hajóállomás" mostly a simply 'móló', these are just a couple floating barrels or cylindrical containers covered with planks, however the Lake Balaton ports also have a part which call also 'móló' but those are allways stone/concrete structures.
About the Category:Ship station in Vác (GPS 47.780396, 19.122595) maybe the Category:Passenger port in Vác can be right, the Category:Ferry terminal in Vác an other 'institution' see here Category:Vác-Tahitótfalu ferry (Hungary) (GPS 47.777147, 19.125133). By the way a 'real' ferry terminal in Hungary,-in my interpretation,-can be only Tihany-Szántód ferry. I hope it could be helped. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Globetrotter19: I can see your concern, though I don't think Category:Passenger ship terminals is strictly only for buildings. Many ferry terminals don't have buildings per se, but not all have a pier (móló) either. Those can be categorized separately. We can upmerge to Category:Ports and harbours in Hungary but that's a much broader category. We also don't have Category:Docks in Hungary for Category:Docks by country. Could that work? And if things don't translate well, we should keep them in Hungarian. What about Category:Docks in Vác with Category:Váci Hajóállomás as a sub-category, and images of the Vac side of the Category:Vác-Tahitótfalu ferry (Hungary) either free images or in a new sub-category Category:Ferry terminal in Vác? Or could "Váci Hajóállomás" be confused for the ferry terminal? - Themightyquill (talk)
Category:Landigs in Hungary can be also fit to "Hajóállomás" based The two ferry landings, Tihany and to the southwest, Tihany rév. Source: Let's Go Eastern Europe ISBN 0-333-65281-9. Or Category:Piers in Hungary can be also fit based what Lonely planet wrote about "Nemzetközi Hajóállomás" (Budapest) Boats depart from the International Ferry Pier on Belgrade rakpart,... And Category:Ferry stops in Budapest can be also fit based ...passenger ferries depart from Boráros tér...head to Pünkösd Fűrdő...The ferry stops closest to the Castle District is Battyány tér,... For both source: Lonely planet 2001 Eastern Europe ISBN 1-86450-149-9. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Globetrotter19: Yes, but we don't have Category:Landings by country, or Category:Ferry stops, and not all hajóállomás stick out into the water like a pier does. Are you okay with docks? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Docks seems not so good, so I asked help from hu.wikipedia transport community. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: So, We decided Category:Piers in Hungary probably the good for Hungarian ship stations. So if it is OK for You I will move there those and rename to "Hajóállomás" these like 'Keszthelyi hajóállomás' indeed Ship stations in Keszthely etc. The 'station'/pier building like Ship stations in Fonyód to Fonyódi hajóállomás épülete. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Globetrotter19: That works in some cases, but not in all. Category:Ship station (Kelemen László park, Ráckeve) is definitely not a en:pier, for instance. It might be a en:Wharf. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Category:Ship station (Kelemen László park, Ráckeve) changed to en:Wharf (by the way no Wharf,-and many other port infrastructure releated,-article in Hungarian).
I know the en:pier not perfect for all...I have questions too. Example if Category:Fonyód pier used for the Fonyód port 'móló' where to do the other pontoon like Fonyód piers? and if the Fonyód ship station is a pier what means the Fonyód pier?.
Sadly, I don't know too well water transport (not even in Hungarian), and I got answer only from two 'bus experts' from hu.wikipedia transport community. If someone could help, I(We) would thank you - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Móló and pier are definitely the same. (Similarly with the Badacsony móló.) Smaller floating infrasture where boats might tie up would, in my opinion, be considered just wharfs, or docks. If, by "Fonyód ship station" you mean Category:Fonyódi hajóállomás épülete, I think it should be renamed Category:Fonyódi hajóállomás building or Category:Fonyódi passenger ship terminal. If by "Fonyód ship station" you mean the pier where ships stop, then Category:Fonyód pier. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Currently the category is empty. So I guess we can close this CFD? Besides, the parent Category:Ports and harbours in Hungary consist of subcategories named in English language and in Hungarian language--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content seems to have been moved to Category:Wharves and quays in Hungary. This category and Category:Passenger ship terminals in Hungary are now empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University teachers

[edit]

It seems to me that this can be perfectly divided into Category:Lecturers‎ and Category:Professors‎. We don't need this category. Roy17 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the fusion and redirection if needed. Can you make it effective?--Allforrous (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that en:University teacher does not exist, so there's no where for it to link to. I don't think it would be hard to merge. I wonder if Category:Lecturers might be better off at Category:Academic lecturers for clarity, but that's a separate issue, I suppose. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to redirect to Category:University and college faculty by country and rename the contents accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Currently enwiki en:university teacher is redirected to academic personnel. User:Themightyquill's suggestion (redirect to "Category:University and college faculty by country") seems a bit suspicious, but we haven't Category:University and college faculty or ;Category:Academic personnel--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using the word "educators" as an umbrella term for all employees (not only professors but also lecturers, teachers, counsellors, librarians, lab technicians...) involved in education at an institution (not only unis but also colleges, institutes, high/secondary schools, vocational training schools, primary schools...).
Proposed cat tree would be
Educators
Educators by country
Educators of the United Kingdom
Educators of the United Kingdom by university or college
Educators of the University of Cambridge
Professors of the University of Cambridge
Lecturers ..
Research scientists ..
...
Educators by educational institution
Educators by university or college
Professors by university or college
Professors of the University of Cambridge
Educators by high school or secondary school
Educators by primary school
University teachers redirects to Educators by university or college. Roy17 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: A nice idea, but not all professors are educators, since "Research professors" exist, so you'd still need university and college faculty as a parallel (and mostly redundant) tree. I don't think it's worthwhile. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "research professors", being employed in educational organisations and engaging in academic research, are educators. Roy17 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New idea. "Employees of educational institutions". How about that? Roy17 (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17, Themightyquill, Joshbaumgartner, Allforrous, and Estopedist1: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sonderkraftfahrzeug 111

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Munitionsschlepper auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausführung A.

Redirect to Category:Munitionsschlepper I. Sd.Kfz.111 is just another designation for the same vehicle. Josh (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

 ; Munitionsschlepper auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.A:Gerät 35 (Sd.Kfz.111)
 : Ammunition carrier based on Ausf.A chassis.
 ; Munitionsschlepper auf Pz.Kpfw.Ia:
 ; Munitionsschlepper auf Pz.Kpfw.Ib:

the name, "Munitionsschlepper I" ,refers to all types of ammunition carrier variants of based on Panzer I chassis, includes factory-made or field-modification types.

on the other hand, "Sd.Kfz.111" is only refers to Gerät 35, based on Panzer I Ausf.A chassis, factory made, not field-modification types.--Brakeet (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. this is only my understanding, if my knowledge is wrong, I'm sorry, thanks--Brakeet (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Brakeet: I think you have the right understanding. The enwiki article is unfortunately missing citations for that section, but it does seem to mirror the notation used by Chamberlain and Doyle in their book where they describe 51 vehicles being made as factory modifications to Ausf. A tanks, and a later order to make field modifications under the Ia and Ib numbers. No real details are given on the detailed differences between them, and the names used to refer to them seem inconsistent as well (e.g. Chamberlain and Doyle add "Sd Kfz 111" to the title of both sections for factory and field modifications.) Unfortunately ammo carriers made from obsolete tanks were not much of a draw for World War II photographers so there are not a lot of images out there. Here on Commons our job is pretty simple though. We have a single image (a CGI model). Thus it is perfectly fine to just have it under the umbrella name "Munitionsschlepper I" and for all other names to point to that one location. If a treasure trove of imagery of these vehicles is uploaded in the future (one can hope!), we can worry about sub-categorizing at that point. Josh (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Muhammad

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Diplomacy of Muhammad.

Do we have any other such "history of" cats? Sounds out-of-place to me. I propose to delete it. E4024 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:Life and teachings of Jesus Christ‎ to deal with all the subcategories. Perhaps we could creates something equivalent for Muhammad? Perhaps something that could also include the content in Category:Diplomacy of Muhammad (currently under discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Diplomacy of Muhammad. I'm not sure where it would go other than Category:Muhammad though, since the similar categor for Jesus goes under Category:Bible stories. Perhaps Category:History of Islam (though that's maybe a little backwards...) - Themightyquill (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations along roads in Colorado

[edit]

This discussion also includes all "Locations along X" subcategories.

What is the benefit of these categories? Even if they were fully used, would there be a significant navigational benefit to having the I-70 category contain the categories for Rabbit Valley, Fruita, the Eisenhower Tunnel, Burlington, and Denver? A category for I-70 makes sense of course, but a category tree for "settlements, natural features, and other things along I-70" isn't particularly helpful. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Locations along X" sub-categories are a solution proposed by and, so far as is known, first used by Famartin to address a categorization problem. While the solution is not perfect, it is a really good one, as explained by the following examples:
  • In the case of the referenced Rabbit Valley (Colorado), Interstate 70 is a major feature within the valley. Therefore, according to standard practice, Interstate 70 in Colorado would be included as a subcategory within the valley's main category (just as the California Trail is a subcategory of the Western United States). However, since the vast majority of the information contained within Interstate 70 in Colorado has nothing to do with Rabbit Valley, doing so doesn't make much sense. The next alternative would be to put Rabbit Valley as a subcategory of Interstate 70 in Colorado, but this just reverses the problem, such as in the case of Denver, Colorado. While Interstate 70 is a major transportation feature within Denver, Colorado, the vast majority of the information in the Denver, Colorado category has nothing to do with Interstate 70. Furthermore, by having Denver, Colorado (and similar categories) as a direct category of Interstate 70 in Colorado adds way too many categories within the Interstate 70 in Colorado category.
  • The Locations along X categories allow for a logical connection between these categories. By having Rabbit Valley as a location along Interstate 70, users recognized that Rabbit Valley is only one feature along Interstate 70 in Colorado. Likewise, by having Denver as a location along Interstate 70 in Colorado, users recognize that Denver is also only one feature along Interstate 70 in Colorado and should expect that nearly all of the material within the Denver category will have nothing to do with Interstate 70.
  • In case of the referenced Eisenhower Tunnel, since it is an integral part of Interstate 70, it should be included as a subcategory of Interstate 70 in Colorado and not as a subcategory of Locations along Interstate 70 in Colorado.
As previously indicated, the categories are a work in progress, with the states of Utah and Virginia taking the lead. Finally, what may seem to be an exception to the Locations along X categories (but really isn't) is if the road (usually not applicable to Interstates and U.S. Routes) is located entirely within the main category. (For example, since all of Colorado State Highway 26 is located within the city limits of Denver, it should be included as a subcategory of the Roads in Denver, Colorado, rather than having Denver, Colorado included as a subcategory of Locations along Colorado State Highway 26. An Errant Knight (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i feel that this kind of "locations along xx" somewhat makes sense, in view of categorising files produced while travelling along roads/shipping routes...
also, it's quite logical and already common practice that all buildings (with a house number) along a road are placed under that road, e.g. Category:5th Avenue (Manhattan). RZuo (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:White headwear in art

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Headwear by color.

If a subcat is named "Category:Females with white headgear in art", then it is totally legit to open a CfD about if the correct word for these and similar cats is "headgear" or "headwear"... E4024 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Headwear by color. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED + Hoya ND1000 filter + Hoya ND16 filter

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM and Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/02#Intersection_categories.

I'm nominating this as a representative sample of countless similar categories created by User:ComputerHotline.

IMHO, the problem here is clear from the horribly bloated category title alone. This is a horribly unwieldy attempt to create a category for every potential combination of equipment. Common sense alone makes clear that this sort of thing isn't remotely workable if taken to its logical conclusion; look at the hierarchy for this category alone.

This sort of over-categorisation isn't useful. This type of thing should be handled by improved search tools, not by a futile attempt to capture every potential combination.

I've discussed this before, but never got round to taking it beyond the nominated sample cases back then:-

The question is, where do we draw the line between useful categories (e.g. Category:Taken with Nikon D7100) and ones that are obviously *not* helpful like this? I'd like to get some answers and consensus we could use as the basis for what categories to keep, and what to get rid of.

(I don't want this to come across as too critical of ComputerHotline. He's uploaded numerous images which are of a consistently high standard, making him a valuable contributor to Commons. But... I disagree with him on this specific point!)

Ubcule (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Even intersecting categories between camera and lens have already been questioned here and here. Adding multiple filters to the category is just a more extreme example. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Ah, that's interesting- thank you. Yes, the examples given in Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM still aren't as OTT as the one above. The various categories listed there are only combinations of two, which one *might* be able to argue a case for with a straight face (which isn't to say I'd agree with that).
I'd also be interested to hear what @Yann: - who deleted the category in one of the previous discussions mentioned above- thinks of this, and what should be done, if they have the time. Ubcule (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women wearing headscarves in Iran

[edit]

This one and Category:Hijabs in Iran are mother and daughter at the same time. E4024 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I got confused or some change occurred in-between but I'm dizzy about all these "Islam", "female", "clothing" cats inflation in Commons. We have to find a volunteer to arrange all these without this much of expansion; "lo justo y necesario y nada más", someone who has no passions other than for Commons. (No, not me! :) --E4024 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You are right. No need Muslim women from Iran or Women of Iran categories. Jolmia (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion is needed. This is important for the people of the world. Jolmia (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Seems to be OK, the nominated category fits well into the parent Category:Women wearing headscarves by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supersport races in the Netherlands

[edit]

I do not think there would be only "one" file here, in this cat, if there is only one file that means there is some categorization mistake. E4024 (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just followed the rules that I observed in Commons. There is no need to search too much, you immediately realize that in Commons there are hundreds, thousands of categories with a single photo. As an example, here you have these: Category:Valerie Davis, Category:Paralympic swimmers from Austria, Category:Bowling greens in Northumberland and so on. Regards.--Montesita (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not having a one-file cat but that "having one file" shows that there is a categorization mistake. Even looking at the categorization of that single file you can see this. Lately you have been making so many categorizations (reverting yourself at many occasions) that I think by myself: Why does s/he not make a study in their own user page, find out a good categorization scheme and then apply it? Please look into some of my reverts of your categorization contributions. (I will not add the links.) You add to "one image" "Riders of this or that kind of motorcycle" while the person in the image drives one of them. I revert you and tell you (at the edit summary) that that category is for the whole cat of that person ("rider"). To no avail: You go and do the same this time with another file. It is very good to be modest in life. My philosophy: Look around and try to learn from others. Not only believe "I know everything". (Valid for myself also, as I said: "I try to learn", everything.) I tried to follow your categorization (of motorbikes and their "riders") from the beginning. I got dizzy. Did you not? Just look back, review your contributions and tell me. Whatever, someone will have to correct "some" of your contributions. Not me though, because I know so little about these bikes. I began to follow you to learn a bit but probably now I'm more confused than before. Take care. I thank you all the same for the effort. Better than not doing anything. Please solve this mess and make me ashamed. I kindly request you to make me ashamed for questioning your contributions. I will be proud of you. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, @E4024: , I see what you're trying to explain. I tried to contribute to organize a bit the topic of motorcycles, which was quite unattended. Unfortunately, I do not have as much knowledge as you do and it seems that instead of helping, I am causing a disaster. Do not worry, it's clear to me. From now on, I leave Commons and stop bothering you. I'm sure it will not be hard for you to fix all the wrongs I've caused, and if that's not the case, I apologize. I regret that I have obstructed your supervision work with my work and I hope that other wiser users continue to collaborate on the topic ... Regards.--Montesita (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no especially concerned about a category with one file, but in this case we have three categories with one file:
Couldn't this one file go in Category:Supersport racing in the Netherlands and Category:Supersport races, and we can delete the other two? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree , Montesita did a good work in my opinion: 1. "Supersport racing" is one thing (it's about the motorcycle road racing type "Supersport" categorized by country. 2. "Supersport competitions..." is another thing into the first (about the competitions of this kind of sport by country, that are a subclass of "racing"). 3. "Supersport races" is a subclass of "competitions" because the other one should be "racing series". I did't see any mistake by Montesita, but only a correct "DEEP" categorization. Deleting what you said is only to "simplify" the things but overall is not a great thing in my opinion.--Lou6977 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However i agree with other two opinions in that sense: i think it could be better categorizing that file as "2009 XXX Supersport Championship in Assen" or similar and then categorizing this cat in "2009 in XXX Supersport Championship" (now i don't know what racing series is that race part of, XXX could be "World", European", "dutch"...). Dont'you?--Lou6977 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen Revision history of "File:Kenan Sofuoglu 2009 WSS Assen.jpg"? "Riders" cats can be used for Kenan Sofuoğlu or other rider "cats", but not for their files; and I have told him/her this several times, even reverting their edits. To no avail... --E4024 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i agree with you in this sense, but i was replying to Themightquill who would delete some correct categories. The file should be categorized under the "rider", the "race" and/or the "motorcycle model" in the picture, but as you can read, that's what i added in my statement.--Lou6977 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However i don't figure out why the object of this discussion is the category Category:Supersport races in the Netherlands and not the file only--Lou6977 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lou6977: If going as "deep" as possible is correct, then this is totally incorrect. We should instead have
Moreover can you or Montesita clarify the difference beween "Superbike racing" and "Supersport racing" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I think that should be a little bit "too deep" , imho, but you're right. :D However i'm not so "technically" educated in motorcycle racing but, as i know, Superbike and Supersport are similar but can be treatened as different categories. I don't know why you asked to us, is plenty of information about that in the web. Surely Montesita can help us, but he resigned from COmmons i believe.--Lou6977 (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried researching it, and I couldn't tell the difference, aside from different organizations involved in organizing events. I think they could probably be merged. Categories are meant to make things findable, not to make hide them away through 10 different clicks. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I haven't read all of this discussion. But eg enwiki en:superbike racing is a standalone article, and en:supersport racing is redirected to DAB en:Super sport (equivalent in Commons: category:Super sport)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nature reserves in gmina Międzychód

[edit]

empty, I moved all images to appropriate folders of nature reserves Pikador (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that Category:Nature reserve Dolina Kamionki‎ and Category:Nature reserve Kolno Międzychodzkie are the only nature reserves in Category:Gmina Międzychód and don't require the extra level of categorization? Is the same true for the single child category of Category:Nature reserves in Sieraków ? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pikador and Themightyquill: we probably need a Polish user to solve the question of one-member Category:Nature reserves in Sieraków--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: So, what is the point of those changes? Are you removing categories of low admininistration level like a municipality? Anyway Category:Nature reserves in Sieraków should be removed, it refers to the city of Sieraków, which doesn't have any nature reserves (Nature reserve Buki nad jeziorem Lutomskim is situated just outside the city border), but there is also „gmina Sieraków“ (municipality) which has 4 nature reserves. So you can move that only one nature reserve to Category:Gmina Sieraków or create Category:Nature in gmina Sieraków and put it in there. But as I can see, other categories with nature in municipalities have been removed too so first option remains. Pikador (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belly dancers

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Raqs Sharqi.

In another CfD I have defended to use the words "Belly dancers"; I hope we will choose the right path. OTOH, making this an RD to an alternative (IMHO bad) title but only for its "by name" subcat is quite peculiar and must be eliminated to use the "Category:Belly dancers" at the correct place. E4024 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sheikh (Head of a sufi group)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Sheikhs by country.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Sheikhs from al-Azhar.

Looks like made for one person (a series of his pics, the bearded one) and with a wrong name and also as a wrong classification. Even Rumi (Mevlana) is not called "sheikh" (exceptions may exist). E4024 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the wrong capitalization (correct: "head of a group") it seems to be fitted with parent Category:Sheikh (Head of a group). At the moment it is not one-person-only category--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sheikh el-Bekri

[edit]

I would like to know more about this person because the current categorization only implies he was the head of some Sufi grouping in Egypt; and as such a one-file cat may not be necessary. Do we not even know his birth and death years? What do we know about him that made us make a special cat when the only file does not even depict him?

(BTW the original English text on the file prefers "el" and not "al" as Arabic definite article and I like that; regrettably here in Commons we tend to use "al". When I say "we" I mean Arabic-language users. I'm not one of them.) E4024 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose to recategorize the only file, and this one-member category about inferior person to be deleted. Category is created by user:Ashashyou--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic extremism

[edit]

We have this and Category:Islamic fundamentalism also. Normal? E4024 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem strange to me since I'd instinctively see the two as the same, but reading en:Islamic extremism and en:Islamic fundamentalism suggests there may be an important difference: one can be a religious fundamentalist without supporting violence, but (by some definitions) extremism always includes a willingness to commit violence. Certainly, there's a difference between en:Christian fundamentalism and en:Christian terrorism, so I would hate to merge the two parallel categories only in the case of Islam. But perhaps Category:Islamic extremism should be deleted, with the content moved into Category:Islamic terrorism ? I'm not sure what's best. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created Category:Victims of Islamic terrorism in that Category:Islamic terrorism. Hope that is okay? Thank you foryour time. Lotje (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian Turkmen

[edit]

Look at the third file here, than the only file in the mother cat, "Category:Turkmen In Israel" (sic - Turkmen is not plural of Turkman. :) We certainly have some confusion of classification here. Having added no relation to "general" Turkmen cats is another proof of that deficient categorization. E4024 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

en:Turkmen suggests the term "Turkmen" is used both in Israel and in Palestine to refer to their respective ethnic Turkish minorities. But I would suggest Category:Turks in Israel (matching en:Turks in Israel) and Category:Turks in Palestine would be clearer. Both would fit fine under Category:Turks by country‎ - Themightyquill (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Palestinian Turkmen does not necessarily live in Israel. The majority now live in Jordan; it is used to describe the community as a whole, not just Turkmen living in State of Palestine or Israel. Most have been forced to leave their homes but still identify as Palestinian Turkmen. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am not satisfied yet, when you have a clearer mind please use Category:Turkmens by country and remember to use the "s". --E4024 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the Turkmen of the Middle East (i.e. Seljuk and Ottoman descendants) with Turkmen in Turkmenistan! They are not part of a Turkmenistan diaspora. Ridiculous, you clearly haven't a clue about Turkmen in the Levant. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm a ridiculous person; sorry. These Turkmens must have come from somewhere other than where all Turks came from. Enjoy life. --E4024 (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented a category on the Turkmen people which includes "Turkmen in Iran" and "Turkmen in Afghanistan" -- these of course are part of the Turkmen people of Turkmenistan. But Turkmen/Turkoman in the Levant (Iraq, Syria, Palestine/Israel, Lebanon) do not fit in the same category. They identify mostly with the Republic of Turkey, they do not identify with Turkmenistan. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Selçuk Denizli: Could we use either Category:Turkish diaspora in X or Category:People of Turkish descent‎ in X since we have Category:Turkish diaspora and Category:People of Turkish descent‎?
@Themightyquill: , "Turkish diaspora" would also be incorrect because they are not part of the diaspora (just like Bulgarian Turks, Cypriot Turks etc.) -- they have been living there for centuries, prior to the formation of modern nation states. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Selçuk Denizli: I'm not sure that's inherent to the definition of diaspora, since "Jewish diaspora" is certainly a thing. But, would Category:People of Turkish descent‎ in X please you better? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Specific CFD. I can notice that parent is Category:Israeli Turkmen (incidentally probably should be renamed to Category:Turkmens in Israel). So logical name for the nominated category would be Category:Turkmens in Palestine--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Density of the set

[edit]

According to the side-tab links (e.g. en:dense set), this category should be renamed to "Dense sets". However, I don't see why the Mandelbrot pictures belong to here (before or after category renaming). Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mathoverflow question: is-there-an-almost-dense-set-of-quadratic-polynomials-which-is-not-in-the-inte/254533#254533 - it was an inspiration to check image density. Maybe it is not strict. The "dense sets" category looks good also. --Adam majewski (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I was about to close this discussion with consensus "Rename to Category:Dense sets", but on second thought I realized that (1) trivially dense sets (like a completely black rectangle) would belong to this category, too, and (2) none of the Mandelbrot images would belong there (e.g. the lower right corner in File:Mandelbrot Cypress Underbrush.jpg is not a limit point of any sequence of non-black pixels). It seems that the limit image of the sequence shown in File:Zoom around principal Misiurewicz point for periods from 2 to 1024.gif would be the only dense set shown below this category. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose ? near dense sets ? or dense sets in computer graphic ? --Adam majewski (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam majewski: Attempting to finish this stale discussion, I suggest that the category should be deleted. Its 11 members (the number apparently hasn't increased during the last 2.5 years) are well-categorized without it, and I don't see an appropriate definition (cf. my above post of 3 June 2019). As for your suggetions of 31 Jan 2021: both "near dense sets" and "dense sets in computer graphic" would apply to a completely black rectangle. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Category:Genderqueer

[edit]

This category may be redundant with Category:Non-binary genders. I noticed there's a discussion at en:Talk:Genderqueer to move that article to en:Non-binary (currently a redirect). I would suggest we wait for that discussion to end, then merge the two categories here on commons. Themightyquill (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also think Category:Non-binary people should be merged with Category:Genderqueer people, using the former's name. That discussion at enwiki has since concluded and did indeed redirect the en:Genderqueer article to the en:Non-binary gender article. Armadillopteryx (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merge. Intersex people with non-binary identity or third gender people usually do not identify as genderqueer. --Sharouser (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharouser: I believe Armadillopteryx was proposing to merge both into "non-binary", not the other way around. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I propose the same move as on enwiki: merge all into "non-binary". Armadillopteryx (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Armadillopteryx, and Sharouser: The concern I have here (and with several of these categories) is that "genderqueer" is a specific label which can only be reliably determined by self-identification. That is fine, but if we change the name or merge it with something else, then we are negating that self-identification. If someone claims to be "genderqueer" and then we lump them into "non-binary" because we feel they are close enough, that may not be an accurate representation of their own self-identification as they may not share our sentiments. Josh (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We might leave Category:Genderqueer people as a subcategory of Category:Non-binary people, but the other categories could still be merged. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner and Themightyquill: While it's admirable to try to match people's expressed gender identity exactly, the practical reality is that it would be very difficult to keep track of that effectively. As "genderqueer" is essentially an older term for "non-binary" (with more activist connotations) many people may migrate from using genderqueer to non-binary over the years (as I did) or may use both. Non-binary is a neutral umbrella term that should be safe to apply to people who identify as genderqueer. A parallel would be Category:Lesbians. There are many specific lesbian identities: butch lesbian, femme lesbian, lipstick lesbian, bulldagger, stone butch, etc., but we don't try to keep track of those. Instead we just use the umbrella Category:Lesbians, which is less likely to run into problems with people changing their identity or terms falling into disuse. Kaldari (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: I believe that tracking the gender identity of individuals falls far outside the scope of Commons. I do not see any need to include any individual person categories here. This category should contain media depicting the concept of "genderqueer", so pictures of individuals expressing such, infographics covering the topic, or genderqueer symbols are okay, but placing individual people categories here is without need. Josh (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: So what do you suggest we do with Category:Genderqueer people‎? Delete it? Merge it into Category:Non-binary people? Unfortunately, we have to track their gender at some level, since Commons is obsessed with putting all people in gender-specific categories, like Category:Non-binary writers from the United States, Category:Male writers from the United States, etc. although I personally think such categories are ridiculous. Personally, I favor moving all the people to Category:Non-binary people, otherwise we will end up with Category:Genderqueer writers from the United States, Category:Genderfluid writers from the United States, Category:Agender writers from the United States, etc. We should use the most neutral umbrella term to keep it simple. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: I would not say that we have to, regardless of the obsessions of some. I think the category itself is not the problem, as actual files depicting people expressing 'genderqueer' would be fine to go here. Maybe a name change might make a little difference, but I don't think that is the problem. We should simply remove all individual person categories and add a note to that effect. Any files in them that are valid content for the category should then be directly categorized there. On the note you addd in the latest edit, I agree 100% that such categories are not a good idea. I do not think merely merging with non-binary is necessarily the right answer if 'genderqueer' is or was an indentifiable concept and we have files (not just categories) that specifically depict that topic. However, I will readily admit I do not have the knowledge to say for certain if that is the case. Josh (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dynasties by religion

[edit]

I do not see it necessary, especially for one-and-a-half cats. It is related to Empires and when you have an Empire it compasses many peoples, languages, reliigions. The Ottomans made many Pashas from Hungary, Poland or even France and Italy. They eved had Dutch privateers in the Mediterranean. How many Muslims were active in the Russian Court? Religion and Empire conflict. E4024 (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, are you also suggested that we should delete Category:Jain dynasties‎ (2 C), Category:Shi'a Muslim dynasties‎ (14 C, 2 F), Category:Shi'a Muslim dynasties in India‎ (10 C) and Category:Shi'a Muslim dynasties from Iran‎ (14 C, 1 F) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024 and Themightyquill: I'm not sure why dynasties should be categorized by religion. A dynasty is defined by familial relationship, not the religious adherence of various members of a dynasty. While such affiliation is likely important for study of a given dynasty, is not important for us to group dynasties by such a parameter. I would suggest deletion of the grouping cats listed above, and that the actual dynasty categories be placed under Dynasties by name as with all other dynasties not grouped by religion. Josh (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it does have a parallel at EN wikipedia: en:Category:Dynasties by religion. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Because enwiki has the equivalent category (en:Category:Dynasties by religion), we probably should keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024, Themightyquill, Joshbaumgartner, and Estopedist1: I suggest to  Keep the Dynasties by religion category, as dynasties are often popularly categorised by religion, despite having some shortcomings. In India, it is usual to divide the history as "Hindu era" (including Hindu, Buddhist and Jain dynasties), "Muslim era" (including Shia and Sunni Muslim dynasties), "colonial era" and "post-colonial era". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottomans made many Pashas from Hungary, Poland or even France and Italy. Those are European countries, not religious communities. European countries can have Muslim and Jewish populations other than Christian ones, and the Pashas from European countries might come from the Muslim minorities in Europe rather than the Christian majorities, considering the Ottoman Empire was mostly Islamic in nature. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am okay with this for dynasties. I agree it has shortcomings, but we can probably live with it. Josh (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses

[edit]

redundant category N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 04:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with what? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@N509FZ: redundant to parent Category:Citybus Route 10? I support  Delete.--Roy17 (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17, Themightyquill, and N509FZ: Actually, this is not actually redundant. Per the parent Category:Citybus Route 10, this is sub-divided into four categories, one for the buses on the route, one for interior images of those buses, one for signs related to the route, and finally images showing views from along the route. The second, Category:Citybus Route 10 - Interiors should be a sub-cat of Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses. The category should be renamed Category:Buses on Citybus Route 10 (with subcat renamed Category:Interior views of buses on Citybus Route 10). Category:Citybus Route 10 - Signs should be renamed Category:Signs on Citybus Route 10 as well. Josh (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@N509FZ, Roy17, and Themightyquill: Closed (move Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses to Category:Buses on Citybus Route 10; move Category:Citybus Route 10 - Interiors to Category:Interior views of buses on Citybus Route 10; move Category:Citybus Route 10 - Signs to Category:Signs on Citybus Route 10) Josh (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I beg to differ. Buses look the same from inside, so Category:Citybus Route 10 - Interiors is useless. Have you checked the categories before even proposing any changes or closing a request? Category:Citybus Route 10 - Signs contains nothing on Citybus Route 10. In fact, everything is signposts at bus stops. I doubt bus stops would be categorised per each line that serves it. A buses cat under a bus route cat is overcategorisation IMO. So my thought is, merge everything into one cat for a single bus route. Recat all the bus stop signposts into for example Bus stops in Mong Kok and Information boards at bus stations in Hong Kong.
Please exercise good judgement. No hurry to close discussions prematurely.--Roy17 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: You were pinged on this one on 10 June and had no further comment. That was much more than the 2 week waiting period. If you feel it is warranted, you are always welcome to start new CfD if there are further issues to resolve (you can reference this one in that new discussion if relevant). Josh (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I dont reply to obviously wrong proposals which I believe most users would object. CfD are known to last for a long period of time, so I dont reply immediately either, in order to let other potential uninvolved users voice their opinions first.
Typically, only users experienced in category discussions should close a discussion. However, if the discussion has led to a very clear consensus, other users should feel free to do so. Unfortunately your closure was ill-informed. There was not a clear consensus either. The original author has not even replied while only three other users had two different views.--Roy17 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I did respond to this discussion, but at another venue: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/06#Category_names_that_use_a_hyphen. Just no one cared. I'd say this could be a sign that CfD in general should be left open for longer when there is no clear consensus. Good judgement from the closing users is also essential.
These cats are results of a long-term contributor's habits and have been brought up for discussion, in case @Joshbaumgartner: you dont know yet: special:permalink/358462826#Accounts_seems_like_owned_by_the_same_person.--Roy17 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete
  1. Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses
  2. Category:Buses on Citybus Route 10
  3. Category:Citybus Route 10 - Interiors
  4. Category:Interior views of buses on Citybus Route 10
  5. Category:Citybus Route 10 - Signs
  6. Category:Signs on Citybus Route 10
And the same should be performed for all other similarly named categories related to Hong Kong or China (largely that long-term user's creation or cats inspired by him).--Roy17 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, 2 users said the category was redundant and 2 users suggested renaming.--Roy17 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill, Roy17, and N509FZ: Reopened Josh (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing CfD's in a reasonable time frame is important. If CfDs become permanent they block the ability of editors to make necessary improvements and can dissuade some users from participation both in the CfD process and category maintenance in general. This is bad for the project. That said, it is also important for discussion to not be rashly cut short, in order to allow as many participants as possible (including those who may not always be on the project every day or two). CfD's are not a strict vote or popularity contest, and those making a proposal have the burden of demonstrating why such a proposal is worth doing. If questions or objections are raised, they should be answered or addressed adequately before proceeding with implementing the proposal. Likewise, objections should state their reasoning and if appropriate, propose alternative solutions for the nominated category. The whole point of the CfD process is to ensure that changes made to the project's category system are either non-controversial (in the case of no objections) or there is a reasonable consensus to move forward with them, even if some users may still object to the changes. In boderline cases, it is good to err on the side of caution and lean away from destructive or disruptive changes (such as deletions) unless it is clear there is solid oonsensus to make this change.
I had closed the original discussion two months after it was opened, and one month after the last comment had been made. While there was no consensus to delete the nominated category (a matter on which Roy17 appears to agree), the more mild action of simply renaming them to readable English received support and no objections. Thus I closed the discussion concluding no consensus to delete, but that a rename was not in controversy.
After closing the discussion, Roy17 took exception to the action and despite not responding after being pinged a month ago, immediately began adding comments once it was closed. I advised them that this CfD had been closed and that it would be better to create a new CfD with the new proposal (expanding the deletion to other categories beyond the nominated one).
Note that closing a CfD is not a final say on the state of a category, or even the issue discussed. If someone has a new proposal or comment, or merely beleives the category needs another look, a new CfD can always be created. This is preferred because it focuses on the new ideas being raised, and it puts the CfD on the current month's list (as opposed to being buried in the archives) giving the best chance for more participation. I highly recommend linking relevant earlier discussions for reference.
The comments made and actions taken by Roy17 in response to my closure of the this CfD were borderline abusive and indicated to me a lack of willingness to consider the comments and suggestions of other users in good faith. However, in my opinion, this should not invalidate their proposal prima facie, so I have re-opened this CfD so that we can hear the merits and opposition to their new proposal above. Josh (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
  1. there was no consensus to delete the nominated category (a matter on which Roy17 appears to agree). No never have I agreed! N509FZ said Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses was redundant. User:Themightyquill asked why. I made it clear this was redundant to its parent cat and should be deleted. Reason would be rather obvious and so I never mentioned. Why do we need a Buses cat under a bus route cat? What else would a bus route cat contain other than buses?
  2. I have mentioned two reasons I did not reply after the ping: (1) I dont reply to obviously wrong (or right) comments, that is, I dont reply if my words would not add a new point of view. In this case, I found this cat a straightforward case of over-cat. (2) I prefer waiting for others to have a say first. I came to this CfD by chance a month after Themightyquill's question. The same might happen for other editors. In addition to these two, I simply forgot this. I do periodically go through old threads in my watchlist, but for this, I started a VP thread on 20 June and forgot to come back. It's in my watchlist though. Even if I was not pinged on the closure I would still see this immediately. I watch every single CfD, DR etc. just in case my effort might be wasted. This CfD came close.
  3. Joshbaumgartner might have not been aware that this cat is just one typical instance of that long-term HK contributor's habits of over-cat. But after I immediately responded to his closure and pointed out the fact that many editors agree the HK user's cats are not useful, he forced closure by undoing my edits and manually archiving it: 1 2. There is nothing against reopening a discussion. There is no merit either to force other users waste time repeating the same arguments in a new CfD. What good does it do to the backlog, if the closure of one leads to a new one, especially so when both deal with the same problem? Tell me about borderline abusive and... a lack of willingness, when I merely objected with evidence to an ill-informed closure immediately.
  4. A final note on Joshbaumgartner's judgement: not quite capable of closing CfD. Within my limited participation on CfD, I have on multiple occasions had to take extra effort to ensure implementation of the proper changes. Examples: leaving wrong redirects, blindly following translation to suggest an over-cat, wrong closure. I regret to say these, and I avoided directly criticising, but seriously @Joshbaumgartner: you make too many mistakes, yet calls others abusive and lack of willingness.--Roy17 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to this cat itself. This HK user's cats are often redundant and wrongly named. You can take a look at User:N509FZ's (ctrl+F Categories for discussion). All were related to this HK user and resulted in deletion. Joshbaumgartner had participated in a few too.
Two more examples on Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2018/03 alone: jump to sections TKL Station - Posters and Train station platforms at Tiu Keng Leng Station, which I am pretty sure are the HK user's creation too.
Any user who sees these useless cats can recat them rightaway. I dont do it simply because I dont like to leave a bad redirect behind (which shows up in Hotcat) but I am not a sysop who can delete. I dont like to put up speedy deletion either because I am too lazy to watch and make sure my SD tag would go through.
Buses of bus route XYZ, redundant.
Interior views of ..., redundant. Are many photographs of this particular bus route expected? Or if there is anything special about this route that warrants a separate cat? Is a bus as good as a building that should have an exterior cat (Buses of...) and an interior cat? When answers are no, action is put them in Category:Bus interiors of CityBus, Hong Kong.
Views of XX from bus route YY. The city looks the same regardless which bus you are taking, so it seems only necessary to have Views of XX from buses, but this is still redundant, because whether you see the city from a bus, a car or standing in the street, it makes virtually no difference. However, if someone wants to do a virtual bus tour, they can go through these cats as if they are sitting in a Citybus 10 going from North Point via Causeway Bay to Central... They are merely useful for this reason I can think of.--Roy17 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Are many photographs of this particular bus route expected?" Irrelevant, we don't make categories based on what media we expect to have, category structure is to manage what we already have. We already have these images, so a category for them is appropriate. "The city looks the same regardless which bus you are taking" Really? I've taken a few buses around Hong Kong and I can say for sure that the city looks pretty different depending on which route you take. Maybe to you they all look the same, but the fact is they are not identical. "They are merely useful for this reason I can think of." So you agree there is at least one use for these categories. Since I am sure others will find other uses, seems there is no reason to delete them.
This CfD just wastes everybody's time. This cat is no different to other over-cat by that HK user. All the long passages above are redundant if Joshbaumgartner had exercised more caution while closing CfD without a consensus, or if he would just let go when I supplemented the full story of that HK user. Unfortunately that wasnt the case.--Roy17 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This CfD just wastes everybody's time." And yet you are the one insistent that it remain open. And what exactly do you mean by "let go"? Josh (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner:
  1. Sign your comments in between mine.
  2. we don't make categories based on what media we expect to have, category structure is to manage what we already have. We already have these images, so a category for them is appropriate. for Category:Interior views of buses on Citybus Route 10. Do you know buses can be swapped between different routes by simply changing the display signs? What's the purpose of the cat of interior views, when buses on Citybus Route 10 are not unique and could at the same time be serving other routes? What's the need for a single category when there are only two photos? And if there are 200 photos in this cat, how are they probably in scope?
So what if the buses are changed? That doesn't mean there isn't value to being able to compare between different routes, perhaps to illustrate if different standards were being applied to different parts of a network. If there are only 2 files in a category, that might be a good reason to consider if a merge makes sense, but it is not an automatic reason to delete a category. If photos are out of scope, then propose the files for deletion, that is a much better process for that. Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I can say for sure that the city looks pretty different depending on which route you take. Citybus 10 and 5B run roughly the exact same route. (They have different codes for different operating hours.) Does the city look different in different buses? Or if I drive a convertible following a Citybus 10's route and take photos, would there be a cat Views of XX from Brand A convertible? And a cat for Brand B when I drive another? The streets will dramatically change when I sit in a different vehicle?
This is a specious and irrelevant argument. A route is a physical location, a car is a mobile vehicle that could be anywhere, so that is a poor analogy. I am actually not a fan of the 'view from route X' categories, I think if the bus is on Main Street and someone takes a pic from it, that should just be catted under Main Street. I mean, take two buildings, one at the start and one at the end of the route, the only thing they have in common is that they are on the same bus route...so what? Why do we need to group images of them together? Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You insist closing it when the goal is not fulfilled. Two users have said this cat is redundant. Do I need to ping everyone who often work on this HK user's cats to come and tell you in the face that his habitual over-cats are not useful, so you wouldnt try closing this CfD and archiving it in a sneaky way? You are not letting it go right now.
You are welcome to encourage greater contributions to the discussion of course, why are you asking me, or wait, did you consider that some sort of threat? I'm not insisting on closing it, in fact I re-opened it. If I was trying to close it in a sneaky way, I am pretty sure I would not have pinged everyone who had ever contributed to it (that doesn't seem very sneaky to me). Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sorry to say, but your common sense is deficient. I am not replying to this kind of your arguments any more.--Roy17 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, everyone's common sense is deficient, and usually most of all those who think their's isn't. Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is expected to know every discussion on wiki. No one is expected to agree with a particular point of view either. When I objected to closure and explained immediately, discussion could simply be restored. Instead, User:Joshbaumgartner forced closure twice: 1 2. Yet I am abusive and lack of willingness to consider the comments and suggestions of other users in good faith. Four fingers might be pointing back at you.--Roy17 (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How did this comment further the proposal or work towards consensus? Did it ever occur to you that I was trying to help you by encouraging that you start a clean CfD with your new proposal? Did you even read my comments and realize I actually agree with some of your proposals, or are you just focused on trying to escalate? In my experience, CfDs like this dissuade others from contributing, except maybe a few cheerleaders for one or the other antagonist, and they remain perpetually in limbo. Maybe that was your goal to filibuster unless you got your way regardless, but I don't consider these a win for the project. I still would be willing to engage your proposal, to which I am sympathetic despite your attitude, either here or in a fresh CfD as you see fit, but it should be about the topic. If you disagree and wish to continue making it personal, it will not do anyone any good. Josh (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For one last time @Joshbaumgartner:
  1. I kept my discussion to the cats themselves. This CfD was still clean, until you first added 3475 bytes of irrelevant stuff about your opinions of CfD in general, as well as attacking me. Now it's my fault and attitude again for the irrelevant chatter.
  2. Feel free to keep defending your wrong cat moves. So what if the buses are changed? That doesn't mean there isn't value to being able to compare between different routes, perhaps to illustrate if different standards were being applied to different parts of a network. Jokes. The bus could well be running Route 10 in the day, another route at night, and a special line at weekends for horseracing day. Nothing would change except the info boards in front of the bus. Or ask yourself, how many bus companies in the world decorate bus interiors differently for ordinary routes? This is not a metro line, or a special bus line to a theme park.
  3. Stop putting your words in my mouth. You tried the forced closure in a sneaky move. How often do you manually archive closed CfDs?
Stop closing CfD haphazardly. Do it only if there is clear consensus (express approval for an action, not your self-proclaimed proposals), or when you are familiar with COM:CAT etc. (At least now you are not: do not know what to do with a redundant category.) Stop closing CfD in short time. Go check out the years long backlog first.--Roy17 (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokes! Joshbaumgartner's close may have been a little premature, and there's no problem with continuing discussion, but the intensity of the personal attack on him here is totally undeserved. @Roy17: Your initial comment was rather minimal - hardly a convincing argument. You were pinged, and he waited for a week afterwards without reply, and more importantly, the category was kept rather than deleted, so if the final consensus is to delete, there's no huge amount of work to be done. Josh has done an incredible amount of work closing a great many CfDs (new and old) without problem. If this is an exception, fine, but it is hardly a crisis worthy of such antagonism. Please calm yourselves and stick to the issue. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: make no mistake, please check the page history carefully. When I objected 16 min after the initial closure, User:Joshbaumgartner closed this twice: special:diff/358466206 special:diff/358491630, the second time by undoing my comments. Despite these rude unilateral actions, I limited my response to the categories: special:diff/358491961.
Only after that Joshbaumgartner deviated from category discussion and attacked me: special:diff/358622087.--Roy17 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: Please note that I asked you both to to calm down and stick to the issue. I think you've both already made your criticisms of each other's actions clear above. If either of you have a problem with the other that you really think is worth a formal complaint and further discussion, make it elsewhere. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: according to page history, neither of us said anything after 20 July 2019, until you stir it up today by picking a side, without actual consideration of the categories themselves: special:diff/360646511. Today is 5 Aug.--Roy17 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I guess we can close this CFD. In the meantime, the nominated category is redirected to Category:Buses on Citybus Route 10. The nominated category is populated, and its parent is Category:Citybus Route 10, which is logical. If there is any loose end, please start the new CFD and be constructive--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete
  1. Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses
  2. Category:Buses on Citybus Route 10
  3. Category:Citybus Route 10 - Interiors
  4. Category:Interior views of buses on Citybus Route 10
  5. Category:Citybus Route 10 - Signs
  6. Category:Signs on Citybus Route 10
And the same should be performed for all other similarly named categories related to Hong Kong or China (largely that long-term user's creation or cats inspired by him).--Roy17 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images by Mexico City Government

[edit]

I don't like these sub-categories being used to sub-divide topic categories. A category for a building shouldn't be sub-divided by all the different people/organizations who took the photos. If these categories are kept, I would suggest making them hidden, and making them only subcategories of Category:Images by Mexico City Government Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Then you'll have to hide all the sub-categories from Category:Images by source. --Luisalvaz (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these images are uploaded by Mexico City Government into flickr (I uploaded with flickr2commons). Maybe the subcategories are a little bit messy, but also is temporary measure to order a lot of pics. --Luisalvaz (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Each category shown corresponds to a different event, leaving them in a single category would be to mix multimedia files without meaning. petrohs (gracias) 00:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This kind ouf categories that create a sub-division by institutions or government are kite used in this project, as in Category:Images_from_the_United_States_government. Besides are useful to find pics related to that specific organizations. Consider that there is many pictures inside that maybe doesn't not have any other fitting category as those of people, logos, unidentified parks or buildings, and so on, in such cases the identification from the donor are useful. In the other hand, the sub-categories used inside the main category, follows the categorization given by the own government, so changing such indexation is loosing the original order that could be needed for historical and contextual purposes. --Salvador alc (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Luisalvaz: Many of the sub-categories of "Images by source" are already hidden, but that's a less important issue. Subdividing a topic by source/photographer is rarely helpful. No one says, "I want to see a photo of this building, but it's important to me that the photo was taken by the Mexico City Government." You can organize Category:Images by Mexico City Government however you want, but don't let it mess up the rest of the category tree. @Salvador alc: If no other appropriate generic category exists for those people, parks, buildings, they should be created. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Salvador alc, Luisalvaz, and PetrohsW: It is my understanding that 'images by source' categories should be seperate and distinct from the main topic tree. An image of Mexico City, should be under "Mexico City" as well as under "Images of Mexico City by Josh", but should not be sorted out of "Mexico City" into "Images of Mexico City by Josh" just because I took the photo. It is rarely helpful, and would be disruptive to require a user to know the photographer to find what they are after (or have to sift through different author categories to find substantially similar images). Looking at Category:Images by Mexico City Government it seems there are enough images to warrant a break-down, but I would like to see them named a clear "Images of XXX by Mexico City Government". They can be linked to the topic, but all images under them should also be in that topic's normal category structure. Josh (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I'm leaning towards your position on this, and this category is an example of how sub-catting "Images by creator" categories can go horribly wrong. I do think some basic topical breakdown of a creator category could be useful, but it should be very very basic, not an attempt to reflect the full topical tree within a 'by creator' category. Here we have several categories which appear to be normal topical categories where any creator's files on the topic should go, but then the topic has been put under 'images by Mexico City Government' which would be bad if it included other creator's files. Also, he sheer number of cats is out of control. I'm thinking just some basic 'images of structures by MCG', 'images of people by MCG', 'images of events by MCG' cats and that's it, not cats for every individual event or building or such. Or if that isn't workable, just go with eliminating any topical structure within "images by creator" categories whatsoever. What do you think? Josh (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Sure. I mean, we have Category:Photographs by photographer by topic, so that can be done. We can even keep the subcategories that already exist - I just don't think it makes sense to take images out of Category:Building ABC to put them in subcategory Category:Building ABC by CDMX. We can keep the images in both, and remove Category:Buildings ABC by CDMX from Category:Building ABC. It also doesn't make sense to have Category:Clínica de la Columna CDMX where the images have no connection to the category tree aside from Category:Images by Mexico City Government. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: It is your last point that has me most concerned, that someone looking for Clinica de la Columna would never find those images through the normal browse down through the topical category tree, as they have essentially been sequestered to the 'by creator' tree. Sounds like we are on the same page...though this one is going to be some work to go through. Josh (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Grouping them into general categories (e.g. Category:Images of buildings by Mexico City Government) and then renaming the existing categories to remove "CMDX" would be the least amount of work. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic churches in Bonaire

[edit]

Can be removed: emtied into more relvant/detailed categories Danielle - Wikimedia NL/WGC (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems weird to subdivide Category:Churches in Bonaire (of which there are only four?) by denomination. On the other hand, it does make sense to break up Category:Roman Catholic churches in the Caribbean by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I guess that keep. Enwiki has also same category trees. Enwiki parent is en:Category:Churches in the Caribbean by dependent territory and if you see its subcategories, then you see that systematically Roman Catholic churches have its own category.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kitabe

[edit]

Kitabe means inscription. They are steles. No need for a special cat. Look into the cat and you will see that Indian or Chinese works of art are under a cat organized as belonging to Iran and Azerbaijan. Better to distribute them among Inscriptions in this or that country cats and under languages/script. Orhun Inscriptions are also "kitabe", are they not? E4024 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are different things. Kitabe is inscription only in Arabic script and is located over some architectural object showing the dte og built or name of architect. Is is not a stele. --Interfase (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Turkish (sorry, I'm a Turk) we say "yazıt" in pure Turkish and use "kitabe" as an old word for the same. We say Orhun Yazıtları/Kitabeleri... Of course kitabe in English may have a different meaning. --E4024 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the word "stele" was not necessary. (When you write "stele" my corrector underlines it in red. I was trying to look intellectual. :) It is any stone (better marble) with an inscription on it put as a stele or on the outer wall of a house, over a fountain etc. Indeed gravestones are also generally considered kitabe. Ah, if you go around in the old center of Istanbul you will see several buildings made by Taşçıyan (Stone master) carrying his seal/kitabe in Latin letters, like "Tashdjian 1913". And of course (AFAIK) he was not a Muslim. Shall we not accept his inscriptions? I cannot ignore our cultural heritage, sorry. --E4024 (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category is not about gravestones or stelles. This category is about the architectural details with Arabic script inscription on it. Nobody will ignore your cultural heritage. You can add category "Gravestones" in the photos of gravestones, or "Orhun Inscriptions" in the photos of Orhun Inscriptions. But this category is for the specific items, not general. There are also articles in Russian and Georgian Wikipedias about kitabe. --Interfase (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Interfase: : enwiki has two red links to en:kitabe. Wiktionary has the entry Wiktionary:kitabe (saying that carved inscription). The Wiktionary also says that synonym of yazıt (Category:Yazıt). I guess that keep is the solution for this category-for-discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:中國新海軍插圖

[edit]

Should be renamed in English. Google Translate gives "Chinese new navy illustration", but maybe someone can offer a better translation? Josh (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I have found itwanted with this name.You can translate it into English on your own ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book's title is 中國新海軍. It doesnt seem to be a very well known book, so I dont think there is a well-established English translation. Therefore, I think the name should be transliterated, as Zhongguo Xin Haijun maybe.--Roy17 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: So these are illustrations from a particular book. Anyone familiar with a convention for naming a catgory of illustrations from a particular work? Category:Illustrations published in Zhongguo Xin Haijun? Josh (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we need that overcategorisation right now. A category of the book itself is enough. With regard to the convention, I dont know whethere there is one.--Roy17 (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(I have to add a note just in case User:Joshbaumgartner closes this in an unexpected way.)
IMO it is pretty safe to rename the category by transliteration because that's what most unknown foreign books would be known in English or any languages using latin alphabet. But!
I am not sure how exactly this should be transliterated.
  1. By pinyin, or not by pinyin (since it's an 1947 book by ROC govt)?
  2. If by pinyin, which format to use?
    1. Zhongguoxinhaijun
    2. Zhongguo Xin Haijun
    3. Zhongguo xin haijun
    4. Zhong Guo Xin Hai Jun
    5. Zhong guo xin hai jun
I am no archivist or librarian. I dont seem to find a local Commons guideline either. Category:Books from China has all sorts.--Roy17 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Some transliteration is needed. Could you suggest one acceptable transliteration, eg @Shizhao, Mys 721tx, Minorax, and Jusjih: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner, Roy17, and Estopedist1: IMO, New Chinese Navy and Zhongguo Xin Haijun would ideally be best translation and transliteration respectively. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the name of a work, transliteration would be better than translation. I am fine with the suggested one, or whatever folks think is best. Josh (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we follow ALA-LC Romanization https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/chinese.pdf , so it should be "Zhongguo xin hai jun". Roy17 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Worldcat.org has an entry for the book called “Zhongguo xin hai jun”. —Happyseeu (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singapore Changi Airport by century

[edit]

Do we need this? We already have Category:Singapore Changi Airport by decade and its subcategories. Jonashtand (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it's useful. We only have one category in Category:Aviation by century by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if there are other "by century" categories, there should be one for aviation as well for consistency. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You think because there are "by century" categories, that every category which might cross a century should also have one? I don't have a problem with Category:Aviation by century, but I'm not convinced by Category:Aviation by century by country, Category:Aviation by century by city, Category:Aviation by century by airport and every other increasingly narrow intersection you could possibly make. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say  Keep. Analogous to Category:Rail transport by century by country. Transportation is a pretty broad category. Narrowing down to a specific place in a specific period is still pretty broad in scope.--Roy17 (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might concede to keeping Category:Aviation in Singapore by century but none of the subcategories of Category:Rail transport by century by country is further broken down to Category:Individual railway station X in the 20th century. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering solely the cat structures I think it's OK, but it is indeed quite useless since aviation began in early 20th century and the third century cat will come in 80 years. Either keep it this way, or
delete/rename the whole by century structure (for the topic Aviation of Singapore) to by decade.--Roy17 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Delete the nominated category and  Delete Category:Changi Air Base (East) by century. After that "concrete airport categories by century" are removed--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted, there are others with the same format that can be deleted as well, such as Category:Dublin Airport by century. Will keep an eye out for more. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chakrabarti (surname)

[edit]

The cat has more "Chakraborty" than "Chakrabarti". I guess a new cat is needed. E4024 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment For once, I think it would be best to follow en:WP at Chakraborty, which lists many other variations of essentially the same name, and merge this to Chakraborty (surname) (which is empty) with a redirect. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen that we had that cat. I am a defender of respecting original names, especially when written in versions of Latin alphabet. Mary is not María. --E4024 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It seems difficult to me to determine what is the original name, given its antiquity and that it has been dragged through several dialects of Hindi, Sanskrit, etc. But we have a model which we can follow, and it may be wrong, but I'm sure someone will point that out eventually. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These things can become difficult with translated names. Think of all the ways Russian names could be transliterated into the western alphabet. If we don't know how the original person wrote their own name except in cyrillic, do we list them under Category:Alexander (given name) or Category:Aleksander (given name)? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I came in the back door and missed the notice

I hadn't seen this when I started sorting out what were three variant categorisations of this name and are now seven.

Except for the last of these (Chakravarthi) each now points to the other 6 in Wikimedia - I'll address this later. During the exercise I found a lot of sort fixes etc as well as empty cats, mis-spellings and redirections, a lot seem to have been caused by putting variants as 'aliases' of Chakrabarti so I've removes these to stop it happening again.

Much as a see the rationale behind the proposal I'm certain it will not work in practice. We don't do it for Philips/Phillips/Philipps/Phillipps and the like and, as there is no over-weening 'right' spelling, will have workarounds added in all good faith to fix what is, afterall, anon standard way of doing things. S a g a C i t y (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS and now for the related forenames.

Next day

I've noticed omisssions, I'm addressing them but if you notice any tomorrow (April 1) or later please let me know S a g a C i t y (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and found an eighth variant - Chakravarthy - which I'll work up S a g a C i t y (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suffragettes wearing fur

[edit]

What's the reasoning behind this category? We don't have a categories for Category:Suffragettes wearing hats or any other Category:Activists wearning fur. It doesn't fit under Category:Females wearing fur by name. I would suggest creating Category:Females wearing fur or Category:Women wearing fur (which also seem like essential base categories) and moving the contents there. Themightyquill (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is, it is interesting for the history of furs and furiery and the history of feminism, for example to see, these females fighters were so wealthy, sometimes you can find on photographs more women with fur than without. -- Kürschner (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC
I don't know. I see that's interesting, though possibly wealthy women were more likely to have their photos taken in general at that time? On the other hand, it seems rather like a category designed to make a point, rather than just an effective way of categorizing images. It's a forced intersection of two unrelated (or not closely related) topics. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious this category serves no purpose whatsoever and should be deleted as soon as possible. Paklao (talk) The dangers of this category should be self-evident because what would prevent this editor from also creating a category called Women arriving by train in Auschwitz wearing fur on the basis that it is interesting for the history of furs and furiery and the history of the Jewish people? Paklao (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's clear that Kürschner has an interest in fur fashion. However, we should not establish arbitrary categories or category trees solely because they are of interest to one or few people. Maybe I'm a dentist who's interested in fashion, should File:Indigoblaue-Nerzjacke mit Kapuze, Pelzmanufaktur Halfmann, 2019.jpg then be in category Caucasian women smiling with teeth showing while wearing fur? A reasonable person would say no. Commons categories shouldn't become research projects that assume some person may someday find cross-categorization useful. --Animalparty (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suffragettes vs Suffragists
Comment There are images in the category that are not correctly organized. Suffragette is a term used in the UK, but Suffragists in the United States refused to be called Suffragettes. For anyone working on women's history, this is going to create confusion. I found images of suffragists in this category. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl: Agreed, but for those who aren't experts, that distinction is not obvious. For this reason, I think it's best we use Category:Women's suffrage activists, Category:Women's suffrage activists from the United Kingdom, and even Category:Members of the Women's Social and Political Union. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I see your point that the majority of people wouldn't have an issue. The suffragette vs. suffragist thing has been an issue for me personally recently. I'm working on Women's suffrage articles on Wikipedia and the way the suffrage pics are organized has been a little frustrating. It's useful to set up categories that researchers can use, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl: It's never good to hear that commons is not proving useful to a wikipedia editor. If you can elaborate on the challenges (aside from this somewhat odd exception of "Suffragettes wearing fur"), perhaps we can find a solution. Just let me know, either here or on my talk page. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: a lot of the bigger issues with the US Women's suffrage I've taken a lot of time to untangle. I'm still combing through it. I have a feeling that the Women's Clubs categories will also need more work. I think it's important for women's history to have geographic categories and that images be placed with groups that were important to the movement (like for suffrage, NAWSA, NWP, etc). So many images are tagged by what women are wearing or are too general to be useful when looking for an image for an article. I think the search function on Commons is a bit of a pain, too. I really appreciate your concern about this. I'm not a great categorizer myself. I'm a librarian, but my specialty isn't cataloging, so I find working with categories a challenge! I could ask other Wikipedia editors if they've had similar problems, if you're interested in hearing from us. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl: Sure - suggestions are always welcome. The other category using "suffragette" is Category:Suffragettes in prison which could also be renamed for clarity/accuracy. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painted windows

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12/Category:Bricked up doors.

The issue was raised at COM:VP proposing changes to painted and blind window categories. I have copied the original post for reference: Josh (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As I was trying to categorize some photos, I found out that there's some confusion with painted/blind/fake windows. Currently we have Category:Painted windows and Category:Blind windows. As I understand it, it should be as follows:

Any thoughts? -- Syrio posso aiutare? 13:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment For clarity on the difference between "blind" and "bricked-up" windows, some architects deliberately incorporated blind windows to achieve a symmetrical facade. Some people incorrectly think that these were bricked up to avoid the window tax, but they are mistaken. I'd say that bricked-up windows were originally not blind by design but have been obscured at a later date. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought too, but then it's not easy to tell the difference in a photo, if one doesn't know. That's another matter, anyway. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 15:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tonratun

[edit]

This is under "Category:Traditional Armenian house" (sic, singular) If "traditional Armenian house" is called "tonratun" why do we need both cats? Then we can use "Houses in Armenia" with only one of these two cats, deleting the other. E4024 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or is the tandoor called tonratun in Armenian? If it is same as other tandoors no need to make a special cat, or just make "Tandoors in Armenia". I don't know. In any case let us do something "plural". --E4024 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: It seems tonir is the Armenian word for tandoor. Tonratun is the house of the tonir, effectively the bakery, though it's possible a private home might have its own tonratun? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Vernacular architecture by country‎. Maybe that could help? I propose moving Category:Classical Armenian architecture to Category:Vernacular architecture of Armenia and deleting Category:Traditional Armenian house - Themightyquill (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians meeting foreign leaders by name

[edit]

Can we harmonize the subcategories? We have "with national leaders" (95), "with world leaders" (17) and "with foreign leaders" (5). I don't know if there's some nuance between these I'm missing. Themightyquill (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that we do have Category:Richard Nixon with other presidents of the United States‎ as a subcategory of Category:Richard Nixon with national leaders‎, so maybe "foreign" is not a good word to include? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC
I agree with a harmonization. "with national leaders" is good. Mazuritz (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started moving these to "national leaders" but realized we may have a problem. What about someone like Category:Herman Van Rompuy meeting foreign leaders who was a national leader, and then the President of the European Council. Are meetings with him considered "with national leaders" even after he was no longer a national leader? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel: Before we close, do you have a solution to this issue above? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the meeting of a former national leader should still be considered as a meeting of a national leader. Also, I saw another problem. Use Category:Mike Pence and Shinzō Abe as an example, Mike Pence is only the Vice President of US, so he is not the national leader of US, and we should separate "... with national leaders" and "... with foreign politicians", but this is another huge work. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do have 78 "with foreign politicians" categories already but no parent category to bring them together. I think Category:Mike Pence and Shinzō Abe could go in Category:Shinzō Abe with people instead, but I'm not sure "national leaders" only means "head of state" or "head of government", does it? Isn't a VP a national leader? -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, only heads of state and government are considered as national leaders. Their deputies and vices are generally not considered as national leaders, although they can be foreign politicians. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglican saints

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Christian saints.

Can I confirm that the Anglican church recognizes all saints cannonized by the Roman Catholic Church? Or all of those prior to the English reformation and some of those cannonized since? Plus some that are recognized by the Anglican church, but not by the Roman Catholic Church? I don't think that Category:Saints of England or Category:Anglo-Saxon saints should be subcategories here. Themightyquill (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my understanding is that the Anglican church recognizes "all of those prior to the English reformation and some of those canonized since? Plus some that are recognized by the Anglican church, but not by the Roman Catholic Church?" (The Catholic Church only recognizes people it considers to have been Catholic as saints, although it has acknowledged some non-Catholic Christians as martyrs -- Martin Luther King Jr., for example.) Gildir (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gildir: : So, then, does the current category content and description ("Among Roman Catholic saints, saints commemorated in all Christianity may be found in Category:Christian saints, not here.") make sense? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to the best of my knowledge. Gildir (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian saints

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Anglican saints.

Category descriptions at Category:Anglican saints, Category:Roman Catholic saints and Category:Eastern Orthodox saints say "saints commemorated in all Christianity may be found in Category:Christian saints, not here." That's fundamentally not how categorization works at commons. If an image can logically be in two child categories, it goes in both child categories, not in the parent category. Themightyquill (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are denominations that don't have their own category, and putting saints in the parent category covers those. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Na h-Eileanan Siar

[edit]

This seems to be synonymous with Category:Outer Hebrides, Na h-Eileanan an Iar is the name that the English based Ordnance Survey uses for the council area (but Outer Hebrides for the archipelago). If this is kept then it should be moved to Category:Na h-Eileanan an Iar (council area). I would note that we have Category:Architecture of Na h-Eileanan Siar and Category:Architecture of the Outer Hebrides (of which the latter isn't a sub category of the former). Similarly we have Category:Civil parishes in the Outer Hebrides (of which is more likely to be associated with the council area rather than archipelago. In the case of Category:Orkney Islands and Category:Shetland Islands the archipelagos and council areas share a category and appear also to be concurrent although Category:Island of Stroma is in Category:Uninhabited islands of the Orkney Islands because "because it is commonly associated with them" (according to the description). Even though its in Caithness, Highland. Note that Category:Inner Hebrides isn't the same since that's in both Argyll and Bute and Highland council areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we have many files specific to the council area qua political entity, and I'd be quite happy to have Category:Outer Hebrides as the top category and only retain Category:Na h-Eileanan Siar if it would ever have any content. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose File:Western Isles Council Flag.svg would be one and any category (such as the CP CAT or Category:Maps of the Outer Hebrides, in particular File:ScotlandEileanSiar.png) but since those categories already exist using "Outer Hebrides" (as opposed to Na h-Eileanan Siar) then it seems best to follow the category tree. However if Na h-Eileanan Siar/Na h-Eileanan an Iar is the English name for the council area (as opposed to archipelago) then maybe those that deal primarily (or exclusively) with the administrative division should use Na h-Eileanan Siar/Na h-Eileanan an Iar even if Category:Na h-Eileanan Siar/Category:Na h-Eileanan an Iar redirect to Category:Outer Hebrides. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Crouch, Swale@Rodhullandemu: what is the situation here? Eg enwiki en:Na h-Eileanan Siar is redirected to Outer Hebrides Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its unopposed and the author seems to suggest they are happy with the merge though I'm not sure what they mean by "if it would ever have any content". Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to start moving/merging them per above. I have updated {{Council areas of Scotland}} but we may need to verify its OK along with Orkney and Shetland since oddly Orkney Islands doesn't include "the" in the 1st section of the template but Scottish Borders and Shetland Islands do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And {{Outer Hebrides year}}. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to fix the 1st one to what I can but its worth checking along with the others than use "the" before closing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I favour leaving as is. Na h-Eileanan Siar redirecting to Outer Hebrides. Broichmore (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Navy in Islamic empires

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Medieval Islamic civilization Physicians.

I find it unnecessary. What do you think? E4024 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It doesn't fit into any category tree well. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Suggest to read these scientific article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264790300_A_REVIEW_OF_MUSLIM_MARITIME_TRADITION . A REVIEW OF MUSLIM MARITIME TRADITION. Also this article "Islam and the Sea". http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/focus/essay1009_islam_and_sea.html regards. --Ashashyou (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles make it fit into our category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you think it fit? --Ashashyou (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashashyou: Rename to Category:Naval history of the Islamic Golden Age in Category:Islamic Golden Age and Category:Naval history? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toronto Community Housing Corporation Special Constable Service

[edit]

It is my understanding that Special constables, like these individuals, are not members of the Toronto Police Services. Category:Police in Toronto currently redirects to Category:Toronto Police Services. I suggest it should be a category, and both Category:Police in Toronto and Category:Toronto Police Services should be members of Category:Police in Ontario.

The RCMP has a limited presence in Toronto. RCMP officers in Toronto, the officers of the campus police at U of T, and whatever other colleges and universities that have one, pictures of the old railway police, should all be members of Category:Police in Toronto. Geo Swan (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Geo Swan: currently Category:Police in Toronto is not a redirect anymore. I also see that enwiki has draft-page en:User:TCH Special Constable/sandbox. Does this draft-page clarify the situation? Estopedist1 (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quadricycles

[edit]

Lou6977 just changed the category description at Category:Quadricycles to allow for the inclusion of Category:Motor quadricycles. This seems reasonable at first, but note that "Motor quadricycles" is a "four-wheeled motorcycle based vehicle." Category:Motorcycles is not a child category of Category:Cycles or Category:Bicycles. Category:Cycles (which contains Category:Quadricycles) is a sub-category of Category:Human-powered vehicles. So I'd suggest that Category:Quadricycles should only link to Category:Motor quadricycles or that Category:Quadricycles be renamed to Category:Quadricycles (human powered) with Category:Quadricycles as a disambiguation page. Perhaps there's some other solution too. Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: , i changed the description in according with many wikipedias definitions (quadricycles are not necessary "human-powered" forr wheels vehicles) and then i put into "Motor Quadricycles" (quads etc..). But keep in mind that "motor quadricycles" ARE NOT "motorcycles" (that are defined as two in-line wheels vehicles with the lone exception of the sidecars that are included in the motorcycles). I think that Motorcycles should be included in "Cycles", instead. Furthermore, why Category:Quadricycles should only link to Category:Motor quadricycles? And why renaming "Quadricycles" to "Quadricycles (human powered)"? My opinion is to create a new Category:Quadricycles (human powered), moving the whole proper content that are not "motor-related" into it and then putting Category:Quadricycles (human powered) into Category:Quadricycles..--Lou6977 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But i'm not so certain that "Motorcycles" has to be a sub-class of "Cycles", in that case you last proposal (from "So I'd suggest that Category:Quadricycles..." till the end) could be reasonable and according with that my proposal for "Motor quadricycles" (i'm interested principally in that) is to remove it from "Quadricycles" and re-insert it into "Four wheels vehicles". --Lou6977 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quadricycles (human-powered) aren't really a type of quadricycle except they both have four wheels. Quadricycle is being used in a broad way. If it helps distinguish the two, the term quadrAcycles can be used for four wheeled vehicles with pedals and quadricycles can be used to refer to microcar motor vehicles. That way quadrAcycles are better thought of as a type of velomobile.--Darrelljon (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above stale discussion, I have proposed the following category scheme:
I'll implement it within couple of weeks if there are no response. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some modifications are done on the above scheme after further analysis. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: That works for me. Then Category:Motor quadricycles can go in Category:Four-wheeled vehicles instead of in Category:Quadricycles, though a hatnote can link them. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Castellón de la Plana

[edit]

What shall we do with the categories of those Spanish cities belonging to autonoous communities allowed to give official names in their local language? For this one, for example, the English exonym is still Castellón de la Plana, and here toponyms are named after their English exonym. Any suggestion? --SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: Can you clarify the statement "the English exonym is still Castellón de la Plana"? I don't really think there's such a exonym but the use of the official name. Moreover, I guess that, if talking about exonyms, it's actually Castellon de la Plana. Thus, shall we use the "exonym" (without the ó, unknown in the English language) or the official toponym? Obviously, it's a rhetoric question. The local name is IMHO, preferred unless a clearly established exonym is available. --Discasto talk 06:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC) PS: Castelló de la Plana is the only and official toponym.[reply]
@Discasto: I try to clarify. The exonym of the city where I live is Rome, its official toponym in Italian is "Roma". Of course the category here is Rome. As far as I saw, the English exonym of Castellon is equal to the Spanish name. But the point is not this. I noticed that in the category tree there are both categories with the Spanish name of the city and its Valencian name. Whatever name we choose, can we choose the same for the whole tree? Whatever it is, I repeat, thus for me is fine either language. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat: I do understand your rationale. In this case, we have two options: use a exonym (Castellon de la Plana, without a graphical accent, as it does not exist in English) or the official name, which happens to be the Valencian one (Castelló de la Plana). Provided that we agree on one, the same form should be used consistently throughout the whole tree. Regards --Discasto talk 22:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, I tend to prefer the local (and official) name, especially when we consider a small city without the exposition Rome (or Warsaw) has. --Discasto talk 14:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I suggest enwiki solution: en:Castellón de la Plana, hence  Keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piers

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Ship stations in Hungary.

Isn't a pier a type of wharf (one which is raised, and sticks out over the water)? Couldn't we make it a sub-category of Category:Wharves and quays? Themightyquill (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It's a very wide term. We also have gate piers, from which gates hang, and pleasure piers, which are raised walkways into the sea but at which watercraft do not necessarily land. Some consideration of subcats from a general definition would probably help here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Actually, there are so many different uses for the work that I think this would be better as a disambiguation page. What do we do, for example with Category:Piers (given name)? Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: Maybe, though Category:Gate piers and Category:Piers (architecture) are currently separated entirely from this category, I think. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As a non-native-english speaker I am also quite confused with the terminology. Wharves and quays are in the same category, and thus the same thing (I guess?). But it should be possible to categorize them in relation to both Piers and Jetties. Without knowing at all what is what, it would be nice to have some kind of diagram explaining the difference between the terms. //moralist (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moralist: That's a a valid request, and one which will help get these arranged logically. Here's my understanding:
  • Jetty: Any structure which sticks out into water, perpendicular to the shore. Ships may be able to dock there or not. May be raised or not.
  • Wharf/quay: Any structure on the side of water where ships can dock. It may be perpendicular to the shore or not. May be raised or not.
  • Pier: A raised structure which sticks out perpendicular to the shore. At "working piers" ships can dock.
By these definitions, all piers are jetties but not all wharves & quays are (though some are). Not all piers (but some) are wharves/quays. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the category

[edit]

Hi, why not rename this category to Category:Piers (coastal structure) similar to Category:Moles (coastal structure)? See also the disambiguation page: Category:Pier. There we have:

Regards, --W like wiki good to know 21:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pier : 1 (a) structure of wood, iron, etc built out into the sea, a lake, etc so that boats can stop and take on or put down passengers or goods. (b) similar structure built as a promenade at a seaside resort, often with a restaurant and places of entertainment on it. 2 one of the pillars supporting an arch or a span of a bridge. 3 wall between two windows or other openings.[3]

Regards, --W like wiki good to know 23:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@W like wiki: Sure, but the purpose of the CFD was to ask about the relationship between Category:Piers and Category:Wharves and quays. Renaming it doesn't answer that question. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: ok sorry, but renaming it would still help, wouldn't it!? --W like wiki good to know 17:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese script

[edit]

How is this different from Category:Chinese writing? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand either, but en:Chinese script redirects to en:Chinese characters, while en:Chinese writing redirects to a different article, en:Written Chinese. That doesn't mean separation on commons makes sense, but if there is a reason, it may be contained in those articles. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill:  Comment ∃ Category:Chinese characters, too. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Specific, and still unsolved. Nominated categories and some analogues:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion categories about characters are for isolated CJKV characters used to write Chinese, or Japanese or Korean, and also independant of their different styles/presentation; while categories for "writing" are more general (featuring only a subset of the CJKV scripts used by these languages but including also other scripts used jointly, notably Hangul, Bopomofo, and Kanas, but also specific forms for Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, and symbols/punctuations, including composite characters used as abbreviations or symbols), and include the CJK characters needed, as well as any other media related to texts written using the script, or to its composition on pages, or use for various languages. Finally there's the CJKV script itself (Hanzi+Hanja+Kanji+Chunom) that groups all unified forms encioded as Unicode (and represented in ISO 15924 by the code "Hani", which makes also distrinctiions between "Hans" and "Hant" needed for Chinese languages writen in CJK script, but usually not needed for Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese languages which use their Traditional forms when not using Hangul, Kanas or Latin without making distinctions for Simplified forms).
The Chinese scripts (Hans, Hant) are complex but still requires a distinction with Japanese/Korean traditional CJK scripts (Kanji/Hanja). We also still need a grouping category for Hans+Hant+Kanji+Hanja+Chunom.
This discussion is in fact generic for all scripts (as encoded and unified in Unicode, possibly with additonal variants encoded in ISO 15924): they all contain several specific subsets (termed "alphabets") depending on the target language using them with specific usage and composition rules defining their own "writing system" (possibly with variants: orthographies); languages are then more generic because they are not just written and can have several scripts with addionnal specific rules (either by transliterations between scripts, or by transcriptions of their phonology). verdy_p (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there's no "Category:Latin characters" because the equivalent is Category:Latin alphabet.
what i understand is, xx characters/alphabet refer to the individual graphemes.
xx script refers to the writing system, i.e. the whole thing with all the graphemes, punctuations, directions, decorations... all aspects of "writing".
dont know what xx writing refers to. RZuo (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that "xx writing" is not the best choice, and that it should be "xx script" (for basic simple scripts, including "Hans", "Hant", "Hani') or "xx mixed script" (some of them are defined in ISO 15924 for specific languages using several scripts concurrently, e.g.: "Chinese mixed script" with [Hans]/[Hant]+[Bpmf]/[Latn], "Korean mixed script" with [Hang]+[Hani=Hanja], or "Japanese mixed script" with [Hani]+[Kana]+[Hira], or "Vietnamese mixed script" with [Hani=Chunom]+[Latn]). There may be additonal "mixed scripts", notably in China for "Zhuang mixed script", and "Yi mixed script", but also in Tadjikistan (mixed with Arabic or Cyrillic), Ottoman Turkish (old transitional, mixed Latin and Arabic), India, Thailand and Myanmar (various Brahmic scripts mixed with Arabic or Latin; in northern Myanmar or Southern China, there exists also some use of Chinese characters mixed with Myanmar script), and in US and Canada (Latin mixed with Cherokee, or with Canadian Syllabary), countries of the former Yugoslavia (Cyrillic+Latin, though now this is deprecated as there are strong transliteration rules allowing the separation instead of the former mixing), and in the Middle East for Aramaic (many scripts) or for Kurdish or minority languages in Iran (Latin+Arabic); "xx mixed scripts" would also be roughly the same as "xx writing system", except that a writing system may possibly take into account several competing orthographic conventions in the same basic script (this occurs in the Arabic script for various languages). verdy_p (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per my analysis, I have proposed the following category scheme:
  • Writing systems
    • CJK scripts — for the ideographic writing systems used to write modern Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese (since the Ming period with the publication and adoption of the Kangxi dictionary).
      • Hanzi — for the Chinese subset of CJK scripts. Includes Chinese-specific Traditional or Simplified variants, as well as historic forms (Bronze, Seal, Big Seal, Oracle...) and calligraphic forms.
      • Kanji — for the Japanese subset of CJK scripts. Includes Japanese-specific Traditional or Simplified variants, as well as other non-standard variations, and calligraphic forms.
      • Hanja — for the Korean subset of CJK scripts.
      • Chữ Nôm — for the Vietnamese subset of CJK scripts.
      • Unicode CJK — for the unified and compatibility CJK characters part of the UCS (independently of their normalization and UTF forms including GB 18030 in P.R.China)
      • other legacy double-byte or variable multibyte character sets, with encodings supporting a significant subset of CJK characters (JIS X, EUC, KSX, IBM code pages...), often mixing other scripts partly supported
    • Latin script
      • Unicode Latin
      • Romanisations
        • Pinyin — for the romanisation of Chinese standardised in PR. China, which can be considered as a writing system of its own.
        • Wade-Giles — for the alternate romanisation of Chinese, used in Taiwan and US, which can be considered as a writing system of its own.
  • Languages
    • Chinese
      • Chinese writing — for any written specimen of Chinese languages, in any script.
        • Chinese scripts — to group various writing systems used to write Chinese.
          • Hanzi — for the main ideographic writing system used to write Chinese (named "CJK script", singular form, in the Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 encoding standards, but in fact unifying Hanzi, Kanji, Hanja and Chu Nom in their modern form only, excluding ancient forms used before the Ming dynasty, i.e. "Ancient Chinese Characters", which don't match very well with the classification by the modern 214 Kangxi radicals, but better match with the 540 Shuowen radicals at least since Bronze period).
          • Nüshu script — for the traditional non-Latin syllabic writing system used to write Chinese by women in some regional minorities.
          • Bopomofo — for the traditional non-Latin syllabic transliteration of Chinese as used in Taiwan.
          • Pinyin — for the romanisation of Chinese standardised in PR. China, which can be considered as a writing system of its own.
          • Wade-Giles romanisation — for the alternate romanisation of Chinese, used in Taiwan and US, which can be considered as a writing system of its own.
          • Chinese Braille — for the adaptation of the Braille system to Chinese.
          • Chinese mixed script — for the use of multiple scripts concurrently to write Chinese.
        • Chinese text — for texts written in Chinese languages, in any script (part of Category:Texts by language).
    • Japanese,
    • Korean,
    • Vietnamese, etc. — The same scheme can be used.
--Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what belongs to chinese writing but not chinese scripts? RZuo (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese languages are not necessarily all written every time in Chinese scripts. I see "Chinese writing" as a linguistic classification (within the families of languages spoken in China or its historical area of expansion) Chinese scritps are limited to the CJK script in Unicode, there are also other related scripts such as Yi, and romanisations, and uses with Cyrillic, Arabic or Indic scripts (notably Tibetan, Manchu) as well as a few syllabaries, and frequently mixed script usages. All this is hard to "unify" in a single parent category, so this is a long term progressive recategorisation that requires lot of work to get some coherence, avoiding "loops" in parent-child categorized relations that break the systematization. verdy_p (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if we want a category that encompasses everything about "writing a language", i think the established cat tree is Category:Texts by language. RZuo (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems like all written specimens from calligraphy and inscriptions to print texts and digital texts fall under Texts. Therefore, Chinese text is a better parent category for Chinese writing than Chinese writing. Not only that, there has been a consensus to convert Writing into a dab page and I have completed the incomplete job. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thx. i think your suggestions above make sense. i support this categorising scheme. RZuo (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure if Ancient Chinese characters belong to CJK scripts (which are only for the modern form since the publication and adoption of the Kangxi dictionary during the Ming period). In my opinion they are not, all these characters are not unified in Unicode/ISO/IEC 10646 and are to be standardized later (in some blocks of the supplementary plane).
Note however that the UCS has encoded ancient Japanese characters and made them part of Hiragana and Katakana (which both have modern and ancient forms, the ancient forms sometimes using Hanzi characters in ligatures, these ancient Japanese characters were still in official use in the 1st half of the 20th century, up to 1946, and are not really ancient and are still used in Japanese visual arts, including for some logos or in advertizing). A better term than ancient is probably obsolete or "historic" (just meaning "not the current standard"). Japanese has dedicate words for distinguishing the two forms, including for Kanji characters. verdy_p (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese terminology for the sub-classification of Kanji characters:
  • Kyūjitai (旧字体) The unsimplified traditional Chinese forms. These are still used in Taiwan and Hong Kong. They were used in Japan up to 1949.
    • Kyūji (旧字) Another shorter name for kyūjitai.
    • Honji (本字) Literally "original character", this is another name for kyūjitai. See also the term Hanja for the traditional Korean forms (often very similar or identical).
    • Seiji (正字) Literally "true character", this is another name for kyūjitai, but strictly conforming to the Japanese national standard (it may be non-neutral, used to oppose it to honji and itaiji, if they are considered "non-true" characters, or may be used by opponents to the 1949 Shinjitai simplification).
    • Itaiji (異体字) A regional variant form of traditional kanji, like 嶋 instead of 島 (e.g. in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Korea and other coastal areas of China, under the former occupation or influence by Japan, or in some remote Japanese areas like the Ryukyu islands).
  • Shinjitai (新字体) The Japanese simplified forms of characters. See Writing reforms in modern Japan. The Japanese changes are much less radical changes than the ones done in the People's Republic of China (the kantaiji).
    • Shinji (新字) Another shorter name for shinjitai.
    • Ryakuji (略字) The Common simplified forms (shared between Shinjitai in Japan and Kantaiji used in P.R. China and Singapore).
  • Kantaiji (簡体字) The Chinese simplified forms of characters used in the People's Republic of China and Singapore. These are different from the Shinjitai used in Japan, consisting of a much more radical restructuring of writing. They are not part of Kanji, and opposed to Shinjitai within the set of simplified CJK ideographs.
  • Zokuji (俗字) "Folk" characters, abbreviated or otherwise non-standard characters which have no historical basis but are still used. In some cases, this could include some forms derived from Kantaiji, Shinjitai, or Kyūjitai, or some mix of them (generally, this is just a different number of strokes, by keeping some, or merging some in a way different than both Chinese and Japanese standards; this could be also popular abbreviations, or ligatures, especially for fast and informal handwritten usage).
Hope this helps. verdy_p (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Category:Cimetière de Medingen

[edit]

disambig, see Category talk:Medingen, Luxembourg, move to Category:Cimetière de Medingen, Luxembourg 2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 01:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the only Medingen in a French region. I'm not sure I see the need. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the move, but if I'd rather call it Category:Cimetière de Medingen (Luxembourg) --Jwh (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that either.
@Themightyquill: Sometimes cemeteries in Luxembourg have categories in English, others are in French, see i.e. the categories in Category:Cemeteries in Clervaux. Is there a system for that? For example, in the WP in Lëtzebuergesch Medingen is named lb:Méideng, not Medingen. And Luxembourg is on Commons Lëtzebuerg, no French page. So it’s not trivial with those French names either. The category in Lëtzebuergesch for cemeteries in Luxembourg is named lb:Kategorie:Kierfechter zu Lëtzebuerg. So I don’t know, why these mostly are in French here. See also w:Languages of Luxembourg and w:Luxembourg#cite note-1: "no official language in Luxembourg", Luxembourgish as "national language" and French and German as "administrative languages". Category:Kierfecht zu Méideng would also be right then.
I think cemeteries are in nearly all villages, therefore I think it should be better that the name is clear at one sight, in which language ever. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 19:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. Yes, it could be in other languages (possibly "Cimetière de Medingen" is a formal name?) but so long as it's in French, it doesn't need disambiguation, because all the other Medingens are in Germany. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! --Jwh (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Cimetière de Medingen to Category:Cimetière de Medingen (Luxembourg), assuming Cimetière de Medingen is the official name of it. I am not sure that relying on language alone to disambiguate location is a good plan. I would think that all places with a similar or substantially similar name (regardless of the language each is depicted in on Commons) should have location disambiguation information in parenthesis unless there is some compelling reason to not do so. Josh (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I rather support User:Themightyquill's view. Category:Cimetière de Medingen, Luxembourg would be misleading, because no other "Cimetière de Medingen" exist. Sidenotice: translating of such short-named cemeteries into English seems to be trivial: eg uncontroversial name should be Category:Medingen Cemetery, but it is the topic of some other CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM.

Someone put {{Category redirect}}s on this category, and some related categories, like Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560M.

There have been multiple discussions triggered by attempts to amalgamate multiple instances Category:Taken with.... I think these discussions have all concluded this is a big mistake. There are strong arguments for basing our categories on the machine readable exif data. It is unambiguous. It does not require human judgement, anyone can add this info. Counting on someone's opinion introduces more scope for error.

Proponents of this amalgamation claim they KNOW that models of camera that embed different data in the exif are actually the same camera.

This is naive. Cameras can look identical, and yet have different firmware. Cameras can look identical, with the more expensive model having faster memory, or more memory, or both faster and more memory. Two models of camera may look identical, but have justifiably different model numbers, because the later cameras firmware introduces new features, to match new features found in competitor's phones.

When competitors think they know two cameras are identical they can put reciprocal hatnotes on the categories. Geo Swan (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assouindé

[edit]

Redundant with Category:Assinie? Themightyquill (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: it seems that en:Assinie or Assinie-Mafia is a town (maybe also a commune) and Assouindé is a village near the above-mentioned town. See eg www.airfrance.us--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkey photographs taken on 2016-11-24

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:March 2011 France photographs.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/08/Category:June 2014 France photographs.

Empty category Sakhalinio (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This whole category tree name structure seems poorly thought out to me, since we might end up with pictures of turkeys taken by date. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the naming structure is problematic. This one should be "Photographs of Turkey taken on 2016-11-24", or even just "Turkey on 2016-11-24" (or whatever subset of the date we feel is sufficient). Above I have linked a couple of discussions that also address this kind of naming convention. The problem exists for many places. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Auntof6: I agree, the name is a problem. Unfortunately it exists for most countries under Category:Photographs by date by country and I suspect it is built into some templates and such so it would take some work to go in and change, but would be worth having a centralized discussion to restructure. Josh (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was introduced by User:TommyG's special:diff/293868907.--Roy17 (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I merely merged the functionality of {{Taken in}} with the the template {{Taken on}}. See the discussion page for the template. The category tree was already established, but I agree that the naming is rather odd. TommyG (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical subdivisions by country

[edit]

Is Category:Historical subdivisions by country redundant with Category:Former subdivisions by country? If not, what should go in each, and should one be the sub-category of the other? Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: They are redundant. I do not see the need for either, as I am not sure that 'former' items should be segregated from 'current' items. If I am looking for an item, I should not have to have pre-existing knowledge of its current status in order to find it. None-the-less, that is a very different discussion, and so long as they exist, I support merging 'historical' into 'former' here. Josh (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Sure, but if you're looking for a map of the current provinces of a country you want to make sure you're not looking at a map of the provinces that haven't been used in 20 years. =) Sometimes the type doesn't change but the quantity, borders and names change a lot. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Agreed, but not sure how this cat structure would assure me of this. An old map of the United States may not have even the current number of states represented and state borders may not be current, but I can't see it getting placed in Category:Former subdivisions by country as the states shown are still going to be current states. There are several states and provinces which are 'current' (they exist today) but maps of which from the past would show very different borders than their current ones. In that case you get 'obsolete' maps in the 'current' subdivision tree. My understanding was that Category:Historical subdivisions by country would be for subdivisions that no longer exist as such today. As for particular maps, they are a snapshot in time and should have their date of creation (or at least date they are intended to illustrate) clearly identified so users can know how relevant they are to what they are looking for. I suppose we could have 'current maps of X' to split these out at that level, or some such, if someone felt it was needed. At any rate, these categories are for the subdivisions as a whole, not just maps of them. For now though, do we merge 'historical' into 'former' or 'former' into 'historical'? My preference is for 'former' as it seems more clear for an entity like a subdivision, but I'm not strongly decided. Any preference? Josh (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I don't know for other countries, but for Italy historical subdivisions are not necessarily "former" subdivisions. They are just the way how a certain region of space within a city is commonly called by people since long time ago, even if it has never been an official subdivision of the city. See for instance it:Quartieri di Napoli#Altri toponimi. --Horcrux (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Horcrux: Thanks, that's useful. That is certainly a difference that we might try to protect. But currently, Category:Former subdivisions of Italy seems to contain many similar categories, no? So if that's the intended distinction, we're not doing it very well at the moment. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: You are absolutely right, a big (and, possibly, coordinated) work should be done in this direction.
I'm going to link this thread to the Italian village pump and the WikiProject Italian Municipalities on Italian Wikipedia. --Horcrux (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the matter was developed like a leopard's spots, thus when the frame became clearer there were already two different category systems often overlapping. The problem is not having both category trees, is rather confusing "historical" with "former". "Historical" deals IMHO with a obsolete concept of country, like i.e. the Roman Empire, the Ancient Greece, the Ancient Egypt, and so on; "former" is about a country that has basically the same features of a today's country but is no longer in existence, i.e. USSR, Austrian-Hungarian empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ottoman Empire, and so on.). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, that you are using "historical" in place of ancient, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Not necessarily "ancient", but more like "traditional". Taking the category Mergellina‎: it was a former fishermen town called Mergellina‎. Then it was embedded in the city of Naples, but too small to be a district (which is Chiaja. Nevertheless, the area is still called "Mergellina" and is a very well identified part of the city. It is kind of an unofficial district, but with an historical ground. We should maintain this distinction only for undisputed names (but maybe in English "Historical" is not the right word. --Ruthven (msg) 15:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Category:Historical regions is a category of Category:Former locations, and Category:Historical regions of Italy is a subcategory of Category:Former subdivisions of Italy but not of Category:Historical subdivisions in Italy. Category:Historical subdivisions in Italy is a sub-category of Category:City subdivisions in Italy but doesn't specify city in its title. These Roman and Neapolitan subdivisions seem not totally different from Category:Quarters of Paris. Obviously, "quarters" doesn't work in the italian context, since they are the actual functioning subdivisions. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Ruthven, Blackcat, and Horcrux: : Coming at this from a somewhat different direction, I see there is a distinction between Regions and Subdivisions:
  1. Regions are any defined area regardless of its official standing.
  2. Subdivisions are territories which are officially demarcated by an administrative authority, whether under a separate local administrative body or for administration by a larger administrative body.
Thus the current categorization of Regions under Subdivisions seems backwards, but that is a topic for another CfD. In reality, all subdivisions are regions, but not all regions are subdivisions. This should apply for those specific to a property such as 'historical' or 'former' as well.
The other dichotomy we face is between 'former' and 'historical'. Are they the same or distinct?
  1. "Former" appears to be more applicable to entities that no longer exist, intimating that they had a distinct end at some point. This kind of clear-cut definition is very applicable to legally-constituted and defined entities such as subdivisions.
  2. "Historical" appears to be more about the context of a region's definition, implying that the region it is applied to is primarily defined in a historical context, though it may still technically exist currently.
Based on this, I have a hard time seeing a purpose for historical subdivisions as a class. Subdivisions are officially defined entities, and that official definition is either "current", as it is an actively maintained definition by some government authority, or it is "former" in that it used to be actively defined but no longer is. "Historical" does not seem to apply to subdivisions, except as another way to say "former".
However, this is a different story when it comes to Historical regions which makes a lot of sense given the nature of the much broader category Regions.
Thus I would recommend discarding Historical subdivisions (yes, I note that the parent category does not even exist) and deviding their contents between former subdivisions and Historical regions as appropriate, as we can see with the examples yet raised:
  • A place like Mergellina that Blackcat brought up is an excellent example to work with. It clearly is a region, not a subdivision, as its definition is not a specified delineation of government administration, but instead a cultural and historical one. It is primarily historical in context as today it has been absorbed by larger entities. However, of course it still exists per se. Thus I think it is very appropriate to categorize it under Historical regions, but not under former subdivisions. It is not apparent, but perhaps if indeed it was at one time officially defined as an administrative territory by one of its previous governments, then it would also belong under former subdivisions.
  • The quartieri of Italy mentioned by Horcrux also are interesting. Some of the quartiere are former subdivisions as they (at least the original 12) were officially defined in 1779, however, their number and existence outlasted their official demarcation, and thus the 30 that later existed are Historical regions also. These were morphed into (again official) circoscrizione from 1980 to 2008, and those belong under former subdivisions. They have since morphed again into municipalita which are current subdivisions.
 Comment Throughout all of the above, I am using terms 'region' and 'historical' in their generic sense. Obviously, some governments use the name "region" as part of their naming of subdivisions, which can be confusing.
TLDR: Split Historical subdivisions by country between Former subdivisions by country and Historical regions by country as the first is a conflation of the later two. (see principles) Josh (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Provinces of Romania

[edit]

Move to Category:Historical provinces of Romania Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I guess that provinces are no longer a current feature of Romanian sub-division, but then why the need to disambiguate 'historical' (I think 'former' is the preferred term) provinces from non-existant current ones? Josh (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to indicate that they are no longer in effect to someone browsing Category:Provinces by country or Category:Subdivisions of Romania? Not strictly necessary though, I concede. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Looking deeper here, I wonder if this category shouldn't just be deleted, and its lone subcat Category:People of Romania by province renamed to Category:People of Romania by region. The cats under this such as Category:People of Banat are under their respective region (Category:Banat in this case, which is under Category:Regions of Romania). What do you think? Josh (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are great points.I agree completely with the move to Category:People of Romania by region. This category (and the remaining images) could be moved to Category:Former subdivisions of Romania in Category:Former subdivisions by country. Does that work? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: act what seems best here. Unlike that someone opposes--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unusual characters

[edit]

What characters are “unusual”? There is no definition given, nor do I think one is possible because usuality is subjective. Some of the non-ISO Latin letters (which are categorised here) are used in big languages and in my opinion can't be considered unusual anymore. A user of IPA would think many reversed letters (also here) are quite usual. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: anything that's not standard ASCII. Useddenim (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Non-ASCII Latin script characters, or some slight variation of that. Everything written in Greek, Hebrew, Cyrillic, Arabic, Devanagari, Chinese, etc. does not use standard ASCII, but we shouldn't go branding other alphabets as "unusual". Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cat absolutely is not meant to refer to any and all non-ASCII characters, for the reasons pointed out by Nyttend (it could be even be argued that ASCII did include some unusual characters back in the day, such as the then-rarely used "@" and the curly brackets, while leaving aside then-common things like "§" and the long dash). This cat is meant for whatever characters are felt to be unusual within their own usage scope, not as a measure total frequency in an unbound universal corpus.
That said, I do agree that the wording "unusual" is problematic and should be either changed or at least clarified in the cat page (which is exactly what we are preparing here), although in this case it would seem that, based on what this cat is being used to tag, we have a pretty solid idea of what unusal means in practice, even if we cannot easily define it in theory. (Ditto for most other subcats under Category:Unusual typography.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that anything needs to be done here. The characters tagged with this catefory are "unusual", whether we can define that precisely or not. There is no need to be over-zealously rigid here. Evertype (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Evertype: Why are they? Non-ASCII Latin letters like Ä are quite usual in my opinion. Then, again, the reference usage scope isn't defined. Some would even consider Q unsual. Also, the scope is too broad. Most characters would fall here right now. I think it is better to create more categories like Category:Historic letters and Category:Unencoded characters, where it is clear what woul fall in them. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're entitled to your opinion, but it is an absurdity to suggest that non-ASCII letters like Ä or Q are actually unusual, even if they are not used in all orthographies. You're banging a drum here, and making a lot of noise, but I do not think that you have demonstrated that there is an actual problem. Certainly your assertions about Ä or Q are not backed up by anything. You're fighting a fight that's not worth fighting. Evertype (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Evertype: Firstly, the same argumentation could be applied to you. You didn't respond to my suggestion about creating more well-defined but related categories. Secondly, Ä is non-ASCII while Q isn't. Still Q is used much less in German than Q. As I (as well as others) said, there is no reference system. Latin is unusual to Devanagari users and Devanagari is unusual for Latin alphabet users. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not intend to respond to passive-aggressive arguments. The category is fine as it is, in my expert opinion, if that means anything any longer on the Wikipedia. Your arguments about Ä and Q remain specious. I don't know what sort of new taxonomy you want to make but if you are confused about what such an obvious thing as an "unusual character" is I have my misgivings about your ability to create something useful. I think Tuválkin is right. There's nothing that needs fixing. Evertype (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Evertype: The arguments refer to the letter frequency, but they differ between language. I still think “unusual” is subjective, how you understand the word depends on what alphabet you use natively, what characters you use in your business, etc. The symbol File:Transponaturtecken.svg may be quite usual for a professional corrector. Give me a strong criterion where the line between usual and unusual is, then I'll think the category is fine (although the name could maybe be changed to one that would describe that criterion more). Tuválkin says “I do agree that the wording "unusual" is problematic” so he thinks there IS something that needs to be fixed. Also the fact that we couldn't agree what defines usuality yet does show in my eyes that the name should be specified. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Categories should not be created to group items merely because they cannot otherwise be sorted into existing categories (miscelaneous, other, unusual, uncategorized, etc.) within the main category structure (there may be a reason for a maintenance category or such). Also, hopelessly subjective categories which inevitably lead to confusion for contributors and other users should be avoided (unusual, interesting, cool, nice, etc.) in the main category structure. Even the other word, 'characters' is too broad (and 'unusual' does nothing to clarify it--heck, I've been called an unusual character on more than one occaission). "Characters" as a category redirects to Category:Graphemes which is a far more appropiate word. Graphemes should be sorted under the most specific appropriate objective category. Subjective categories such as the nominated one should be deleted and their content upmerged and sorted appropriately. Josh (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I am not oppose for deleting. But the problematic may be also the parent Category:Unusual typography itself. The latter category has no hatnote to explain what means "unusual"--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages with maps

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Files with maps.
See also: Category talk:Pages with maps.

Rename to Category:Pages using Kartographer maps. The current name sounds like that of a content category (as if it's meant to hold map-related pages), but this is a tracking category for a specific extension. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend and Acabashi: Closed (no objections; rename Category:Pages with maps to Category:Pages using Kartographer maps) Josh (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend and Acabashi: Re-opened I am concerned that this move may have far-ranging effects. In fact it appears to be a hard-coded maintenance category. See Tracking categories and Template:Location for more info. Unless we a confidnet that such a move won't break a whole bunch of templates and functions, I think this one is best left alone. Josh (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not hard-coded—the category’s name is the content of MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category, which can be changed at any time by a sysop. It should not cause any issues (if it does, that’s a software error, which should be fixed, but this scenario is really unlikely), except that updating 14.5 million pages causes significant load on servers, but it should be manageable (and has nothing to do with software-level tracking category status, moving e.g. Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0 would have similar impact). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tacsipacsi: Thanks for clarifying! You are right, 'hard-coded' is not the right terminology to use. It sounds like it is doable, but I wanted to raise a little visibility and give the chance for some more input on this CfD before we close and make such a far-reaching change. Josh (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tacsipacsi, would you mind voting, if you have an opinion on the proposal itself? It would help if we could have a second "move" or if you could balance out the first one by explaining why this is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I don’t know. I don’t think this to be a such huge issue that’s worth the effort moving it, but I understand some do think so. So I don’t want to prevent the move, but I can’t support it, either. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and thank you for explaining. Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I would find a category for Kartographer maps alone very usefull, because it would at least give me a chance at finding examples. With media with just a set of coordinates piled on, it's practically impossible. --Hjart (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjart: Practically all (99%+) pages in this category should contain Kartographer maps—but many of them are map links (which show the map itself upon click), not map frames (which are visible in small size even before user interaction). Splitting these two types to different categories cannot be done within Commons alone (it would require software changes), but links and frames can be queried otherwise separately. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacsipacsi: ~90% are from Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps. ~20% are from Category:Categories with coordinates. What I would like to find are examples of manually added Kartographer maps, such as Category:Viking ring forts (which is in Category:Pages with maps only). Is there any other way to do that? --Hjart (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hjart: You can use PetScan to exclude pages with certain templates. But this conversation is becoming really out of scope here, so in case of further questions, please ask somewhere else (e.g. on my talk page). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to suppress Category:pages with maps on files who have Category:media with locations before moving the category? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, suppression based on page metadata (namespace, root page name, page language etc.) is possible, but based on the page content itself (like other categories) is not. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, don't see a reason not to move it. Today was the first time I noticed this category, and it seemed odd to have it in an image without any maps. It took me a minute to realize that it was related to the coordinates on the page. —Ynhockey (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a protected edit request for MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category so when a sysop has the chance to fix it we can hopefully close this discussion successfully. Josh (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

[edit]
what's the point of this category? it basically is the same as https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3ALocation or Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Location?
in view of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T343131 , i think this should be  Delete. RZuo (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that too. Personally, I use this category to check if categories or files are geocoded. (Took me some time to find out that it's called "Pages with maps".)
At least for Petscan, the benefit of this being a single category is rather limited, as it's not possible to query subcategories of categories it includes.
Another alternative might be "page metadata", but -- looking at PetScan -- it can't be used to query and the information isn't always present. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it should be renamed: Special:Search/map shouldn't list 40 million files. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the previous discussion, I'd add a request to change the category at MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category to Pages with coordinates. If we agree this should be limited to categories, then a check for namespace should be included. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of people can use categories a lot more easily than complicated search strings or use Special pages or Petscan, me included (let alone end users). So I plea for keeping this category.
  • Would renaming affect Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories? If yes: then that should be solved.
  • I am stil PRO renaming this category to "Pages with coordinates". (But it involves a lot of files, subcategories and other pages, so I hope there is a tool to implement this change.)
JopkeB (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have no problem using as many cats as possible, but User:Ladsgroup they have a problem with the database.
i dont know what this cat is useful for. if you want to find in a cat all files that have coords, you can just use the link "Map of all coordinates on OSM" provided by {{Geogroup}} (which i integrated into Template:Category helper). RZuo (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you present a usecase requiring this category. Renaming this shouldn't require more than editing MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a precaution, I asked on COM:VP/T and User:DB111 (who does many cool mapping tools) if they need the category somehow. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how do you use this cat now, that doesnt involve the use of "complicated search strings or use Special pages or Petscan"? RZuo (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly: I cannot remember that I did. But I can imagine that it can be used for maintenance and searching for files that have not geographic coordinates, for example together with a search term like a location or your own uploads ("Search not in category" in the tab "More", and then change the search string to your wishes, which is easier than figuring out other methods of searching). JopkeB (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we could define a link to search non-geocoded images in a category. This would even be easier. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good! Where would that link be found, also in the "More" tab? JopkeB (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some testing at https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Kartographer-tracking-category .
It seems it's possible to base categorization on namespace and the following would only categorize pages that are not files: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File||Pages with coordinates}}. Shall we go for that? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: I really do appreciate your efforts. But could you please be somewhat more specific, so that a layperson like me can understand it too? Is this an elaboration of your previous proposal or is it a new one? If I say yes to your proposal, what exactly am I saying yes to? What does the tool(?) do, what do I get when I would use it (a list of search results, or does it change something in a page?), when should it be used (in what situations), what problem does it solve, can you give examples? JopkeB (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a way to implement the various proposals above: the name change (first mentioned 2020), the removal from files (based on the proposal by @RZuo, given the absence of a usecase for that usage).
The search for files with locations would be with Special:Search/building hastemplate:location (or with a gadget doing the same as suggested above). Enhancing999 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This link works well for files with geographic coordinates. Is it also possible to have an equally simple search string for files without geographic coordinates? JopkeB (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can "minus" the search parameters. RZuo (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should the search string exactly be? Because building -hastemplate:location does not do the thrick, you still get files with geo coordniates. JopkeB (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's Special:Search/building -hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates", otherwise {{Object location}} gets skipped. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! This works well. So the search strings should be:
  • For files with geo coordniates (object and/or camera location): search term hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates"
  • For files without any geo coordniate (neither object nor camera location): search term -hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates"
As far as I'm concerned you can continue with developing and implementing the proposal. JopkeB (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is not necessary and too much to have this on the "More" tab, it will not be used that often. Perhaps one Help page for geographic coordinates, including (or with links to) all the pages and links for this subject? On Commons:Editor's index to Commons I see about a dozen links to more information. JopkeB (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a gadget, users can choose to activate it. Improving documentation is always helpful. Maybe the documention of {{Location}} and {{Object location}} should mention it too. Currently neither mentions "Pages with maps". Enhancing999 (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To implement this, I made the edit request at MediaWiki_talk:Kartographer-tracking-category#Change_of_category_(2024-06) and created the category description page at Category:Pages with coordinates. Currently there are 30,108,659 files, 65,542 pages and 2,192,714 categories. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Category:Pages with coordinates has already been made. Are we going to implement some actions before this discussion has been closed? My conclusion uptil now was that we want to get rid of this category, whatever name it has, because it causes technical problems (I forgot where I read it) and there is now a good alternative (searching with hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates"). So please, be patient. JopkeB (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it for files, yes. This is what the above does. MediaWiki will take several weeks to complete the change, so yes, patience is needed. We will have two active category description pages in the meantime. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HK G36 in Albanian service

[edit]

I dindn't find anything that albania is using the G36 so I think in this pic which was done during an Europian stabilisation mission is the albanian solder using a G36 of Germany or Spain. Sanandros (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: It would seem that this category would depict Albanians using the HK G36, so seems legit to me. I get that it might not be officially adopted by the Albanian military, but at least in this image, there is an Albanian soldier using it. Josh (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider for these kind of cats only official service. Especially for the US, which does exercises all over the world, we will have a huge cat including pretty uncommon weapons like PM-98.--Sanandros (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Delete, I agree with user:Sanandros--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon Generation 1 characters

[edit]

Name seems to be wrong. Characters are the human figures. The pokemons are called species (enwp terminology) or creatures. Same problem: Category:Pokémon Generation 2 characters. Roy17 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 Maybe you should check https://www.ranker.com/list/complete-list-of-all-pokemon-characters/video-game-info and also I owned those items it personal collection. If you think I can not use those images for article then let me know. I just want to know reason you should be able to explain it for me to understand more.

and reason that Nintendo used word " Characters" This might explain more "Traits of Character" Character demonstrates that a word may have many and varied meanings and yet still be easily understood by most listeners when used in disparate settings. We have little trouble distinguishing the meanings of the noun in “she had a fine and noble character,” “Bill is always joking; he’s such a character,” and “He was the last characterto appear in the play,” not to mention its many other applications. Character comes ultimately from the Greek charaktēr (“mark, distinctive quality”), which passed through Latin and French before landing in English. The Greek noun itself is derived from the verb charassein, meaning “to sharpen, cut in furrows, or engrave.” The literal sense of the noun (“an engraved or imprinted mark”) existed in Greek, Latin, and French side by side with the figurative one (“a distinctive quality”), and both senses were borrowed into English early on, with a variant of the figurative sense appearing first.

and here are youtube link for references.

Here are 802 Characters from Generation 1 - 7

I also want to give you one example "Pikachu" is One of Main character in Pokemon. Here also to let you understand more about Pokemon Characters from

I hope this could be enough for understand why I have created those Categories. Category:Pokémon Generation 1 characters for 151 Characters And Generation 2 for 100 characters and Etc. Regards,..Tris T7 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and Tris T7: Closed (no resolution to limit 'charaters' to human depictions) Josh (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: that's not true. Commons call the pokemons Category:Pokémon creatures. Human figures are not normally subdivided by generations. So if categories by generations are created, and in fact being used only for pokemons, they should follow the existing structure and be named creatures.--Roy17 (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I'd like to reopen this to allow more discussions.
Whether or not to create categories by generations? Which word to use, characters/creatures/species/pokemons? Use Arabic numerals or Roman numerals? None of these questions have been answered. I'm not a big fan of pokemons, so I could only draw comparison to en:Category:Pokémon_characters en:Category:Lists of Pokémon. Perhaps other users have different thoughts.--Roy17 (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: Sounds like a fine discussion to have, it didn't seem to be happening so I closed the discussion as unresolved. I think you might have more success by making a new CfD with a specific proposal or set of proposals rather than reopening this one which seems to lack direction. Josh (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. We should follow enwiki, where parent category is en:Category:Pokémon characters. One subcategory is en:Category:Pokémon species. We probably need an user who knows this Pokeman stuff in more depth, in order to establish acceptable category tree--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

en:Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Red and Blue was created this year by Cukie Gherkin. However, there already was a category for this in other Wikipedias, see also fr:Catégorie:Pokémon par génération and Category:Pokémon by generation (Q10039062). enwiki categorizes by game, while other wikipedias by generation. They would be the exact same thing, except for gens VII and VIII. Web-julio (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1, Joshbaumgartner, Roy17, and Tris T7: opinion? Web-julio (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language learning

[edit]

How do we name a category that represents education (learning and teaching) of a language? Right now we have Spanish language learning, Foreign language education, the whole Category:Language courses, etc. Enwp standard is w:Category:Language education, XX-language education, which I prefer. Roy17 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Language education for the broad concept. Maybe create a new Category:Language learning as a subcat of the first if there is media that really primarily depicts a person in the act of learning. Josh (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Category:Second language education for clarity. Joostik (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joostik: your move was wrong. This category is for education of any language in the broadest sense. Education of a foreign language is a subset of this. This cat itself should probably be renamed to Language education as Joshbaumgartner suggested, but more importantly I opened this CfD to ask what the format of education of a particular language should be. I prefer for example English-language education, Yiddish education.--Roy17 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Language education and Category:Spanish language education seem appropriate to me. Category:Second language education seems like a reasonable subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the format Category:English language education Category:French language education Category:Spanish language education...
For the more specific subcats about education of a language for foreigners, a format of "English as a second language" "French as a second language"... seems good? Roy17 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2015-07-14 community meeting in Union City, New Jersey

[edit]

In February 2018, Robert Weemeyer made this category move, without my consent, and without alerting me, even though I am the category's creator. My understanding is that Wikimedia Commons allows uploaders the latitude of choosing their own date format for categories, which unlike the date on each photo's page, does not have to be in the international date format. I don't know why he changed this one category out of all the subcats in the Evens in Union City category, but in so doing, he made that one category inconsistent with the other 31 subcats in that category, which makes little sense. On June 9, I tried to begin a discussion with Mr. Weemeyer on his talk page, in which I politely asked him to change it back, but he has not responded, despite the fact that he continues his Commons activities. Nightscream (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
@Nightscream and Robert Weemeyer: "7.14.15" does not match up with any of the common date formats for use in category names, so I get why someone would want it to be in a more commonly used format, and 2015-07-14 format is widely used for date-specific categories. I was not aware of any special category name privledges granted to uploaders. Of course they have great latitude in determining an appropriate category for media they upload, but it still has to follow COM:CAT as far as I am aware. If you know of some different standard out there, please do share it. The inconsistency is an issue, but the solution may indeed be to rename the 31 subcats to the YYYY-MM-DD format as well. That said, it would have been better for the other user to engage in a discussion on the matter, so thank you for bringing it here for that. Josh (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: "...but the solution may indeed be to rename the 31 subcats to the YYYY-MM-DD format as well."
And what about all the other countless categories I've so created? Like the ones here, to name one example? Are you going to rename all of them? In any event, why did Robert just rename the one?
Also, where in COM:CAT does it say anything about date formats in cat names? I couldn't find "date" or "YYYY" anywhere on the page, and neither of the two appearances of the word "format" pertain to dates or cat names. Nightscream (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: Yes, all, even if they are 'countless'. The fact that a change involves a large number of files or categories is not a reason not to make an appropriate change. There are several tools and experts available for those cases where particularly large quantities are involved. Josh (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Yet another example of how classified government secrets and user passwords can be safely stored by placing them in a second question, since no one will ever find them.
I made two questions/statements, and you answered the first, while ignoring the second. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: Surely you do not expect me to answer for another user as to why they chose to take a particular action, do you? I'd have about as much luck knowing that as I would knowing what the heck you are talking about government secrets in the first sentence! I thought this was a normal discussion about date formats, but it took a wild turn there for sure. Josh (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: No, I don't. And I never said otherwise. here you came up with that, I have no idea, but the second of the two questions/points I put to you in my 06:14, 11 July 2019 message is still right there, in black and white, yet you act as if the act of making it the second point makes it invisible. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: Sorry, I have no idea what you are on about. If you can clarify a specific question or comment you would like answered, I would be happy to address it. Josh (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: LOL! Wow, it really is invisible to you, isn't it? You genuinely cannot see the second question I asked you in my 06:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC) post above, even though I specified the message by its date and time stamp, can you? LOL. You're telling me that if you scroll up to that message, you can't see the second paragraph? Or that you responded to it with a non sequitur about "expecting you to answer for another user..." ? Okay, Josh. Whatever you say. (Wink, wink.) Nightscream (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: Where you asked "In any event, why did Robert just rename the one?"... yes, well I have no interest in riddles and playing winky-winky guessing games with you. It would be far more constructive if you actually explained your rationale for the category name you feel is correct. Josh (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for rename

Rename all ##.##.## formated categories under Category:Events in Union City, New Jersey from '##.##.## Event' to 'Event on DD MONTH YYYY' format (e.g. Category:8.21.12 public hearing in Union City, New Jersey to Category:Public hearing in Union City, New Jersey on 21 August 2012) where disambiguation is necessary by date and remove date for singular events (e.g. Category:10.12.12 Erick Morillo Way dedication ceremony to Category:Erick Morillo Way dedication ceremony). Josh (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Replicas of firearms

[edit]

Can we define this category something like "Media relating to replicas, i.e. models or reconstructions that are full-size or nearly so, and may try to be as close to the original in all aspects as possible. For Replicas of building in an experimental archaeology or educational aim, see Category:Reconstruction (architecture)."? as in the parent category Category:Replicas and then can we take out models, toys and airsoft guns (and similar things)? Sanandros (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Sanandros: the parent is Category:Replicas of weapons, so the name of the nominated category should be OK?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes with that I don't have a problem but with the air soft guns and toy guns in this cat. But as nobody answered I'll simply take them out.--Sanandros (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 in Benrath Maerz

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 Januar in Benrath.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Februar.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Mai.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Pflanzen und Blumen in Benrath.

German language category - and even misspelled. Also most subcategories are affected.. Ies (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:March 2019 in Benrath. Josh (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 in Benrath Februar

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 Januar in Benrath.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Maerz.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Mai.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Pflanzen und Blumen in Benrath.

German language category Ies (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:February 2019 in Benrath, also other month-year-location categories here. Josh (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 in Benrath Mai

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 Januar in Benrath.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Februar.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Maerz.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Pflanzen und Blumen in Benrath.

German language category Ies (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:May 2019 in Benrath. Josh (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 Januar in Benrath

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Februar.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Maerz.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:2019 in Benrath Mai.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Pflanzen und Blumen in Benrath.

German language category. Also mots succategories are affected. Ies (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:January 2019 in Benrath. Josh (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
for the subcats, that is, for any intersection of a date and a place, should we go with "YYYY-MM-DD in [place name]" or "[place name] on YYYY-MM-DD" or "[place name] (YYYY-MM-DD)" or something else?
the established consensus for month and place intersection is Month YYYY in [place name] like what you see under Category:2019 in London.
I'd go with "YYYY-MM-DD in [place name]" to be consistent with month cats and year cats.--RZuo (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BMG 50

[edit]

I think this category redirect should redirect to Category:Browning M2 - the category for the actual weapon. Someone decided it should redirect to the weapon's ammunition. That seems like the tail wagging the dog, to me. Geo Swan (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. In this case the mmunition is used by several different weapons so it is not clear whether one would be looking for the weapon or the ammo, so I suggest making it a dab instead of one or the other. Josh (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joshbaumgartner excuse me, but isn't BMG short for "Browning Machine Gun"?
  • This weapon is something like 100 years old. That the designers of newer weapons have chosen to use the ammunition for the older weapon doesn't seem that relevant.
  • These other weapons - how many of them are those specialized sniper rifles? Haven't they only had production runs of thousands? How many BMG have been manufactured? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: Yes, that is my understanding of the TLA. None-the-less the term 'BMG 50' is not the official designation of either the weapon nor the ammunition, but a common term that could refer to either. Neither the age of a subject nor the quantity of it manufactured (I am pretty sure that the number of rounds of ammunition manufactured is way more than the number of weapons built) are really relevant to giving one prominence in this case. Since it is reasonable that a user entering 'BMG 50' may be looking for the weapon or for the ammunition, a disambiguation page is more appropriate than a redirect in this case. Josh (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Specific topic. Some notes: enwiki en:BMG 50 is redirected to the gun "M2 Browning". Wikidata BMG 50 talks about astronomical object, but we probably haven't files about this object. Can user:Sanandros want to say something?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for deleting it. Becase if search for BMG 50 in google books and in google I don't get the weapon.--Sanandros (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglo-Scots

[edit]

Is Category:Anglo-Scots redundant with Category:English people of Scottish descent ? Themightyquill (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Perhaps actually the opposite, though not clear exactly. en:Anglo says, "Anglo-Scot, often shortened to Anglos, is used to refer to people with mixed Scottish-English ancestry, or people with English ancestry born in Scotland" and also, "Anglo-Scot is more often used to describe Scottish sports players who are based in England or playing for English teams, or vice versa". I am not sure it has any value as a category at that point. If someone has both English and Scottish ancestry, they can be under both 'of English descent' and 'of Scottish descent' categories, no need for this intersection when it is so diverse in actual usage. Josh (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. So we should sort the content in a more useful way and then either delete or disambiguate? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States photographs taken on 1860-07-04

[edit]

This request is actually for all categories named "United States photographs taken on <yyyy-mm-dd>", but my examples will be specific to Category:United States photographs taken on 1860-07-04, the category I am attaching this request to. (I picked that one because it has the earliest date.)

Note the following about Category:United States photographs taken on 1860-07-04:

  • One parent category is Category:July 1860 United States photographs.
  • That parent category has a description that says (with my bolding of the relevant part) "Images taken in the United States during this month of 1860 (not the date of the upload). With CatScan, this allows one to browse any United States-related category by year or month. Images should be placed directly in this category, not in subcategories. Note: Images from 1860 should be also added into the appropriate province, territory or city category of Category:1860 photographs of the United States."
  • This seems to mean that the parent category was intended to contain only files, not subcategories. However, in looking at the various month/year parent categories, I see some that contain only files, some that contain only subcategories, and some that contain both (such as this one).

So there is a contradiction here: categories named "<Month> <year> United States photographs" that say they want only files, but which sometimes contain subcategories. I think we should resolve this contradiction. Here are some suggestions on how it could be done:

  • Allow subcategories, and remove the relevant part of the note on the "<Month> <year> United States photographs" parent categories.
  • Change the setup of the subcategories so that they are not placed in the "<Month> <year> United States photographs" categories. We might be able to just remove those parent categories, or we might need to put them in different categories instead.

Note that there are many categories involved (over 4000 of the specific-date subcategories, for example), but they are all defined by templates so we wouldn't have to change each individual one.

Your thoughts? Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Auntof6: it is really hard to grasp what you exactly propose. Do you want to change something in {{USA photographs taken on navbox}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian Air Force on Republic Day parade 2006

[edit]

Files in this category needs to be renamed as the name doesn't really describe the file in anyway. Any suggestions? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I would suggest File:Italian Air Force on Republic Day parade (n), where n is a number. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @大诺史: Are these images of the Italian Air Force participating in the 2006 Republic Day Parade, or is this an Italian Air Force parade held on Republic Day in 2006? Josh (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I believe that it is Italian Air Force participating in the 2006 Republic Day Parade. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@大诺史: Then I suggest renaming the category Category:Italian Air Force in the 2006 Republic Day Parade and I support the files being given intelligible names to match. Josh (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @大诺史: this discussion seems to be files-focused, not category-focused. The nominated category name is in then line with the subcategories of Category:2006 Republic Day parade (Italy). I added Category:Files of Italy with bad file names to the nominated category--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood Building, Hong Kong

[edit]

All the by-year cats should either be deleted or renamed as Hollywood Building, Hong Kong in YYYY. Shops cat should be deleted or renamed as Shops of ... Roy17 (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. These are images of the building in a year, not images of a year in the building. The shops category formatting doesn't conform to commons standards. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17 and Themightyquill: Also agreed. However, I'd like to clarify the best name for Category:Hollywood Building, Hong Kong - Shops. Is it:
* Category:Shops in Hollywood Building, Hong Kong
* Category:Shops in the Hollywood Building, Hong Kong
* Category:Shops of Hollywood Building, Hong Kong
* Category:Shops of the Hollywood Building, Hong Kong
I find the second option to be the best, grammatically, but I don't know if there is a reason to exclude the "the".
– BMacZero (🗩) 03:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with Shops in Hollywood... This format seems to be followed by other cats of shops in HK too.--Roy17 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Category:Historians from ancient Greece

[edit]

Isn't Category:Historians from ancient Greece redundant with Category:Ancient Greek historians? Both being separate from Category:Historians of Ancient Greece (which we don't have, but would mean anyone from any place/time studying ancient Greece)? Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this category should be merged into Category:Ancient Greek historians. The usual justification for this would be to distinguish between historians who were Greek and non-Greek historians who lived in Greece, but this category contains only the works of Polybius, who is definitely Greek. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it seems to be not easy question, but I just mention that equivalent is Category:Ancient Roman historians (absent is Category:Historians from ancient Rome)--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invisible letter

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:Letters with font lines (non-Unicode).
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Unusual characters.

No instances of invisible letters shown here. Rename to Category:Character placeholders (the dotted shapes don't have to stand only for letters). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the United Kingdom by ethnicity

[edit]

Subcategories should be renamed in the format Category:People of the United Kingdom of xxxxxxx descent, consitent with parent. Josh (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support in general, but:
Comment 1: This should include the sub-subcategories with similar names.
Comment 2: Not all subcats would fit the proposed naming (for example, Clans of Ireland and Clans of Scotland). Also, are we sure that categories like "<Foo> people in <location>" (Spanish people of England, Bulgarians in the United Kingdom, Romani people in the United Kingdom, etc.) aren't for people of the indicated nationality or ethnicity that are located in the UK, but have not become British? Some may be refugees in the UK who are still citizens of their countries of origin. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think being resident includes you in "People of the United Kingdom" regardless of citizenship, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"People of xyz descent of the United Kingdom" sounds more natural, right? RZuo (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airbus aircraft by name

[edit]

Auntof6 has indicated that this category "is not a metacat by name". This is confusing, as 'by name' is one of those listed in the Commons:List of meta category criteria. As this is really only a matter that affects the non-topical/index categories it is under, should any changes be made to the category, they should not be done in a way that removes it from its main categorization under Category:Airbus aircraft, Category:Aircraft by name by manufacturer or Category:Airbus aircraft by name, nor remove the navbox present there. Josh (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC) @Auntof6: Can you elaborate on exactly what you want to see here? I am pretty confident you were not intending to point to a red link category (see your version) that is obviously not correct. Josh (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the benefit of others, I'll repeat the explanation I gave on your talk page. There can be metacats by name; those are categories with subcategories that group different things with the same name. An example is Category:Hotels by name. Each subcat there, for example Category:Hotels named Excelsior, is for media about any and all hotels with the indicated name. With this kind of use, "by name" is a shorthand way of saying "grouped by common name", and it is that kind of grouping that makes a metacategory. Compare this with Category:Buildings by country, where each subcat is for buildings grouped by the country they have in common. For example, the subcat Category:Buildings in Afghanistan is for any and all buildings in Afghanistan.
However, there are also "by name" categories whose subcategories do not group things that way. These are not metacategories. An example is Category:People by name, where each subcat is for one individual person. A few years ago, I actually removed metacat templates from a lot of categories of this type.
I think this category could actually be a metacategory, but not by name. If it were named "Named Airbus aircraft by model", it would be a metacat by model, because each subcat is for different aircraft of the same model (if "model" is the correct term). The subcats, however, would not be. (By the way, did you notice that this category is a subcat of itself?)
You ask what I want to see here. I want the category not to be marked or categorized as a metacategory. The best template to put on it is {{Catcat}}. If I made a change that messed up something else, I apologize.
Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Auntof6: the nominated category's hatnote says that this is a metacat. But the immediate subcategories (also with criterion <by name>) are not metacats. Is the situation acceptable?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: No. Two things about metacats:
  1. First, a metacat is for grouping multiple things that have the grouping criterion in common. Some "by name" categories do this, such as Category:Hotels by name, as I mentioned above. But many "by name" categories don't do this. A good example is Category:People by name. If that were a metacat, the subcategories would be things like "People named John Smith", "People named Carlos Rodriguez", etc. But they aren't; instead, they are categories for individual people, so it is not a metacat. The confusion is because the word "by" is being used in two different ways. With metacats, it's used as a shorthand way of saying "grouped by shared/common criterion". With categories like "People by name", it's used in the way we might say, "I call her by name." I've often thought it would be helpful to use different terminology for those different uses, but I know there would be a lot of pushback if I proposed it.
  2. Second, the metacat's name should include something to indicate the grouping criterion. That could be in the form "Rivers by country", "Months in city", or maybe something else. This category doesn't have that.
Looking at this category, another name for it could be Category:Airbus aircraft by name by model. That would be a metacat with subcats grouped by model (if "model" is the correct term here). But with the current name, it doesn't meet item #1 above, which matters because individual named Airbus aircraft could be added to the category as it stands now. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reconstruction in the Netherlands after World War II

[edit]

What is this category about? Is it only about real reconstruction after WW-II or about much more? I see a lot of buildings in this category which were newly build, modern buildings, on a location without any buildings previously, let alone damaged in WWII. Or are all buildings that were build after WWII until 1960 (or even later) "Reconstruction in the Netherlands after World War II"? I don't think so. In Wikipedia's lemma Wederopbouw I read: Tijdens de oorlog was veel infrastructuur ... vernield. Ook waren huizen, fabrieken en gebouwen vernietigd of beschadigd. Door een vereniging van krachten en beschikbare hulp van onder andere het Marshallplan, werd Nederland weer opgebouwd. De wederopbouw vond ruwweg tussen 1940 en 1958 plaats. So, I would like to limit this category to just that: reconstruction of damaged or destroyed infrastructure and buildings, including plans to do so, and other things that were necessery for really reconstruct the Netherlands after WWII (like the "Tientje van Lieftinck"). But NOT: extensions of cities, completely new neighborhoods. They were part of independent urban growth after WWII, not of reconstruction. So I think we should make a difference between real reconstruction and completely newly build. Perhaps we should make a category for this independent urban growth after WWII. Any suggestions? JopkeB (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because in more than 3 months nobody argued otherwise, I shall implement my proposal and move all the files and categories that are not about reconstruction, but about new construction, to other categories. JopkeB (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: you would make it harder for others to find these files. Probably best to create a new category under Category:Architecture of the Netherlands by style, something like Category:Post-World War II reconstruction architecture in the Netherlands and move the relevant categories there. Multichill (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Thanks for your remarks. Referring to Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Post-World War II weapons I think we should not make new categories after or before a particular event, but organize them by century/decade/year (and in this case also by architectural style) as appropriate. And that is what I am doing with these categories and files that ar not about reconstruction but about construction.JopkeB (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Emptying out a category before consensus has been reached is not really considered acceptable behavior .
Even in het Nederlands. De periode na de tweede wereldoorlog wordt de "wederopbouw" genoemd omdat het hele land weer opnieuw werd opgebouwd. Natuurlijk werd er een hoop nieuw gebouwd. "Wederopbouwarchitectuur" is vernoemd naar de periode, niet naar het feit dat individuele gebouwen opnieuw worden opgebouwd. Dit is niet een begrip wat wij hier bedacht hebben (zoals in de categorie van je voorbeeld). Er is ook ruim voldoende over gepubliceerd en je kan online van alles vinden zoals https://architectenweb.nl/nieuws/artikel.aspx?ID=6534 . Alleen hoe dat naar het Engels te vertalen is wellicht wat lastig. Multichill (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Het lijkt mij dat er twee categorieën nodig zijnː
  1. De huidige, die aansluit bij de internationale categorie voor herstelwerkzaamheden na WO-II.
  2. Misschien een nieuwe categorie voor geheel nieuwe bouwwerken uit de periode na WO-II die wordt aangeduid als Wederopbouw. Alleen is dan direct mijn vraagː welke criteria zouden daarvoor gelden? (1) Over welke periode gaat het precies? (2) Welke bouwwerken (of hele wijken?) uit die periode komen hiervoor in aanmerking? (a) Alle? Dan kun je net zo goed verwijzen naar de categorieën Built in the Netherlands in 19.. of 19..s architecture in the Netherlands voor die jaren/decades. (b) Of een selectie? Welke wel en welke niet? JopkeB (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Multichill and JopkeB: the parent is Category:Reconstruction after World War II, with also problematic subcategories? I see that only the Netherlands category has the hatnote which probably try to give temporal interval.--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estopedist1, thanks for your attempt to revive this discussion. I don't know whether the other subcategories of Category:Reconstruction after World War II are problematic, at first sight I do not see problems. The main problem here is, that the concept "Reconstruction after World War II" has been used in two ways:
  1. for recovery and reconstruction of damaged structures during World War II, which I think is the meaning of the parent category;
  2. for the period of "Wederopbouw" (roughly 1945-±1960) in which many new houses and other structures were built in areas that were not damaged by the war, but on former fields or other empty areas. The architectural style of those new built buildings is called "Wederopbouw"-architecture, though it contains a broad range of styles, like Functionalist, Modernist and the traditionalistic Delftse School.
The proposal was to have two categories, but I still did not get any answers (after two years) what the criteria are for the second one. In 2020 Joostik made Category:Reconstruction-period architecture with photos of architecture from the Netherlands, which I moved to Category:Reconstruction-period architecture in the Netherlands after World War II‎ (created by me). But this category does not have a definition or criteria either. So, I am still waiting for answers. --JopkeB (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Papillomavirus large T antigen helicase domain

[edit]

The name of this category is incorrect. Papillomaviruses do not have large T antigen proteins. These proteins are found instead in polyomaviruses. The confusion probably originates from the fact that polyoma and papillomaviruses were once formally classified together. On Commons, it seems to have come from an automated import reflecting the terminology used in the Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) database, which also contains this error. SCOP was at one time an authoritative source on protein classification, but the project is no longer maintained and has not been updated in ten years. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: How should this be renamed? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Opabinia regalis: in the meantime, the category is emptied, but deleting would be incorrect move because the category is via a template used at four images, see dab "What links here"--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian Border Guard camouflage pattern

[edit]

This category is basically redundant to its subcategory Category:Border Guard camouflage pattern of the Ukrainian military. I don't see any point in having both of these two categories with an identical purpose. I propose to keep Category: Border Guard camouflage pattern of the Ukrainian military and move it into the parent category Category:Military camouflage patterns of Ukraine. This category "Ukrainian Border Guard camouflage pattern" should then be deleted. De728631 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same problematic pattern applies to Category:Ukrainian National Guard urban camouflage pattern which should be discussed here as a central venue. De728631 (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These two seemingly similar categories have different meanings.
The "Ukrainian Border Guard camouflage pattern" is the original name for camouflage originating from Ukraine. Same original as American "MultiCam", British "DPM" or German "Flecktarn".
In contrast to the previous category, the category "Border Guard camouflage pattern of the Ukrainian military" contains examples of the use of this pattern in the Ukrainian Army. Please note that Border Guard is not an Army. The use of this camouflage in the Army is not quite usual. The same approach applies to National Guard patterns. Zinnsoldat 17:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Anyhow, I think the current situation is quite confusing for people who don't know these details. I think the category pages should at least have an explanation similar to what you wrote here. De728631 (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @De728631 and Zinnsoldat: specific/unclear categories with only one file (File:Camouflage pattern of the Ukrainian military-1.jpg). I suggest to upmerge this one file into Category:Military camouflage patterns of Ukraine. After that, empty category tree to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sinking of the side trawler Manuel-Joël in the Bassin des Chalutiers (March 2017)

[edit]

duplicate of " Category:Salvage of the Manuel-Joël museum-trawler in Bassin des Chalutiers (April-May 2017)" Jpbazard (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a duplicate, since the latter category are for images taken of the salvage operation a month later. Since Category:Sinking of the side trawler Manuel-Joël in the Bassin des Chalutiers (March 2017) only has one image, I would suggest we move the image to Category:Manuel-Joël (ship, 1954) and delete the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Solution per User:Themightyquill--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BT Group telephone boxes

[edit]

Sub-categories need to be tidied; they include:

We should standardise on one suffix; I suggest "kiosks‎" is proper in British English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, "kiosks‎" is what BT called them so probably the best term. Users have changed odd categories to the suffix they prefer but no one has until now looked at the whole category tree Oxyman (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a party pooper but I prefer "boxes" - EN currently has the article at Red telephone box and most people I assume would call these "telephone boxes" ? (Booths sounds more american) ... Up until now I thought a kiosk was this .... I'm still living in the 90's apparently... –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW BT use both Kiosk and phone box (although kiosk is used a bit more) and various news sources use phone boxes, Barely ever visited London and we don't have these down here so they may indeed be called kiosks by everyone but as sources appear to use boxes more I'm still siding with it. –Davey2010Talk 01:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Britain, the preferred term is "kiosk", according to their operator, and I believe we should in general respect self-naming. Structurally, they are boxes, but conventionally they are kiosks. "Booths", I think refers to a sort of mostly open structure with little protection from the elements. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there is a case for changing Category:Telephone booths in the United Kingdom and it's subcats to "boxes" and treating this category as a subcat of that Oxyman (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's Category:Telephone booths by country too, so this looks like one of those Commons attempts to standardise international naming, to the detriment of almost everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd far rather prefer "telephone boxes", which is surely the common name in the UK. I've never heard them refered to as 'kiosks', presumably this is simply a marketing term used by BT, unless anyone can find strong evidence of its wider usage. Sionk (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common use is definitely boxes, even if BT prefers kiosks. It's certainly not booths though. Secretlondon (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally the ommon name in the UK is definitely "telephone boxes", I would strongly support the general UK categories using this name. I've bought ice cream from a kiosk, but never gone to e telephone kiosk to make a call. However, if the design type of a specific booth is a "K6 telephone kiosk" etc. I've no great problem with these sub categories being named as such. They'll only be found by telephone box nerds though. Sionk (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sútok Dunajca a potoka, Lesnica

[edit]

Google translate gives me "Confluence of Dunajec and brook, Lesnica". I think it means that those are pics of Dunajec River Gorge near the village of Lesnica but not a single pic shows anything related to the village. I'd suggest upmerging this to the Dunajec River Gorge category, and if any picture contains something related to the village, Category:Lesnica can be added manually. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Piotrus and Doko: maybe these files are still within the administrative border of the village Lesnica? Some of the files have coordinates. Could you help to solve this CFD, @TadejM and Klemen Kocjancic: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the request, but I can't really help as this is Slovakia, not Slovenia. --TadejM (t/p) 17:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Category:Selbstretter

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/01/Category:Filterselbstretter.

I moved one category following one CFD (Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/01/Category:Filterselbstretter) not realizing we had two other similar categories: Category:Selbstretter and Category:Sauerstoffselbstretter‎. The latter is linked via wikidata to en:Self-contained self-rescue device. Can anyone help in renaming these appropriately? Thanks. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Filterselbstretter are devices which let only non toxic parts of the air through. In contrast, Sauerstoffselbstretter are producing oxygen; the user depends not on the environment. Therefore the respective categories are subcategories to Selbstretter. In english language there are no appropriate names for these devices, thats the reason why i've used the german ones.--Markscheider (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These devices only exist in Germany, Austria and Switzerland? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. --Markscheider (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely to me that non-German-speaking people around the world use the term "Saueroffselbstretter." There must be an English equivalent.- Themightyquill (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Find it and put it in. --Markscheider (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I started the CFD... - Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"An emergency breathing apparatus is a respiratory protective unit for emergency evacuations. Two categories exist: air purifying devices like an escape respirator which feature a filter; and air supplying devices like SCSR self-rescuers that are dedicated to emergency evacuations in confined space, poorly oxygenated or toxic environments." [4] ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal:

How is that? Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened my Markscheider
This is wrong. The first one cleans the air from dangerous components, the second one produces it's own oxygen. I'm really tired of this. --Markscheider (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first one (respiratory protective devices for self-rescue) cleans the air from dangerous components. The second (self-contained self-rescue devices) supplies oxygen. I don't see the problem. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The 75th Anniversary of China Merchants Group

[edit]

The name is wrong, because its official name in 1947 was China Merchants Steam Navigation Company. User:Urga tagged the photos with 《國營招商局七十五周年紀念刊》附圖. Roy17 (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Roy17: which new name do you suggest? Category:75th Anniversary of China Merchants Steam Navigation Company (note that "the" is not needed in category names)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving to Category:國營招商局七十五周年紀念刊 without redirect. Roy17 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: I don't think we can have categories in Chinese characters. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago it was decided things like books can have non latin titles. For now I dont have time to find the exact discussion, which I think was done on one of the village pumps. Roy17 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virgin Mary by Giovanni Bellini

[edit]

Can this cat be united with Madonnas by Giovanni Bellini? Oursana (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely. en:Madonna (art) says ""Madonna" may be generally used of representations of Mary, with or without the infant Jesus, is the focus and central figure of the image, possibly flanked or surrounded by angels or saints. Other types of Marian imagery have a narrative context, depicting scenes from the Life of the Virgin, e.g. the Annunciation to Mary, are not typically called "Madonna"." Since some of what's in this category is in that last group, it can't all be merged. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6@Oursana I guess that keep. Right? Estopedist1 (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Madonnas_by_Giovanni_Bellini >> for me is solved, thank you--Oursana (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodox churches

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/01/Category:Frescos in churches of Orthodox Church in Russia.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Orthodox murals in Romania.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Frescos of Orthodox Church.

What would you think of renaming the category as "Category:Eastern Orthodox churches" or "Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings"? Wouldn't there be symmetry with Wikipedia's categories this way? --Orkhonien (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be able to do something, but I'm not sure what. Category:Orthodox churches is currently a sub-category of Category:Eastern Orthodox buildings but it also contains Category:Oriental Orthodox churches‎ (which, if I understand correctly, are not Eastern Orthodox.) That doesn't make sense.
There are also a vareity of other orthodoxies that might have churches - see en:Orthodox. This issue has come up a few times before (see the links I've added above). But I see that Category:Oriental Orthodoxy and Category:Eastern Orthodoxy don't share any parent category called Category:Orthodoxy (which redirects to Eastern Orthodoxy) or Category:Orthodox Christianity (a disambiguation page) or Category:Christian Orthodoxy (which doesn't exist).
Do we really need ambiguous categories like Category:Orthodox churches, Category:Orthodox clergy, Category:Orthodox organizations and their ambiguous subcategories? Can they be safely deleted (without redirects) in favour of Eastern Orthodox churches, Eastern Orthodox clergy, and Eastern Orthodox organizations? Category:Orthodox rite is a subcategory of Category:Eastern Orthodoxy but Category:Orthodox liturgy is not. I'm not sure what to do with those.
Category:Orthodox art in Romania could also be moved. Pinging @Zoupan, Auntof6, ŠJů, and Achim55: for additional input, since you've been involved in the linked discussoins. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • There is really a problem with the words "church/churches" which can mean both: a specific type of liturgical buildings, as well as specific Christian organizations (communities). However, the word "churches" is established for this type of Christian liturgical buildings across the whole category tree. I think, we need not to break this established consensus.
  • Not all buildings of any church (as an institution) are churches (as a type of building). Churches (as organizations or communities) can own also rectories, houses, hospitals, schools, chapels, monasteries etc. The term "church building" is unclear, it can mean "a building which is a church" as well as "a building which is owned by any church". The original problem with ambiguity persists, is not resolved by this proposal.
  • Some branches of category trees can be specified by denomination/confession, some by specific institution (e.g. in Ukraine, two or more "Eastern Orthodox churches" as institutions coexist or "compete" in the same area, especially Russian Ortodox Church often exists beside local Easter Orthodox churches. Similar situation can be with "protestant churches", such buldings can be owned by various protestant churches as institutions. I think, both levels can have their sense, depending on specific context.
  • As regards a relation of terms "Orthodox/Orthodoxy", "Eastern Orthodoxy" or even "Oriental Orthodoxy", it should be reviewed by context. "Ortodoxy" is often an abbreviation for "Eastern Orthodoxy". Generally, all churches consider themselves as "catholic", "orthodox", "apostolic" and "evangelic(al)" in general sense, but not in the specific sense labelling specific confessions. In most of contexts, "Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodox" can be considered as synonymes, especially in local context. No need to unify them totally.
  • "Oriental Orthodoxy" is commonly a term for the six "Ancient Orthodox churches", also called "Old Oriental churches", "Small Eastern churches" etc. They should be specific by refusal of Council of Chalcedon which is accepted by Roman and Greek-Catholics as well as by Eastern Orthodox churches of Greek and Russian orientation. Generally, Eastern Christanity consists of three main groups: Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Eastern Catholic Churches, and some of the denominations descended from the Church of the East (Persian Church). --ŠJů (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, ŠJů
  1. I think church as building vs organization is usually remedied through capitalization. An Eastern Orthodox church (building) vs the Eastern Orthodox Church (organization)
  2. I agree that "church building" is unclear (between a physical church vs another physical building associated with a church) but I don't see a great solution.
  3. Category:Russian Orthodox Church is currently a sub-category of Category:Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia, so Category:Russian Orthodox churches is a subcategory of Category:Orthodox church buildings by constituent church body (which should be renamed Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings by constituent church body to match its intention and its parent categories).
  4. I agree that "Orthodoxy" is often an abbreviation for Eastern Orthodoxy, but not always. Similarly, "Catholic" is often an abbreviation for "Roman Catholic" but not always. We use Category:Roman Catholic churches so avoid the ambiguity. We should do the same with Eastern Orthodox churches (etc.)
Thanks again. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tidy things up. Please tell me if I have made mistakes, as it was a very tedious and long process. Veverve (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Edit: I believe the work of making this category clearer is in no way finished and I welcome any form of help. Sub-categories should also be tidied up. Veverve (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor in renaming this category into a disambiguation category. Veverve (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: @Zoupan, Auntof6, ŠJů, and Achim55: I tried to tidy things up once again. Veverve (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: I can't remember what it looked like before but it looks very tidy now. Thanks for your work. Several issues remain:
  1. Do we need Category:Orthodox churches, Category:Orthodox cathedrals, and Category:Orthodox cathedrals by country, or can we convert them to disambig pages? (I'm in favour of the latter).
  2. If we are going to get rid of "Orthodox churches" and "Orthodox cathedrals" we may have a lot of work to do. We still often named categories "Orthodox" in place of "Eastern Orthodox." For instance, if Category:Orthodox churches in Ukraine is a subcategory of Category:Ukrainian Orthodox churches and Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings by country, then shouldn't it be named Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in Ukraine]? And shouldn't its subcategory, Category:Orthodox cathedrals in Ukraine be a sub-category of Category:Eastern Orthodox cathedrals and renamed Category:Eastern Orthodox cathedrals in Ukraine?
  3. I don't think the "(buildings)" is necessary in Category:Eastern Orthodox churches (buildings) but it isn't confusing at least. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill:
I think we can rename those categories to Eastern Orthodox and delete the "Orthodox" pages. A DAB page would only make things confusing, and nobody would DAB images in those DAB pages. I disagree with @Billinghurst: and think the "Orthodox" pages should be deleted. I explained myself at Category talk:Orthodox rite; the DAB page will only get clogged up like Category:Orthodox churches was. I have seen some Oriental Orthodox topics being into those "Orthodox" categories, enough to know that having "Orthodox" as a redirect will make people upload Oriental Orthodox subjects into such categories, meaning we will have Oriental Orthodox subjects in Eastern Orthodox categories. Billinghurst has reverted some of my edits which intended to speedy delete those "Orthodox" pages. What do you think about deleting those "Orthodox" pages, Themightyquill?
I have not changed the Category:Orthodox churches, Category:Orthodox cathedrals, and Category:Orthodox cathedrals by country categories, as well as the subcategories of Category:Eastern Orthodox monks of monasteries in Poland, because it is a lot of work and frankly I was tired of manually clicking on all those categories (is there not a script like Cat-lot for categories?). Moreover, I stopped because I agree with your second point: one would have to check change numerous sub-categories, and check every images of each category to remove the Oriental Orthodox images which have been included in those categories due to their confusing names; this is a lot of work and for now I have already done a lot. Veverve (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment You have long standing categories that where contributors use HotCat are going to start typing "Orthodoxy" and not find the categories that they have been using. The guidance does not readily allow me to speedy delete these categories. What is wrong with the redirects anyway, they allow users to type "Orthodoxy" and get them into the corresponding "Eastern Orthodoxy ..." category.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: What is wrong with the redirects anyway, they allow users to type "Orthodoxy" and get them into the corresponding "Eastern Orthodoxy ..." category "Orthodox" can refer to either Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, as I wrote. When you end up with Oriental Orthodox in Eastern Orthodox categories, it is a problem. Veverve (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Please go and read more about HotCat, and how the system is utilised, and the templates in place to make it functional. If you don't want a {{Category redirect}} then make it into another functional template that directs to the options around disambiguation (see Template:Cat disambig). It is simply not acceptable to remove the visibility of a category name that has been in place for many years just because you want to rename it; you are taking away the options that the community should have to more easily categorise. This is bigger than your simple wishes and the community has implemented systems, so please use them and work out here which way is best to progress.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: I don't really see why so many editors would be typing "Orthodoxy" into hotcat, but I expect you mean "Orthodox." Still I don't see what alternative there is. Creating a disambiguation page at every example here, which wouldn't solve the hotcat issue. I would say that this is simply how wiki commons works and editors using hotcat and "orthodox" will need to adjust, but if you have a solution to propose that doesn't result in the miscategorization of content, I'd be very glad to hear it. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: My response is in relation to one person's requests to speedy delete, whereas whatever is the eyes wide open consensus of a discussion of the community will always be what we do. I would guess that there is some half way solutions for this, in terms of ensuring that the parental categories have the disambiguation, and once you fall into the hotcat subcats, then there is no requirement to redirect or disambiguate. There needs to be a reasonable way for those who use old cat names to find the new or existing cats.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: I'm not sure what you mean by speedy delete, since the discussion has been going for over a year. Do you mean just deletion (rather than redirect)? Even if we delete most of these, it would make sense to set up proper disambiguation pages at Category:Orthodox and Category:Orthodoxy. Anyone using hotcat would find those, and could use them to properly locate the category they are looking for. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I had requested the speedy deletion of some categories, but billinghurst objected. I then said I was simply following the consensus I found on this page, and exposed my arguments. Veverve (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I was not part of the discussion, I came to it when pointed to it when doing admin duties. I don't see a clear stated consensus of action, and addressing how which long-standing categories would become disambiguation pages, which become meta categories, which become redirects, and which are deleted. I faced a series of speedy deletion requests and as an outside observer I would like to see a clear plan that a new user can understand and find. To me "Orthodoxy" is too ambiguous a term to say just apply to religions, there are many types of orthodoxy.

As a general user, my general expectation is to see a either a meta category, a category redirect or a disambiguation page at Category:Orthodox churches if there is not usual categorisation. If I look at something comparative like Category:Catholic churches, am I going to see somethign similar here? Maybe I am a hard task master, but I don't see the clarity in this discussion to understand, act and start deleting.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, at least in terms of a request for a clear plan. If Category:Orthodoxy is too broad to apply to just religions, it shouldn't be a redirect to a very specific Category:Eastern Orthodoxy (which is has been since 2017). The fact that Veverve recently incompletely redirected Category:Eastern Orthodoxy to Category:Eastern Orthodox Church is less of a problem.
I would propose the following:
I acknowledge that we have Category:Catholicism for all kinds of Catholicism but that's something even wikipedia doesn't have - en:Catholicism is simply for Roman Catholicism. If you want something more general, you need to go to en:Catholic (disambiguation) or en:Catholic Church (disambiguation).
I would argue that we don't need Category:Orthodox churches by country or Category:Orthodox churches (buildings) by country. There is no such category structure on wikipedia because Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches aren't closely enough related that they need to be grouped together any more than Category:Eastern Orthodox churches (buildings) and Category:Orthodox synagogues need to be grouped into Category:Orthodox religious buildings.
We do have Category:Catholic churches by country but is mostly populated with country categories containing only a one or two subcategories (Eastern Catholic churches or Roman Catholic churches) with little room to grow. I don't think that's a good model to follow. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now noticed we have the same problem with Category:Orthodox churches in France. Veverve (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As well as for Category:Orthodox crosses by country and Category:Orthodox cemeteries by country. Veverve (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in common English usage, the word Orthodox (capitalized) is not ambiguous between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, it is synonymous with what Wikipedia, somewhat weirdly, calls Eastern Orthodox. These are two different Christian traditions, albeit called with a similar name. It is also wrong to consider that there would be a larger grouping gathering these two traditions, called Orthodoxy or else. The only grouping gathering the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox is Eastern Christianity, which also includes e.g. the Eastern Catholics and the Assyrians/Nestorians. Also note that the word orthodox (capitalized or not) is also frequently used in other compounds such as the Orthodox Jews and the orthodox Marxists.

The solution to the problems mentioned above is, therefore, not to place content about Oriental Orthodox foo... into a parent category called Orthodox foo... but in the nearest Christian foo... category. Place Clichy 09:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Al-Ahly Cairo

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Football kit body/Al-Ahly.

This category should be merged with Category:Al Ahly SC to match the club's parent article on Wikipedia. Ben5218 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Robby (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben5218 and Robby: currently Category:Al-Ahly Cairo is redirected to Category:Al-Ahly FC, but we also have Category:Al Ahly SC. Same organizations?--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: All categories are about the same club: Al Ahly SC, and I strongly believe that all of them should redirect to the name I proposed, since it's the official name of the club in English. The club's categories on Wikipedia are also spelled that way. Ben5218 (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football kit body/Al-Ahly

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Al-Ahly Cairo.

This category should be merged with Category:Football kit body/Al Ahly SC to match the parent's article. Ben5218 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Former members of the CDU.

Looking at cat structure of other national parliaments, I suggest this cat be deleted. Instead, categorise the members by term: members after 1997 in the format of members of the n-th legco of hk, those between 1985 and 1997 as members of the legco of hk (19xx-19xx), and all others before 1985 as members of the legco of hk before 1985, cf. https://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/timeline/council_meetings.htm?/general/english/counmtg/cm1620.htm . sortkeys would be double digits of the ordinal numbers, 00 for ...before 1985, 00 19xx for 1985-1997, 00 Provisional for provisional legco. Roy17 (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church of Archangel Michael in Zhambul

[edit]

The coordinates for this church place it in Taraz, Jambyl/Zhambyl Region/Province, Kazakhstan, not in Uzbekistan. Moreover, I can't find any reference to a Zhambul, Uzbekistan. Is the whole Zhambul category tree perhaps meant to be Category:Zhambyl Province? Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Ruwiki has article of this church: ru:Храм Архангела Михаила (Жамбул). I guess this article helps to solve this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Yes! Thank you. It's in Taraz, which used to be called Zhambul. I propose renaming to Category:Church of Archangel Michael, Taraz, and renaming Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Zhambul to Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Taraz. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bridge name signs

[edit]

Redundant to Category:Bridge nameplates.--Leit (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Bridge nameplates and bridge name signs are different. Bridge nameplates are plaques on bridges. Bridge name signs, however, aren't plaques as they don't commemorate anything. They're simply signs that inform about the bridge names (and sometimes about technical data like length and altitude as well). Moreover bridge name signs aren't necessarily "on" bridges or attached to bridges but frequently are placed more or less in front of bridges.

  • A bridge nameplate that commemorates the bridge builders.
    A bridge nameplate that commemorates the bridge builders.
  • Another bridge nameplate that commemorates.
    Another bridge nameplate that commemorates.
  • A bridge name sign, that not commemorates the devil.
    A bridge name sign, that not commemorates the devil.
  • Another bridge name sign that doesn't commemorate in any way.
    Another bridge name sign that doesn't commemorate in any way.

-- Ies (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept the location (bolted on a bridge or on a pole) as a logic for differentiation. This is not a nameplate, by my understanding. But I don't see why the two signs above are not nameplates, just because they don't commemorate anything. en:Nameplate makes no mention of commemoration (though, to be fair, it also makes no differentiation between signs and nameplates based on location). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Fauna of Egypt

[edit]

Unclear purpose. Aging fauna? Extinct fauna? Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don,t think aging fauna is appropriate. Extinct fauna indicate that the disappearance, however the animals might be still present but the distribution has declined e.g. Ostriches are not yet extinct from Egypt but is only present in few natural protectorates. Perhaps we might change old fauna to become ancient fauna? If you think it would be more indicative. --Ashashyou (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashashyou: I'm thinking deletion might be the best option, since its purpose is highly unclear. None of the sub-categories are for animals specific. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the purpose, as indicated by the title. It is about the old fauna. That is to say, the animals of old Egypt. It helps to understand the environmental changes also it helps to understand Ancient Egyptians symbols, titles, city names ...etc. For example the old name of the Minia and Beni Seuf district are during old Pharaonic Egypt was referring to an antelope like animal or an Ibex. Which is now rare or extinct from that area. The category collects mainly the fauna of prehistoric & ancient Egyptians eras. It's a repository to help any one looking at those times and to anyone looking at the climate change. We are lucky to have drawings and other evidence since this long time. I don't see a reason to delete it.--Ashashyou (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you're talking about "Fauna of Ancient Egypt" not "Ancient fauna of Egypt". Moreoever, that sounds like a good name for a gallery or list. Categorizing modern images of animals based on where their ancestors *used to* live is a bad idea. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Delete. Unclear purpose. One category Category:Media from Sallam et al. 2011 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0016525 should be put into Category:Prehistoric life of Egypt (if it comes), or Category:Fossils of Egypt--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also found that we have Category:Animals in ancient Egypt. Some upmerging to there would be also possible--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gänseblümchen (Bellis perennis) in Ruhland

[edit]

This is a not permitted German category name acc. to Commons:Categories. Also it's not a categoy name that will ever be searched for some reason. In other words: Nobody will ever search for the exact wording "Gänseblümchen (Bellis perennis) in Ruhland". Therefore the use of Category redirect is inappropriate. This German language category should be deleted. Ies (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A redirect from Category:Gänseblümchen to Category:Bellis perennis would be reasonable though. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was in vacancy and there will be another vacancy soon.
I know, that catagory names must be in english (with exception of own names in local langguages or greek or latin species names, for example).
The discussed name redirects to a category with solely local files and will be used predominantly by local (german) photographers (e.g. pupils). The german name helps them to find the category. „No one will seek this name” is a false assertion. The additional latin species name helps all other users (and precises in case of different local names).
Therefor, please, keep the redirect.
By the way, there is a chance, in addition to a gallery to show pictures in a (sortable) wikitable containing english, german, and latin species name, which could help to identify the right category. If that was passable, I will do so. Greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR: You can imagine the quantity of redirects necessary to do this for every species, every region, and ever local language, right?
I think you could make a sortable wikitable in a gallery easily enough. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Thank you for your answer and statement. Sorry if my English or understandindg is not ever so good. I'm willing accept the rules here, but if there is a legal leeway I want to use it in this case.
Also it seems now, the better and passable (whereof I was not sure as yet) way is the wikitable in one or more gallery page(s). So I will do so and hope, no one will then DR.
And @Ies: , I'm not angry about your work, but seeking legal leeways to help local users (and I hope, photograpers, too).
Greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A short time ago I spoke with the director and the chairman of parents' association of our secondary school (gymnasium), and with two biology teachers there, and with a pensioned biology teacher, too. They all say to me, that the discussed name is very helpful. Please respect this at the decision. Greetings from Ruhland / Germany --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. In the meantime, the nominated category is renamed to Category:Bellis perennis in Ruhland. We probably can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Individual ancient Greek vases

[edit]

This discussion is for the following three categories:

Does the term "individual" have a special meaning related to this pottery? If not, I propose renaming these categories to remove that term from the category name, and/or merging their contents upward where that makes sense. Every piece of pottery is individual. If these categories are for individual pieces for which we happen to have multiple files, I don't think this is the right naming for that. If these categories are for pieces that have been given a name or designation, maybe the categories could be called something like "Named ancient Greek vases" or "Ancient Greek vases by name or designation". Otherwise I think the contents could be merged upward.

As a further note, the Wikidata item for this category shows interwiki entries that translate to "painted Greek vases" (Italian) and "works of antique Greek ceramics (French), neither of which seem to match the name of this category. Auntof6 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay away from a system you don't understand. Ofcourse there's a cause for this. There is a difference between all vases or a certain group of them and a special vase. It's like you have a category for Policemen and Policemen by name. Such requests are so frustrating and power steaing. And there are always the same persons. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcus Cyron: Commons is intended to be used for all, not just for experts. Categories that are not clearly titled should get explanatory notes. While we're here, would you case to explain why the subcategory Category:Name vase is singular instead of Category:Name vases? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge seems appropriate to me. The vases are already identified as distinct specimens by being sorted into specific subcategories like Category:Amphora Getty Villa 86.AE.80, just as Category:Vincas Kaulinis–Miškinis is called out as a specific police officer as a child of Category:Police officers. There's no need to put a category between the topic and the specific instance. "X by name" categories are only needed when the volume of specific instances would overwhelm the topic category. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Witton Bridge

[edit]

Is Category:Witton Bridge redundant with Category:Witton, North Norfolk? Themightyquill (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witton Bridge seems to be a hamlet in Witton? I just batch created all the missing locations back in the day. I'm fine with either making the distinction clearer or merging it. Multichill (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Leonard

[edit]

Can we rename this Category:Leonard of Noblac, like the English Wikipedia article? I think we are getting some confusion with another saint, Category:Leonard of Port Maurice. Auntof6 (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Much less ambiguous. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if we do rename it (and the subcats), dare we assume that everything under it is for this saint? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symbolic oaks

[edit]

Redundant with its parent category, Category:Famous Quercus? -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I suppose a tree could be symbolic without being famous, or vice versa. Still, I suspect that many in the "symbolic" category aren't really symbolic of something as much as they're just associated with something. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Auntof6: this CFD seems to be a tough one. Eg parent category:Symbolic plants is well-developed--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: I'm just not convinced that, for example, Category:Brureika needs to be in Category:Symbolic oaks in Norway, Category:Famous trees in Norway, and Category:Ancient oaks. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Category:Aircraft with rotodomes

[edit]

Merge back into Category:Rotodomes. There are aircraft without rotodomes, but there are no rotodomes without aircraft Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge back - rotodomes are not aircraft, they are aircraft components, so aircraft fitted with them should be categorised separately. Images showing whole aircraft with rotodomes should be diffused into Aircraft with rotodomes.PeterWD (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the selected images which best display rotodomes (rather than merely being "the aircraft types with rotodomes") you've been removing categorisation altogether. See [5]
The result of this is a trivial (and Commons-irrelevant) attempt to define a set of "aircraft with rotodomes" (A Wikidata job if anything, and not really workable under MediaWiki's limited categorization) and to depopulate Category:Rotodomes from the valuable images which might be illustrative of the concept. This is just planespotting, the opposite of the sort of archival approach we ought to be taking. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we do have both Category:Aircraft propellers and Category:Aircraft with propellers. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of imagery of demounted aircraft propellers. We don't have that for rotodomes. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but the vast majority of images in Category:Aircraft propellers are not of demounted aircraft propellers. It might actually be worth creating a category called Category:Demounted aircraft propellers. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley, PeterWD, and Themightyquill: Perhaps it is problematic to move Category:Boeing E-3 Sentry from Category:Aircraft with rotodomes to Category:Rotodomes as an E-3 is not a rotodome. Under our current structure, we do very much sort aircraft types by several different features (engines, wing configuration, whether they have a rotodome, etc.), so unless we change this, I don't think Andy's proposal works. However, I get where they are coming from on it, and I actually agree that this structure is not really best done using the Commons category structure and that some place like Wikidata is a much better place for this. I have done a lot of work to try and make this structure work, but I am not certain it is really the right way to do it. Under Category:rotodomes, we have images that prominently feature rotodomes (coincidently all on aircraft it seems, so a well meaning editor may well move them all to Category:Aircraft with rotodomes). Under Category:Aircraft with rotodomes we have various pictures of aircraft which include a rotodome in their design, but may or may not feature the rotodome prominently in the image. Perhaps one of the following might work:
  1. Rename to Category:Aircraft types with rotodomes and identify the category is an index of all aircraft types which include a rotodome, and should only contain aircraft type main categories. Then actual images that feature rotodomes could be under Category:Rotodomes.
  2. Delete Category:Aircraft with rotodomes. Move images featuring rotodomes to Category:Rotodomes, and create sub-categories such as Category:Boeing E-3 Sentry rotodomes (lots of images of these out there) for those types with sufficient images. Remove the actual aircraft type categories from the Category:Rotodome tree. Rotodomes on minor types or with few images can just live under Category:Rotodomes until sorting is warranted.
  3. Variant of number 2 above, but rename Category:Aircraft with rotodomes to Category:Rotodomes by aircraft type as a metacat, underwhich categories such as Category:Boeing E-3 Sentry rotodomes can be created and live.
  4. Delete Category:Aircraft with rotodomes and let aircraft types (or those that would be created under #2) live directly at the Category:Rotodomes level. This would be mildly confusing as aircraft types are not rotodomes, but otherwise workable. If we end up with media of rotodomes with and without aircraft we can make a sub-cat split at that point.
  5. Keep both categories as they are, move all images of rotodomes on aircraft to Category:Aircraft with rotodomes and live with Category:Rotodomes being a one-child category until images without aircraft in them come to light.
I am leaning to option 2 or 3 above, as they seem to offer a clean structure without the types needing to be under rotodomes. Merged them as Prop A above. Josh (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A further option, per your initial point, would be to keep both. Place aircraft type categories into Aircraft-with-rotodomes (so it's a metacat) and rotodome detail pics into Rotodomes. One would be a subcat of the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest another option, to simply add a new subcat "Views of rotodomes" or similar title, that might contain partial images of aircraft featuring useful views of installed rotodomes. Category:Rotodomes would then contain perhaps no images, only two subcats.PeterWD (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal A
Category structure Intended contents
  • media depicting rotodomes of any aircraft without an existing sub-category
    • media depicting rotodomes specifically of the named aircraft type
This proposal would replace the confusing Category:Aircraft with rotodomes with type-specific categories as appropriate. All content under Category:Rotodomes would then indeed be of rotodomes. Josh (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal B
Category structure Intended contents
  • media depicting rotodomes, regardless of aircraft presence
    • categories of aircraft types which include a rotodome in their design
This proposal, based on a suggestion by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) makes no changes to category names or structure, but to change the definition of what contents exist in them.
My concern with this proposal is that it does not add any clarity to the names and structure, and relies on a subjective ruling on what constitutes "in detail" enough to allow inclusion. Josh (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal C
Category structure Intended contents
  • listed subcats
    • categories of aircraft types which include a rotodome in their design
    • partial images of aircraft featuring useful views of installed rotodomes
This proposal, based on a suggestion by PeterWD (talk · contribs) simply adds a new category Category:Views of rotodomes to contain images focused on radomes ("partial images of aircraft featuring useful views of installed rotodomes").
@PeterWD: I am not sure that Category:Views of rotodomes works that well, as that would typicaly be for specific viewing conditions. I am pretty sure it would qualify as redundant to Category:Rotodomes. Users would have no idea what to find in either of the two by their name. Josh (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Joshbaumgartner @PeterWD@Andy Dingley: which proposal should we choose? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option A first, but Option B would be acceptable if not optimal. I'm not inclined to Option C nearly as much, but all 3 are probably better than the status quo. All per my comments I added to each above. Josh (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diagrams by subject

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams.

Merge Category:Diagrams by subject with Category:Information graphics by subject Themightyquill (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: So long as Category:Diagrams are a valid subcat of Category:Information graphics, wouldn't it be valid to maintain their respective "by subject" indices? Josh (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The line between diagrams, schemas, charts and information graphics is thin at best and poorly defined. I think it's better to keep "by subject" to the broader category. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Joshbaumgartner: First of all, I do not understand why this proposal was placed to this one category, not to the top category of the whole tree of Diagrams, or to whatever of sister categories of this category.

I do not want to interfere in a dispute between native speakers and judge how an educated and acquainted native speaker can understand that word and how an uneducated or quirky native speaker can understand that word. I would just like to remind that Commons is not a project of English native speakers, but an international project where English serves as an international language of communication and its use must be subordinated to this purpose. A dialectology of English is not essential for this purpose. Now we must all - native and non-native speakers - assume and respect the fact that currently and since a long time ago, the whole category tree of Category:Diagrams is consensually used in the same sense as in the en:wiki article Diagram and its ca 50 language equivalents. Above all, however, I want to oppose any other chaotic and ill-considered interventions that disrupt the consistency of the project. Chaotic craating of new categories and emptying of old ones (instead of proper discussion and possible proper relocation), disrupting the logic of the categorization consistency and structure, disrupting of interwikis etc. The use of the word "diagram" in the current meaning is widespread in many items and fields, into hundreds and thousands of subcategories, and a possible change of interpretation and renames would mean a gigantic amount of work and almost certainly would mean a significant disruption of the whole system not only in Commons but also in en:Wikipedia, Wikidata and links with other projects.

I'm not sure whether simple and short definitions from general language dictionaries are the best proof of the full range of meaning of technical terms. On the one hand, some of these dictionaries also mention a graph of a mathematical type as one of the meanings of the word "diagram" (and this type of dictionary certainly cannot be expected to exhaustively describe all existing and possible types of such diagrams/graphs/charts). Also from the long-standing consensus in Wikipedia and Commons, I would conclude that even among native English speakers, there are many people who understand the word diagram in the sense in which it is used and understood throughout the world. Eg. Venn diagram, Hovmöller diagram etc. are apparently called "diagrams" and count among diagrams also by educated native English speakers. Btw. the Chart article says: "A data chart is a type of diagram or graph, that organizes and represents a set of numerical or qualitative data." So I dare say that to the significant majority of native English speakers, this meaning must be at least somewhat known.

If it were really the case that the word "infographic" has the meaning in English that the word "diagram" has in Commons, Wikipedia and the rest of the world, then it would really be possible to solve the situation by renaming the categorization tree of diagrams. However, I am afraid that the word 'infographics' means, in the first place, graphics which do not correspond to that meaning. Pictograms, signs, logos, navigation symbols, coprorate liveries etc. etc. Thus, deleting the categorization tree of diagrams will cause the diagrams (in the present meaning) to be mixed between all kinds of graphic informational symbols, signs, logos, drawings, cartoons etc. And even if in native English the word "infographics" evokes primarily graphs, it would be misleading to the rest of the world, causing frequent miscategorization. E.g. in my country, "infografika" is a term primarily for "communication using symbols and signs" (even though graphs and other mathematical diagrams can fall under infograhic in a broader sense). But that's not my main argument - my main argument is a long-term consensus on the Commons and the English Wikipedia. --ŠJů (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů and Joshbaumgartner:
  1. I think we should be using "Information graphics" not "infographics"
  2. I think "Information graphics" is a broader category than "diagram" since it includes maps, but depending on the definition of diagrams vs graph vs chart, may also include other things not included in the category "diagrams."
  3. As alluded to in #2, I think the meanining of "diagram" is somewhat ambiguous, particularly with "charts" and "graphs". Is a pie chart a diagram or a chart? Are family trees charts or diagrams? What about timelines? Are charts diagrams or something else? And graphs? And that's just in English. The word is used (in some form) in many languages, and there the definition may also vary. You'll not that "pie chart" in Czech is "Kruhový diagram." Information graphics, by comparison is explicit in its meaning - it's a graphic image created to convey information. I don't think anyone would dispute that graphs, charts and diagrams are all information graphics.
  1. Given #2 and #3, I think "Information graphics" is where narrowing by subject should begin, not in a subcategory like "diagrams."
Finally, I don't really see this creating a tremendous amount of work or disruption. It would make things clearer. It would make things easier to sort, and easier to find. I don't think any of these categories are signficantly linked via wikidata. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Yes, "Information graphics" is a very broad category which include whatever – including pictograms and symbols, informational cartoons, typefaces, informational use of colors and shapes etc. That's why Commons needs also a specific category tree for the narower meaning which means "diagrams" in the common sense, i.e. de facto mathematical graphics. Such a categorization tree has existed here for a long time, it works, and so far the vast majority of users and editors of Commons and en:Wikipedia have respected and understood it. No one has come up with a better idea yet, and on the contrary, your attempts have brought chaos and inconsistency into the system. As we can see, some of the linked dictionares mention that meaning and count "graphs" and "charts" among "diagrams". The problem is that you copy only the references to dictionaries everywhere, and at the same time you do not explain your interpretations and thought processes. However, it does not follow from these dictionaries that the current practice and consensus are incorrect. And even after a long communication with you, it is still not clear what you actually consider a diagram and what you do not, and why. Collins Dictionary mention: "a chart or graph explaining or illustrating ideas, statistics, etc." – Exactly! or "a pictorial representation of a quantity or of a relationship" – Concise! How does it imply that we should mix diagrams with other infographics, as you did?
At that moment, I see no better solution than to respect the meaning of the word "diagram" which is consensually used in en:Diagram#Gallery of diagram types and the current Commons category tree. You are right that maps are a very specific type of diagrams (they are more "realistic" than purely theoretical diagrams) and therefore do not have to be directly between diagrams of a purely mathematical type and can be moved up one level among other infographics. After all, even in the COVID-19 categories, maps were separate from the beginning. --ŠJů (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding you. What references to dictionaries have I copied? What long communication have we had? Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? If you are unclear about what I consider a diagram or not, see point #2 for an explanation - it's an ambiguous term with varied, conflicting definitions. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). Concerning the definition of diagram; there has never been any agreement on the Commons.

One non-native speaker of English basically took over the editing of the diagram page on English Wikipedia in 2008 and steam-rolled that page into his non-native definition of diagram. No one bothered to correct it since then, and I rarely fight tag teams in Wikipedia articles anymore.

The Wikipedia article on diagrams has references. The version I am looking at today was last edited on July 10, 2020. None of the current references are dictionary references. Most of the references are inaccessible online. The 2 references that are currently accessible online are not used to show that tables, graphs, and maps are diagrams. So the Wikipedia article is incorrect in saying that tables, graphs, and maps are diagrams.

This is an example of this: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We can not use the Wikipedia article itself as a reference on the Commons. We have to look at the actual references in Wikipedia articles.

  • See: en:dictionary. In that Wikipedia article the major dictionaries with long histories are described and named. Those dictionaries do not describe tables, graphs, and maps as diagrams:

Find the major dictionary definitions with this Google search:

Those major dictionary definitions of diagram:

Oxford dictionary:

Collins dictionary:

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Cambridge dictionary:

So ŠJů is basically inventing a new English definition of diagram.

Infographic is now an accepted term in common English:

Oxford dictionary:

Collins dictionary:

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Cambridge dictionary:

--Timeshifter (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, quoted in Collins above, shows exactly why this will not be easily resolved by a dictionary:
  1. a geometric figure, used to illustrate a mathematical statement, proof, etc.
  2. a sketch, drawing, or plan that explains a thing by outlining its parts and their relationships, workings, etc.
  3. a chart or graph explaining or illustrating ideas, statistics, etc.
In short, the question is which of these equally valid senses of the word we mean to use here on Commons. A reference work cannot tell us that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On that same Collins page farther down it has the traditional definition of diagram. From Collins English dictionary. For British English.
And on the other 3 dictionary pages for diagram, the traditional definition of diagram is used.
So maybe the word diagram is in transition. But infographic is well defined now.
And the latest Webster's definition is using the traditional definition of diagram.
This is creating real problems with parallel category trees that confuse the average native English speaker used to the traditional definition of diagram. See example here:
Category talk:Infographics about the COVID-19 pandemic
We have a perfectly fine word, "infographic", where COVID-19 charts, diagrams, maps, and graphs can all be categorized within without confusion.
And we have the example of this category discussion about merging the 2 parallel category trees into Category:Information graphics by subject.
--Timeshifter (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the definition of diagram is considered to be the same as the definition for infographic, then that means there will thousands of COVID-19 tables, graphs, and maps that will be unnecessarily categorized in both of these COVID-19 categories:
Category:Infographics about the COVID-19 pandemic
Category:Diagrams about the COVID-19 pandemic
This is where this latest discussion on diagrams and infographics began.
--Timeshifter (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: Then Category:Infographics about the COVID-19 pandemic should be removed from those files as COM:OVERCAT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Infographics has been an accepted category since 2008. See:
Category:Information graphics
There is no question about the fact that maps, tables, and graphs are infographics. So they are correctly categorized in infographic categories.
If you look at the diagrams category you see the wikidata definition: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". That is the traditional definition of diagram. See:
Category:Diagrams
You say we should keep the status quo. What is the status quo? Define it for me. Do you mean the status quo as defined by decades of traditional dictionary definitions? Or the new status quo as invented in the last few years by a few non-native speakers of English who are trying to use their language's definition of diagram as a new status quo.
Currently, the Covid-19 diagram category is a subcategory of the Covid-19 infographics category. That is the traditional logic. Even ŠJů recognizes that because he made it that way. No one can logically claim that the infographics category is a subcategory of the diagrams category.
--Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My definitions from the peanut gallery (per request). I am a native speaker of American English. 1) diagram - it used to be a hand drawn (but now computer drawn) figure / sketch / drawing / architectural plan to illustrate an idea or object's details. In my opinion it does not include graphs. Well known diagrams are Venn diagram, flow charts, tree diagram. 2) infographic - a rarely used term for an informational graphic. A graphic used to convey information. This is a superset to diagram. It includes: diagram, chart, graph (XY, linear, bar, etc.), pie graph, etc. To summarize, I agree diagram should be "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole" and infograms should be "maps, tables, and graphs" along with diagrams. Change to what @Timeshifter: is advocating. Royalbroil 02:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Royalbroil: Category:Diagrams currently has this Wikidata definition of diagram that you quoted:
"plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole"
The above definition has been on Wikidata since this Dec 1, 2018 edit:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q959962&oldid=803250119
A simple solution might be to place {{Diagrams}} on all diagram categories.
Just as {{Propaganda}} is placed on many propaganda categories.
Possible message produced by {{Diagrams}}:
Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Tables, graphs, and maps are not diagrams.
--Timeshifter (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea. I wonder what the other commenters think: @Themightyquill, Joshbaumgartner, ŠJů, and Jeff G.: . Royalbroil 12:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do we do with Category:Charts, Category:Charts by language, Category:Charts by type? Are Category:Eye charts diagrams? Category:Record charts? Category:Nautical charts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I don't think I would put Category:Eye charts as a subcategory of diagrams. Eye charts are just lines of text at varying sizes. I think it is correctly categorized under Charts by type. And also under Information graphics by subject.
Category:Nautical charts are categorized under both maps by type, and Information graphics by subject. Because many nautical charts have more info than just map info.
Category:Record charts is categorized under charts. It seems to be correctly categorized according to the chart definitions at Category:Charts.
Category:Charts by language seems to be correctly categorized under Charts. And also under Information graphics by language.
Category:Charts by type seems to be correctly categorized under Charts.
--Timeshifter (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: So Category:Charts will not become a sub-category of Category:Diagrams? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Currently, Category:Charts is a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. I agree with that. Charts are not a subcategory of diagrams if the traditional definition of diagrams is used. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Themightyquill: What do you think of this solution? You started this discussion, and you initially wanted to merge all of the items in Category:Diagrams by subject into Category:Information graphics by subject. Instead of trying to merge everything I suggest merging items like tables, graphs, and maps into subcategories of Category:Information graphics. A simple way to do that would be to add the {{Diagrams}} template to all diagram categories and subcategories. Have a look at the latest version of the template. Over time nearly all tables, graphs, and maps will end up in subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Statistics, Charts, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think it's a mess and will continue to be problematic, but I don't see any better solution for now. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill, thanks. Royalbroil, I think you already agreed to using {{Diagrams}} on diagram categories. What do you think of it now with the current wording:
Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Tables, graphs, and maps are not diagrams. They should be moved to subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Charts, Statistics, etc..
--Timeshifter (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the updated wording. Royalbroil 00:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the wording of the template according to the Diagram article which represents the long-standing Wikipedia and Commons consenus and usage. Timeshifter's wording and view are in stark contrast to them. The general consensus is that diagrams are not just expanded views, but also all other types of diagrams. This is confirmed not only by the long-term consensus and usus on the Commons and Wikipedia, but also by the many quotations that the colleague brought here, but he misinterprets them. --ŠJů (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:ŠJů. I reverted your change to Template:Diagrams. The template was agreed to here. Do not change it without further discussion here, and agreement here where discussion has been ongoing. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: Reverted back. Your wording contains obvious untruths and mistakes, in addition disrupts the long-term consensus and the existing category structure and ignores arguments from this discussion, which is not closed yet. --ŠJů (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your unagreed-to changes again. Please stop your edit war.
Here is the current wording of the template before your edit war:
Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Maps, and basic statistical tables, charts, and graphs, are not diagrams. They should be moved to subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Charts, Statistics, etc..
--Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus on your reduction of the term "Diagram" was achieved here, this discussion was not properly closed yet. My version of the template describes the longstanding current consensus, based on the meaning which is consensually described in Diagram article in the last 12 years, and the whole categorization structure of Commons is based on it. Not only the definitions on Wikipedia, but also many of the external sources you provide describe the term "diagram" more broadly than you promote it. A asked admins to take action against your headstrong disruption of the project. A link to the corresponding Wikipedia article is sufficient to define the term "diagram". If any additional explanation is needed, one that will prevent your mistaken opinion.--ŠJů (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people (including 2 admins) agreed here about Template:Diagrams. Closure about the Category:Diagrams by subject is separate from the template agreement. You initiated this edit war. The template has been around since August 2020. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Themightyquill, an admin who agrees with this template, and who initiated this category discussion, no longer wants to "merge Category:Diagrams by subject with Category:Information graphics by subject." That was his initial proposal (see the original proposal at the top). Instead he prefers this template. As I said this template agreement is a separate agreement. So no one remains who wants the initial category proposal passed. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not relevant in the substantive discussion who has the function of administrator or other technical function, but who can objectively respond to arguments and correctly interpret the sources. For example, a discussant who accuses me of inventing a concept that has existed consensualy and independently of me for 12 years on Wikipedia and the Commons, should be disqualified from the discussion and his demands should not be taken into account at all. The fact that there is a general meaning of the word "diagram", which includes not only exploded views but also quantitative diagrams, is obvious and proven, also by many of your sources. If we are solving a problem, then it is a question of how to satisfy people who do not know this general meaning and are not willing to take it into account. However, if such people ignore the discussion and only disrupt the categorization system, then they should be directed. --ŠJů (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see previous discussion. And for those who are interested see:
Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Edit war about Diagrams template
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also:

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This issue also exists in the Category:Our World in Data subcats; you can read the brief discussion here. They currently use the word "diagrams"; alternatives would be infographics, information graphics, data graphics, diagrams, data visualizations, statistical graphics or just [OWID] graphics. Some further input would be good.
I went here: Diagram#Gallery of diagram types which also includes statistical maps and charts. Information graphics would make the cat name even longer. All the files fit the definition "a symbolic representation of information using visualization techniques". Choropleth map is in the cat "Statistical charts and diagrams".
Infographic usually aren't referring to charts or choropleth maps but usually vertical files with text and illustrative images. They're also "intended to present information quickly and clearly" and this isn't really the case for the files there, they're just meant to visualize/communicate the data, not explain things using a few graphics. In DE-WP,
de:Informationsgrafik has cat:Diagrams. Lots of diagram cats contain statistical charts and maps. Please do a web search for infographics and you'll see what I mean, those aren't charts and statistical maps. I just don't think Infographic is the word actually widely used or understood throughout society for these kinds of images. They're usually explanatory texts with lots of illustrative graphics, it's not really the right term also because it's too broad and includes nonstatistical things just like diagrams.
If you favor any of those terms for these or all relevant cat names, please explain why.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prototyperspective. This is an old discussion. A later discussion is at:
Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams
There you will find a native German speaker who says that the German definitions are not the English definitions. Please respond there, and not here. Can we move your post there? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ultraviolet light

[edit]

This category is both a child and a parent of Category:Black light. Which should be the parent, or are they the same thing? Auntof6 (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black light should be redirected to Category:Black lights - they are the common name for a lamp or light fixture that gives off ultraviolet light. Everything else should be under ultraviolet light. As to the relationship between the two, I'm not sure. Is UV light something that comes from black lights, or are blacklights something that produces UV light? =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, we could have Category:Ultraviolet lights for all lamps or light fixtures that give off ultraviolet light, and redirect Category:Black light to Category:Ultraviolet light and Category:Black lights to Category:Ultraviolet lights. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main category path is Category:Light => Category:Lighting (intentional use of light) => Category:Lighting devices, so perhaps Category:Ultraviolet light => Category:Ultraviolet lighting or Category:Ultraviolet lighting devices would work best? There is probably not a need for both 'lighting' and 'lighting devices' given the quantity of media in the ultraviolet tree. Josh (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki en:blacklight definition is "A blacklight, also referred to as a UV-A light, Wood's lamp, or ultraviolet light, is a lamp that emits long-wave (UV-A) ultraviolet light and very little visible light". Hence, per enwiki seems to be that same--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cattle hooves and feet, Category:Horse hooves and feet, Category:Sheep hooves and feet

[edit]
All the bones which are colored - not grey - belong to the foot in this picture.
hock

Kersti Nebelsiek suggests a move to Category:Cattle hooves and pasterns on the grounds that "a hoof is not a foot, it is the part of the toe, which carries the toenail. It is anatomically wrong to call it a foot." Themightyquill (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Category:Mammal feet. Category:Hooves‎ is a sub-category of Category:Animal feet. I think common name might be more important than anatomical accuracy in this case. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. First "mammal feet" is exactly the problem. I never would have startet a category "mammal feet" as it has two completely different meanings. One is how we would understand it in everyday communication - the foot is the part which touches the ground. In the horse this is only the tip of the toe. The other is the anatomical meaning: "In the horse the foot is the part from the hooves up to the hock", which is almost the complete leg! Kersti (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Mammal feet is problematic, then surely so is Category:Animal feet. I've tagged both, since we would need to change them if your view is accepted. If you have suggestions on how to rename them, it would help further the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copying here what I wrote in Horse hooves and feet's discussion: --Pitke (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Foot" is a thoroughly established Term of Art for the entire distal end of a horse's leg. The hoof is just one component of the equine foot. Consider that parts of the hoof and its surrounding tissues are called things such as "toe", "heel", and "sole", and have no other widespread, colloquial names. Further consider that parties like AAEP and UMN Ext. make frequent use of the term. --Pitke (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To quote today's en.wp article on Foot: The foot (plural feet) is an anatomical structure found in many vertebrates. It is the terminal portion of a limb which bears weight and allows locomotion. In many animals with feet, the foot is a separate organ at the terminal part of the leg made up of one or more segments or bones, generally including claws or nails. I cannot believe the culmination of my incessant questioning as a toddler ("but what *is* a foot?") has become so relevant after all these years. To get some sort of closure on this, I suggest we continue using 'foot' as the generic anatomical term for animal foot-parts. We ought not define wider anatomical concepts according to how it happens to occur in a single species of upright apes. The other option would mean using special terms for various feet and sort out the correct term for the foot of every type of animal. Do rabbits have paws or feet? How about bears? Squirrels? Stem primates? Using "foot/feet" as default is simple, technically correct, and requires no knowledge of special jargon of our international and non-animal-oriented editors. --Pitke (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ducado de Medina Sidonia

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Dukedoms.

now empty category and a duplicate of Category:Dukes of Medina Sidonia Robby (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. It seems that keep. But I guess there are some problems with respective Wikidata item(s). It seems that "ducado" means dukedom or duchy?, but I am not sure. Parent category is Category:Dukedoms of Spain--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Small intestine

[edit]

should cat names of organs be plural? same problem:

  1. Category:Brain
  2. Category:Heart (organ)
  3. Category:Pancreas

currently some cats and some subcats are plural, e.g. Category:Animal hearts Category:Human fetal hearts, while their parents or subs are not. :/ Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be plural (COM:CAT). Josh (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started doing this but I started running into some less clear-cut cases. These are mostly exemplified by categories like Category:Histology of large intestine ("the microscopic study of the large intestine"). I thought it more natural to move to Category:Histology of the large intestine (we aren't studying particular large intestines, but the general ideal of large intestines), but I'd like thoughts on that. This pattern is pretty prevalent. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:Penis vs Category:Vaginas... :/ --Roy17 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dukedoms

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Ducado de Medina Sidonia.

Is Category:Dukedoms redundant with Category:Duchies ? Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Dukedoms is referring to the office/title/estate of Duke/Duchess while Duchies is referring to administrative-territorial entities that are called a Duchy. Not sure if they can really be merged. Josh (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sub-categories of Category:Duchies that don't have "Duchy" in their name. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Category:Duchies and Category:Dukedoms should probably not be merged. Duchy is the earlier and broader term referring to the territory controlled by a duke or duchess (see, e.g., Cambridge English Dictionary: Duchy - the area of land owned or ruled by a duke or duchess). These duchies generally owed some form of fealty to a sovereign (King or Emperor) - but generally controlled their territories, and sometimes had their own vassal territories, such as counties.
As the monarchies became stronger, these traditional duchies were often either absorbed territorially (as in France, Germany and Italy) - or effectively reduced to titles and estates (as in England and Wales), where they became referred to as Dukedoms. The only exceptions in Britain that are still Duchies (Lancaster and Cornwall) are generally consistent in that the Duchy of Lancaster is the estate of the King, and the Duchy of Cornwall is the estate of the Prince of Wales.
So the current categories of Duchies and Dukedoms seem largely consistent with the history and usage: Duchies being appropriate for most of the traditional territories in Europe (as well as Lancaster and Cornwall in England) - and Dukedoms for most of the other estates in England. Wikipedia is also consistent - for the traditional duchies, entering "Dukedom of Normandy" redirects to the Duchy of Normandy - whereas for the English estates, entering "Duchy of Norfolk" redirects to the Dukedom of Norfolk.
The two Wikimedia categories in which there does seem to be substantial overlap are for the UK: 1) Category:Dukedoms (almost all UK) and 2) Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Should these potentially be merged? Ty's Commons (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with Canon EOS REBEL T3

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM.

Allo002 thought it was a good idea to create a bunch of redirects of categoried like Category:Taken with Canon EOS REBEL T3... He or she would redirect them to similar categories when he was sure the two different models of camera were identical. I explained multiple problems with this. First, cameras that might look identical could nevertheless contain different firmware - making them distinct cameras, with distinct features; second, classifying the images by the name embedded in the exif data is foolproof. Classifying them by a notion of which cameras are "identical" is not.

IMO the redirect Allo002 left in this category, and every other similar category, should be removed. Geo Swan (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If two cameras appear identical, one can add a {{See also}} note with explaination to help link between the two without inadvertently conflating the categories of two cameras that may indeed be unique. There is no need for a bunch of redirects or merging based on a notion of what appears identical. Josh (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipalities in the United States

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Municipalities in Vermont.

Is this a useful/accurate redirect? According to en:Category:Municipalities in the United States, many municipalities are towns, etc., not cities. Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it should probably be a disambiguation. --MB-one (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is a state where "municipality" is a specific legally-defined entity (such as town, village, city, etc. are). If there is, we should keep this category but limit it to those actually legally defined as "municipalities". Cities, towns, villages, etc. should be under their own tree. {{Cat see also}} should be used to remind users of the different types of municipal governments that can be found across the states. However, if no state uses the term "municipality", it should be a dab pointing to the other names used in the states. Josh (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont, anyway. I don't know if there are others. See en:Vermont municipality - Themightyquill (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eliseus

[edit]

Lesgles has suggested moving this category to Category:Elisha on the grounds that "Elisha is the usual name in English; compare the other categories about biblical prophets." See also Category talk:Eliseus Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it as it is, more neautral, Latin-based spell. --Sailko (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And why should a Jewish prophet have a Latin-based spelling? Elisha, besides being English, is also a decent Latin-character approximation of the Hebrew name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Policlinics

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Medical buildings.

Wikidata links this with en:Outpatient clinic (hospital department), an article which makes no mention of the word "policlinic" at all. I note, however, that "policlinic" seems to be used in nearly every other language (except French). Do we leave it where it is, or try to move it to English? At very least, a category description would be a good idea. Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Once there is a conflict, it will be possible to open an interwiki-conflict discussion on Wikidata and split the item if needed. However, English language knows the term wikt:policlinic, even though it uses it just for the European type of clinic. Btw., typical policlinics are not hospital departments but separate outpatient clinics (health centres), but some policlinics can be also hospitals. --ŠJů (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: Can you then clarify the difference between Category:Policlinics and en:Clinics? It seems to me it's just a non-english way of saying "health clinic" or "outpatient" clinic. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: There is a general problem that such terminology is regionally-specific. Even the word "clinic" is used very differently in various countries. If "policlinic" is not a specific type of clinic, it would not have a specific name. E.g. in my country, the pure word "klinika" (= clinic) is used specifically for university- or research-hospitals or hospital departments. In other countries, it is a synonyme of (inpatient) hospitals generally. Even though US and UK can understand "clinic" as "outpatient clinic", this conception is locally-specific and can be confusing in worldwide view. As i can see, also interwikis of en:Clinic are mostly problematic or incorrect. E.g. ru:Амбулатория is about health centres smaller then policlinics, hr:Klinika is about most specialized inpatient hospitals etc. While the word "clinic" has locally many various and different meanings, the word "policlinic" is specific and relatively unambiguous, even though not worldwide. It is similar e.g. to en:Gymnasium (school) as classical Central-European phenomenon. Maybe, "policlinics" can be a subcategory of "outpatient clinics". However, the typology is always locally-specific. --ŠJů (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a duplicate of Category:Policlinics, which is better populated, so I have moved the contents to that category. Spelling varies by language. I dont mind which spelling is used, but there should clearly only be one category. The articles are not about outpatient clinics. These clinics are generally supposed to be intermediate between hospitals and clinics - neither of which have agreed definitions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours

[edit]

Ecummenic moved this category from Category:Marie Jeanne of Savoy to Category:Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours saying "correct name" but an anonymous IP has angrily suggested a move back saying "Absolutely noooooooooo need for the addition of Nemours. That was her father's dukedom and nothing at all to do with her name." The English wikipedia article is at en:Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours and Spanish, Italian and Dutch articles are similarly named. German, French, Portuguese and Russian omit the "Nemours". -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Currently we follow enwiki, and hence seems to be OK--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is Category:Diseases and related health problems redundant with Category:Diseases and disorders ? Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!. No, this categories are not two expressions that mean the same thing. For example, a bone fracture is a health problem but it is not a disease (is an accident). This differentiation is already done by the en:International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. --Jmarchn (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It sems to me that a bone fracture isn't in any way related to disease. But if Category:Diseases and related health problems means all health problems, Category:Diseases and disorders should be a subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. The nominated category is a subcategory of Category:Diseases and related health problems. Enwiki doesn't have "Category:Diseases and related health problems", but it seems to be OK, because the latter category is a part of the classification, as already said by User:Jmarchn--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hungarian minority in Slovakia

[edit]

Is Category:Hungarian minority in Slovakia redundant with Category:Hungarians in Slovakia? Note that we have a third category, Category:Hungarian people from Slovakia for individual people. Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical buildings

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Policlinics.

Would it make sense to rename Category:Medical buildings to Category:Medical facilities? I imagine much of the contents... doctors offices, various clinics, morgues, are not independent buildings. Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill, Jmabel, and Morgan Riley: Sorry, but I hadn't gotten into the discussion before and I had already changed the name.
I propose: Health care centers. It opens up the restrictive and hierarchical concept of medical ("belonging to doctors") to the broader concept of health care (belonging to all health care professionals). I also prefer the term center to building, but for me it’s not that relevant.
[I clearly differentiate "Health care centers" from "Health centers", which could include health-promoting centers (e.g. gyms), a denomination that would not be never valid for the content of the "Medical buildings" category.]
I consider necessary and relevant to change the name of the category.
Jmarchn (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jmarchn: Morgues are certainly not health care centers. Arguably, medical schools are not health care centers. I haven't thought it through any further than that, but I think that was a wrong change. Not everything medical is "health care". - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am in agreement Jmabel's reasoning. "Medical" != "healthcare". Likewise, I am not sure what is wrong with categories being restrictive (if it even is); that is the whole point of categories: to narrow down material into smaller well-defined chunks. Second, a "center" != "building" != "facility". A building is a tangible architectural object; a facility is a tangible object that may either be a building or a non-building structure; a center is an abstract institution or organization (which may be housed in a building or not). Healthcare centers may or may not be housed in a medical building (often, they are found in mixed-use office buildings). Further, because "center" is not a subcategory of building, that current parent category is no longer applicable, and because "building" is one of the major categories of the Commons, it would necessitate a new category to be nested as a subcategory of "buildings by function"... which means creating the category again from scratch all over again. I'm not sure why we need to rename the existing well-defined category to create new problems, rather than just create one or more new categories to capture the nuances apparent here. I do not oppose the existence of the category "health care facilities" (again, "center" is an ill-defined word), but it is not equivalent to "medical buildings". Morgan Riley (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel and Morgan Riley: I agree with many of the things you say, for obvious. Any denomination we determine will have disadvantages and advantages.

I don't like the term "Medical" assigned to "Medical buildings" for the reasons I've expressed and remember: The buildings where health care is provided contain many other staff in addition to physicians. Hierarchical and ancestral greatness is given to doctors, preeminence that I think should be broken. Culturally this preeminence is still maintained (and not just in written or spoken form). But we are responsible (from our grain of sand) to change concepts and denominations.

And I say the above being myself a physician. And in my country (Catalonia) we are not talking about "medical centers (or buildings)" but about "Centres (o edificis) sanitaris" which in English translation is health [care] centers (or buildings). As we all know, each word has a different semantic field, logically (and as you already knew) building does not have the same meaning as center.

I find it more appropriate for the content to be adjusted to the center term, but I understand that this is too important a change. For the above I reformulate my proposal to Health care buildings or Healthcare buildings. I have verified that this denomination is used (for example: [6]).

Jmarchn (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jmarchn: I wouldn't begin to venture into connotations in Catalan (a language I barely read, let alone speak or write, but in English "medical" has no particular connotation of relating to physicians. Nurses, EMTs, med techs, etc. are certainly considered "medical" personnel in the English-speaking world. So I think you are trying to solve a connotative problem that does not exist in English, when choosing an English word. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: OK. Jmarchn (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to my original proposal - I should think that Category:Medical rail cars wouldn't be a bad fit under Category:Medical facilities. But if there's a desire to keep Category:Medical buildings as a sub-category for actual buildings that might make sense. In the end, I'm not sure what to do with a medical part of an otherwise non-medical building, like a dentist's office in a large interior shopping mall. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the main subcategories of Health care centers are Medical buildings. Wouldnt that be a better main category? Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently moved without any apparent consensus to Category:Health care centers. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So lets move it back to Medical buildings? Rathfelder (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will do so. There was clearly no consensus to move this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to make a clearer distinction between medical buildings and other buildings for healthcare? For example: Category:Nursing homes has Category:Medical buildings as a parent, but Category:Nursing has Category:Health sciences as a parent, and nothing like "medical". The same may apply to Geriatrics facilities‎, Health centres‎, Hospices‎ and perhaps more wich are primary health care facilities. JopkeB (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Health care" is (a little) broader than medical; facilities is a little broader than buildings but has the problem that it could also mean a particular room, ward, etc. within something that is clearly a single medical building. I don't see a single universally clean hierarchy here, especially not one that will be easy for end-users to navigate (which is, after all, the point). If someone can propose a good form for the hierarchy (not just the one category), I'd welcome that. - Jmabel ! talk 11:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Jmabel, Morgan Riley, Prototyperspective, Jmarchn, Rathfelder, and JopkeB: (hope most of them are still active) I have looked into some online dictionaries for definitions of "medical" and "healthcare". Here's what I found:
  • Dictionary.com
    • medical (adjective):
      1. of or relating to the science or practice of medicine:
      2. curative; medicinal; therapeutic:
      3. pertaining to or requiring treatment by other than surgical means.
      4. pertaining to or giving evidence of the state of one's health:
    • healthcare (noun):
      1. the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind.
      2. any of the procedures or methods employed in this field.
  • Merriam-Webster
    • medical (adjective):
      1. of, relating to, or concerned with physicians or the practice of medicine
      2. requiring or devoted to medical treatment
    • health care (noun):
      1. efforts made to maintain, restore, or promote someone's physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially when performed by trained and licensed professionals
      2. the people and organizations that provide health care
It seems like the term "medical" is restricted to medicines and non-surgical treatments, while "healthcare" is a fairly broad term related to human health and not just medicines and non-surgical treatments. So these categories should use "healthcare" instead of "medical" to avoid confusions like this. For the "dentist's office in a large interior shopping mall", I suggest creating categories like Category:Healthcare chambers or similar. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Healthcare is wider in scope, but less commonly used. Rathfelder (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that "medical" is more common than "healthcare", but as defined in dictionaries, the term "medical" is typically restricted to medicines and non-surgical treatments. So I prefer "healthcare" instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what the intended scope of the category is. I thought it was about medical buildings in specific where healthcare buildings would be a parent category on it. The issue is that in many of those buildings also lots of nonmedical things are being done so merging may be better than having both cats. However, I think one could also simply leave it as is since the current subcategories all fit into it...the only difference as far as I can see would be that instead of having Healthcare->Medicine->Category:Medical facilities it would be Healthcare->Healthcare facilities. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3 ft 6 in gauge trams

[edit]

15/17 subcats are related to Japan, where people don't use feet and inches. It was moved from Category:1067 mm track gauge trams by User:Andy Dingley without any discussion or consensus. Move it back. Roy17 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back years Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:Track gauge by size
More recently roy17 has just taken to trolling me for the lulz Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/09#Category:3_ft_6_in_gauge_trams / Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_79#Disruptive_edits_by_Andy_Dingley Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Comments about your personal issues with another user are not constructive to the CfD process, so please refrain from cluttering relevant discussion with them. Josh (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and Andy Dingley: Any significant or contentious change made to a category while it is under discussion should be reverted until the closure of the discussion. Josh (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Two-country international borders (flat list)

[edit]

I created this category but I accept that the naming is awkward and possibly inaccurate and/or redundant. These categories, however, were not previously grouped together than I think that's an unfortunate ommission. If anyone has a better idea for a name, please suggest it. Themightyquill (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply international borders (flat list)?
An unrelated question on the subcats. I suppose the format should be unified? Which one to use, A-B border(s), border(s) of A-B, border(s) between A and B, or sth else? I prefer A-B border.--Roy17 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that but couldn't, for example,Category:International borders of Afghanistan reasonably in Category:International borders (flat list)? - Themightyquill (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Suggestion, would it perhaps be better to use '2' in place of 'two' as it is just naturally easier for non-English users (same logic as Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Groups by size)? Also, I would be fine with it as is with "(flat list)" or as an index, since it is by country (Category:2-country international borders by country). Josh (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got an idea. How about international borders by countries for A-B borders, and international borders by country for international borders of XX?--Roy17 (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: Thanks. That's not bad. It's certainly accurate. Though it's maybe still confusing since the difference is so small? We could also use "Binational borders" or something like that. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Joshbaumgartner: taking inspiration from Category:Bilateral relations by country, I suggest the cat tree be:
Category:International borders //we dont need to call it "Bilateral international borders" because except for rare cases of tripoints all international borders are bilateral.
Category:International borders (flat list)
all the "A-B border" subcats
Category:International borders by country‎ //similar to Bilateral relations by country
Category:International borders of Afghanistan
Category:Tripoints
Issue 2, for a standard name for "A-B border", I suggest Border between A and B, e.g. "Border between Canada and the United States". This is similar to its parent cat Category:Relations of Canada and the United States. It avoids the potential confusion about hyphen and en dash. Roy17 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both suggestions above to simplify to "International borders" and to standardize the "Border between X and Y" format (with the caveat that countries be listed alphabetically to preempt any ordering arguments). Josh (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add one point. I suggest we use the singular border for the "Border between A and B" subcats, because most borders are single continuous lines. Even for exceptions like the Canada–United States border, that article is still written using the singular form, so I suppose it's ok to use the singular form for all borders even if they might not be a single line. Roy17 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a renaming to Category:International borders (flat list) and, for individual categories, Category:Border between A and B. Another, simpler, option may be Category:Border of A and B, similar to the current Category:Relations of A and B for bilateral relations categories. Place Clichy 07:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But "(flat list)" implies all "international border" categories should be included, so A-B border categories AND "international borders of A" categories. I don't think that works. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Relations of France and Germany Category:Relations of Brazil and Japan Category:Relations of the United Kingdom and the United States all these categories involving two countries are not put under a "flat list" category, so "Category:International borders (flat list)" for all the "A-B border" subcats can also be ignored.
You can come up with whatever name you like. I'm out. Roy17 (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I'm not really convinced that a flat list category is necessary. Especially, if individual categories are renamed Border of..., they will be easier to find. If you still feel a flat list is necessary, I believe its scope will be obvious enough from the content. Another idea is to put a hat note for precision. On Wikipedia, en:Category:International borders (the flat-list category) is introduced by: Borders between two defined countries. For overview of a single country national borders see: Category:Borders by country. Flat list implies that the category is for individual borders and not a two-tier structure such as International borders by country / International borders of A. In any case, two-country or bilateral in the name of the category would be redundant and should probably be avoided. Place Clichy 11:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Historical images

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical speeches.

Delete. We sort images by year and event so those looking for images within a temporal context already have a better tool than this arbitrary category. Josh (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and Themightyquill: Per the historical speeches discussion, you may be interested in this one as well. Josh (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete the whole tree. Move contents to the ones without the subjective adjectives on every corresponding level. Notable subcats: Category:Historical photographs. In a way this is similar to Category:Old maps, old books, etc., but historical photos are even less useful, since the oldest photos date back to only mid 19th century, less than 200 years ago. Categorise according to the highest precision of time taken, be it date/month/year/decade/century.--Roy17 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of recategorizing these by century (or narrower) and then deleting, but I don't feel a simple deletion is the way to go. And recaegorization is an enormous task. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
that was just a suggestion for ppl who want to keep categorising files under cats like historical/old xx. if cat is deleted we'll just merge stuff with the parallel level. diffusion is not our job.
if deleting historical images, which includes not only photos but also maps charts etc., is too overwhelming, historical photos could be done away first.
if these cats are not deleted merely because no one assumes the job of recating, then they might never be deleted, because many ppl add files to cats because the cats exist. (i have an old photo, and there's a cat historical photos of xx, aha!) addition is always faster than diffusion.--Roy17 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: If you want to delete a category tree this large, I would suggest you tag a lot more than the top level category. It should probably be taken to the village pump to ensure input. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Roy17: It was I who nominated this category, so I will add the tag a little deeper. I realize that some form of 'historical' category for various topics will be a first go to for people to sort images of 'old stuff' that they don't know a more precise time line for, or who do not understand the 'by year/decade/century' scheme. I do agree that just deleting the categories without re-categorizing the existing contents would not be a good idea, and I also agree that re-categorization is a huge task. It is probably never complete as people will be adding new material as you go. Is there a way that we can make this category a form of maintenance category? This would be understanding that people may only know something is 'historical' or 'old' but not be able to sort it more accurately than that, but at the same time indicate that files really should be sorted by period, not just 'historical', and offer a guideline on how to do this. Josh (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea. A move from Category:Historical images to Category:Images requiring sorting by date or something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: Any objections to the suggestion by Themightyquill (talk · contribs)? I think that will help avoid people thinking this is a tree to be built up, but still a place for those people know are old but are not sure themselves how exactly to sort. Josh (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's transform them into maintenance cats, but I think it might be better to be by year than by date. Images to be sorted by year? Or even more general as by time?--Roy17 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it is hard topic. I think the title like "To be categorised by year/time" is not good idea. See hints here: Category:Media needing categories. Maybe we can just use category:Images? --Estopedist1 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide, we should definitely tag many of the sub-categories for additional input before moving the whole tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, because we have categories like category:Photographs by year, category:Photographs by century, category:Photographs by decade, category:Videos by year etc, the problem is quite easily resolvable--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just go ahead sorting photos I can tell into XX by year/date straight.--Roy17 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree I cannot understand the problem. And I  Strong oppose to the proposal to delete this category. Historical images are representations of places, situations, events, people of a past time. It can be photographs, paintings, drawings, maps, etc. For these categories, categorizations by year, decade, century makes sense. I find no sense in these categorizations by date applied to images of current times or today. Mega categories with all kinds of images taken in 2019, or 2018, can you explain to me what sense they make? What are they for? --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DenghiùComm: photos of today will be photos of the past 100 years later. Every second that went by has become historical.--Roy17 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's talk about concrete things. This is philosophy! I know very well that every second that passes is already history and past. But here we have a concrete problem of categorization, because we have to distinguish the current photos from those of a historically interesting past. Recent photos that are to be considered historical are those of natural events (volcanic eruptions, floods, earthquakes, etc.), or those relating to terrorist attacks, wars, etc. That is, events that can be placed very precisely at a very precise time or date. All other recent images should not be considered historical ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is if you think this image is historical and I don't, there's no concrete criteria to differentiate and we could in theory just edit war with each other until it's solved. In contract, 1958 images is a clear structure to organize things. If you think that it's a good image of something, it doesn't matter the age but to categorize some old images which are good (historical) images is ultimately a never-ending exercise in arguing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Completely subjective and untenable category. Is a color photo from the 1980s "historical"? Some would say yes, others would say no. Category:Historical images attempts to give objective criteria (objects that no longer exist in the same form, if at all), but I don't think that's very useful. For example, if a modern building is demolished, technical compliance with that criteria would require us to recategorize all pictures of that building into "Historical photographs". I'm not sure someone who visits Category:Historical photographs of Paris intends to see a bunch of 19th-century photos next to digital photos of random demolished buildings. Categorization by century/decade/year is the way to go. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete (phase out) per King of Hearts. The approach discussed above by Estopedist1 and Themightyquill seems like a good solution. Category:Old maps is another one to think about … --El Grafo (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and phase out. I have the same issue with Category:Old maps having a very strange 1949/70 years ago criteria. It's much easier to organize things by actual dates than vague terms. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Old maps which remarked that "old" was actually more clear than "historical" ironically. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete and phase out. Material can be sorted by date, year, decade, century, whichever is most precise for the given product with the available knowledge, all of which clearly denotes its historical value better than we can with an arbitrary category tree. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Impossibly vague and subkective and will change over time. Stick to eras/centuries/dates, whatever can be reliably sourced. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete or at least deprecate and start moving away from this. An almost useless term. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Categorisation by year tends to be really unhelpful. If we look at a category like Category:Historical images of Pont Neuf, it's actually quite useful to have all of the images together (ideally sorted by date depicted), so one can see how the bridge and the area around it and depictions of it have developed with time. This is very hard if the group of images get fragmented by date. However in most cases, moving the images to "X in art" may be a better way to achieve this, at least for painted and engraved images. IMO it would be worth coming up with a structure that would allow older photographs to be kept together, without fragmentation, but also segregated from current photographs. Grouping by century might achieve this. It's helpful to categorise images with a narrow subject and a broad date, in parallel with by a broad subject and a narrow date. Categories of a well-defined subject by century IMO should not be further broken down to decades or years, unless they become very big (eg over 300 images). Jheald (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jheald: It seems to me a gallery would be more effective at the purpose you discuss than, potentially, a mass of old unsorted pictures of a bridge that stop at some arbitrary date in the past. But I agree, like with everything, content should be broken up first by century and only further if there is a sufficient volume to justify it. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  deprecate its use. When there is a Wikipedia topic such as "History of Something" (usually a place) the Commons categories "History of..." do the same job here, as "generic containers of "old" images", until media (images or not) is subcategorised with concrete dates (centuries or even more precise). When not, I guess directly categorising subject media by century is the step to take. "Something in art" is indeed another alternative receptacle, but photographs should be excluded from there. Strakhov (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's getting worse. When did we start including 21st century photographs in the "historical photographs" categories? Those are called "photographs", no metaphysics needed. Take Category:Historical photographs of India, for example. What are we supposed to do with that. I think there are some bad templates somewhere? Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Useful for smaller categories where subject by date is not useful. I don't want to use .. by date for every building, that's ridiculous. --P170 (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:Historical photographs of India there is a mistake in the template that categorize photographs of the 2000s to the category "Historical photographs of India". Who is able to correct it ? DenghiùComm (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The question is... is that "really" a mistake? From the current discussion I may deduce that there is certain consensus on the fact that "historical" is a subjective term, and that there's no really a valid "point in time" (not 1950, not 2001 and not 1970) that separates historical images from non historical images. The solution is, obviously, getting rid of these categories and templates, not "fixing" them for not including images past 1999. Why 1999? Strakhov (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep in accordance with Jheald and P170. Regards, --Bohème21 (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{Vote keep}} DenghiùComm (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your repetitive comment is now struck because you already wrote it before special:diff/387453859.--Roy17 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The name "Historical images" is so ambiguous that a lot of people use it incorrectly. This usually occurs in people who did not speak or understand English. They get mad whenever I correct them and these editing disputes happen day in and day out. So what I got from this is that more people to hate me. These years I take it for granted that I very hate this category. If you guys want to keep it, please consider my situation, how will such disputes be resolved in the future?--Kai3952 (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%2F%5BHh%5Distorical+%5Ba-z%5D%2F&ns14=1
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%2F%5BHh%5Distorical+%5Ba-z%5D%2F&ns14=1
Roughly 23.9k cats exist now. Roy17 (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phase out and eventually delete: The overall consensus is that for most purposes, "historical" is not a useful means of sorting for several reasons. It is imprecise and subjective, and any precise definition (like XX years before present) will require a significant amount of maintenance. There is also consensus that these categories should not simply be deleted without a structure to ensure proper sorting. To that end, I have created Category:Images requiring sorting by time period (thanks @Themightyquill: for the suggestion) and will move all files in Category:Historical images and Category:Historical photographs plus some subcategories there.

Per this CfD, most categories of the form Historical images of ... and Historical photographs of ... should be depreciated. In most cases, their contents can be moved to History of ... (since the vast majority of Commons files are photographs), and subcategorized there by topic and/or time period as needed. Once the depreciated category is empty, it can be deleted or redirected. There may be a few small-scale exceptions for individual topics, but those can be discussed individually as needed. I would appreciate any assistance possible in tagging these categories as depreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi.1415926535 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Request for adjusting templates

[edit]

@Joshbaumgartner, Roy17, Themightyquill, Estopedist1, DenghiùComm, King of Hearts, Ricky81682, El Grafo, Huntster, Rodhullandemu, Jmabel, Jheald, Strakhov, Ruff tuff cream puff, P170, Bohème21, Kai3952, and Pi.1415926535: Because of the outcome of this discussion, I moved all files and subcategories of Category:Historical images of the Netherlands to proper categories, or made new ones for this purpose. This job has almost been done, except for subcategories with templates I cannot adjust (because I do not have enough knowledge about them), see Category:Historical photographs of the Netherlands (click to see the subcategories involved). For the categories starting with "Photographs by" I have asked for an adjustments on Template talk:ANEFO photographer location. For the other subcategories Template:Countryphotocentury and similar ones should be adjusted.
My question is: who can and will adjust these templates, so that they do not add parent categories with "Historical images/photographs" (anymore) if they do not exist? This request involves not only categories of the Netherlands, but all countries.
(By the way: the Netherlands is the only category branche of the former Category:Historical images I adjusted, the other ones I leave to others.) --JopkeB (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i fixed Template:Countryphotocentury and Template:Countryphotomonthyear. i leave ANEFO to others. RZuo (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also, i would suggest "Category:Historical abc of xyz" should be kept as a redirect to "Category:History of xyz" (if it exists) for locations that have large amounts of files. users might tend to keep trying to categorise files this way. redirects will send them to the better category trees. RZuo (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RZuo! It works what you did: after a hard purge these categories have been gone from Category:Historical photographs of the Netherlands. Now only Template:countryphotodecade is to be fixed. JopkeB (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last template has been changed also. Thank RZuo! Case closed. JopkeB (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vues d’intérieures du Château de Versailles-époque de Louis XIV

[edit]

Renamed to English, along with Category:Vues d’intérieures du Château de Versailles–époque de Louis XV, and Category:Vues d’intérieures du Château de Versailles–époque de Louis XVI. Themightyquill (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

formatting the proposals:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: That works for me. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mattioli – Herbarium

[edit]

Move to Category:Herbarium by Mattioli. Similar with Category:Mattioli – Commentarii‎, Category:Matthiole - Commentaires 1572‎ and Category:Mattioli – Opera quae extant omnia. Though if there's a clear date, the "by Mattioli" could be left off, and the date (in parentheses) could be used after the title (e.g. Category:Commentaires (1572)). -- Themightyquill (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Possible suggestions per discussion:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine

[edit]

Perhaps needs to be split up and/or reorganized? The Deutche Marine (Bundesmarine until reunification) contains a number of ships which served prior to reunification, so it is potentially confusing because they didn't serve under the current name of the German Navy. We don't have a separate tree for the pre-unification West German Navy. Should we create a separate tree for this period? Or should we use a Commons neologism ("Navy of the Bundeswehr") to cover the entire history of the modern German Navy? I am fine with Category:Deutsche Marine and Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine for the period 1956-present works just fine, even if the navy's name was changed along the way, but open to other ideas. Josh (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deutsche Marine
Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine
 The German Navy (German: Deutsche Marine or simply German: Marine About this soundlisten (help·info)) is the navy of Germany and part of the unified Bundeswehr ("Federal Defense"), the German Armed Forces. The German Navy was originally known as the Bundesmarine ("Federal Navy") from 1956 to 1995, when Deutsche Marine ("German Navy") became the official name with respect to the 1990 incorporation of the East German Volksmarine ("People's Navy").
Category:Volksmarine
Category:Ships of the Volksmarine
 The Volksmarine (VM, German pronunciation: [ˈfɔlksmaˌʁiːne]; English: People's Navy) was the naval force of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) from 1956 to 1990. The Volksmarine was one of the service branches of the National People's Army, and primarily performed a coastal defence role along the GDR's Baltic Sea coastline and territorial waters.
Prefer correct namegiving. Even when it asks a lot of work. They all go to Category:Naval ships of Germany. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Category:Naval ships of Germany is a parent cat for ships of each of the different German navies of history (I only listed the two post-WWII services above). Josh (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this discussion. Yes Josh, this could be the beginning of a correct categorization. The Bundesmarine was the “counterpart” of the Volksmarine and after reunification the German navy is named Marine, for better international understanding Deutsche Marine. In fact, there are ships, that serves in both navies and some only in the Bundesmarine period. This is the reason, that your recats were unfortunately behaved rashly. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you are correct that Deutsche Marine is only really for international audiences, that Marine alone is the name for the branch. However, I don't think changing Deutsche Marine to Marine in our category names is a good idea. Josh (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some hangup over the idea of a ship being in this category if it didn't serve under the current name of Deutsche Marine. This is a common issue throughout Commons where we have a category that covers an entity that has changed names over time. Take Category:Saint Petersburg; many of its contents are wholly or substantially relevant to when it was called Leningrad, but they rightly belong under Saint Petersburg because it is a single entity just known by different names at different times. Having two categories just for the different names is a bad thing because most folks want images of the city regardless of what name it happened to go by at the time of the image. All sorts of organizations change names over time, and yet have contents that may only be relevant to one or another of its names regardless of which of those names is used as the category name. For current organizations, generally we use their current name for the title of their category. It does not mean that all contents are relevant to the period it has had that name for. Josh (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't have a separate tree for the pre-unification West German Navy. Should we create a separate tree for this period?" Yes, I think it would be prudent to have something like Category:West German Navy and Category:Ships of the West German Navy to go along with Imperial Navy, Kriegsmarine and Volksmarine. This should also include Category:Aviation of the West German Navy for the sake of comprehensiveness. If a ship or an aircraft model served in both entities, West German Navy and "German Navy", then it should be in both (sub)categories. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately someone really has moved categories from „ships of the "Navy of the Bundeswehr“ to „ships of the Deutsche Marine“. This is not a question of proper choice but it is just wrong and has to be corrected. „Deutsche Marine“ as a name is only in use since 1995. All ships before cannot be assigned to „Deutsche Marine“. Basically nothing changed in 1995 except this denomination. So all previously Bundesmarine ships became Deutsche Marine ships. The term „ships of the Navy of the Bundeswehr“ included both and cannot be replaced by „Deutsche Marine“ especially not for ships that were already decommissioned in 1995, e.g. Category:Köln class which is definitely miscategorised now. The same is true for many others. KuK (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“Bundesmarine” and “Deutsche Marine” are inofficial names for only one navy, the navy of the Bundeswehr. From this point of view, the former categorization was correct. The cause for misunderstanding is the fact, that we have two German articles, one for the Bundesmarine and one for the Deutsche Marine. This may be corrected in due time. I suggest, to rename the category in Category:Ships of the Marine (Bundeswehr), analogous to Category:Aircraft of the Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr) and Category:Heer equipment of Bundeswehr. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ein Dahmer: If the parent category Category:Deutsche Marine is renamed to Category:Marine (Bundeswehr), then your suggestion would be correct. Until then the current category should remain as it is. Josh (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KuK: There never was a category named Category:Ships of the navy of the Bundeswehr, so I do not know what you are talking about with that comparison. Regardless there is also no category Category:Navy of the Bundeswehr so logic dictates that Category:Ships of the navy of the Bundeswehr would thus be homeless. The previous name of this category was Category:Naval ships of the Bundeswehr, but Bundeswehr is the whole military, not the navy. You are wrong that Category:Köln class is miscategorized, as it served from 1961 to 1989 and thus is perfectly within the scope of this category. Josh (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this category you will not only find ships belonging to the Navy but also those belonging to other parts of the Bundeswehr, especially the Armaments Section. Therefore Naval ships of the Bundeswehr is as precise as a category can be. --KuK (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KuK: Excellent point. Do you have some examples of these? If there are indeed ships that are part of the Bundeswehr, then Category:Ships of the Bundeswehr would be appropriate to have, with sub-categories for components of the Bundeswehr if there are sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile. Josh (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. Schwedeneck class. They belong to the procurement agency of the Bundeswehr, not the Navy. --KuK (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. Mannheim class landing craft of the Army. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: Category:West German Navy sounds fine to create as being specific to the German Navy period prior to unification, if someone sees the need. It would be a subcategory of Category:Deutsche Marine as it constitutes a portion of that service's history. Likewise, Category:Ships of the West German Navy would go under Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine. Josh (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I'd like to disagree. "Deutsche Marine" is just a label for the current service since the reunification. Any new categories for the previous West German navy should be put into Category:Navies of Germany and Category:Naval ships of Germany. The Imperial Germany Navy is a separate category branch just like the Volksmarine, so "Deutsche Marine" should not act as a container for something earlier in history. De728631 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, the parent category should even be Category:Naval history of Germany‎ to make it clear that this it is a historical category. On this note, I have moved all subcategories for earlier German navies into "Naval history of Germany‎", so only "Deutsche Marine" will show up on the front page of "Navies of Germany". De728631 (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: Placing categories of historical periods under Category:Naval history of Germany‎ makes perfect sense. Josh (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: As you state, 'Deutsche Marine' is just a label. The service is what is importantly at issue here, and the service represented by this category was founded in 1955 and remains extant today. The Imperial German Navy has nothing to do with it, as that was long before 1955. If you want to say that 'West German Navy' is a period of the current service's history that is fine, but to divorce it from the current service is wrong. The Kriegsmarine/Imperial German Navy/Navy of Brandenburg are not a part of the current service's history as they are all before 1955 and Volksmarine was the navy of a different country so likewise is irrelevant. Josh (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Category:GHS pictograms

[edit]

Uninformative name Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Please elaborate on your proposal to make it more informative. Josh (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pictograms of dangerous. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This is probably the best name for this. GHS is a widely known acronym for Globally Harmonised System and 'GHS pictograms' is the name used in the CLP Regulation. The other name used in the CLP Regulation is 'hazard pictograms', but it would be ambiguous in this situation, because it may mean every hazard pictogram not only GHS pictogram. Wostr (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of GHS before, so it's not universally known, and I think we're better off avoiding acronyms. en:GHS can mean a lot of things. On the other hand, Category:Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals pictograms does seems unwieldly. I'm not sure what to suggest... - Themightyquill (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I dont't get the logic. "I have not heard of it." implies that "It is not widely known."? ??? Gee, I wish I were a quarter as self-confident. But joke aside, everyone who works with hazardous materials has to have heard of GHS at some point. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DrTorstenHenning: I cleary said "universally known", so my statement is factual. You're suggesting that, because everyone who works with harzardous chemicals knows what it means, that it's a "widely known" acronym, which is obviously not true. Would you suggest that most people using wikimedia commons work with chemicals? By contrast, anyone who works with hazardous chemicals can surely figure out that Globally Harmonized System means GHS. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:GHS pictogramsMove to/Rename asCategory:Globally Harmonized System pictograms
@Вадзім Медзяноўскі, Wostr, Themightyquill, and DrTorstenHenning: Per COM:CAT, initialisms, acronyms and abbreviations should be avoided in favor of spelling out names. We can use short names instead of full formal official names so long as they are sufficient to identify the subject. For example, we use "United States", not "US", "USA", or "United States of America", and "United Kingdom" instead of "UK" or "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". How well known an initialism is does not change the equation, as both of these are far more well known than GHS and they still have to conform.
Josh (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GHS pictogram" is an official name used in EU legal acts. I don't see any reason to change it, especially considering the whole series of such categories (NFPA 704, ECB, ADR, WHMIS, ...) exists, and I won't take part in this pointless discussion any longer. Wostr (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wostr: Can you provide some evidence that it's used in EU legal acts without actually spelling it out first? Come on. I don't think moving to Category:Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals pictograms makes much sense but Category:Globally Harmonized System pictograms seems fine. Even something like Category:GHS chemical hazard pictograms would give uninitiated users more context. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wostr, Joshbaumgartner, Themightyquill, and DrTorstenHenning: whenever possible we should avoid not widely known acronyms in titles of categories. I am supporting Josh (Globally Harmonized System pictograms)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep current title per general usage of the abbreviation at GHS hazard pictograms, UNECE and Safe Work Australia, amongst others. --Minoa (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FN FAL in Libyan service

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Military equipment by country.

All of the shown rifles are used by rebells, s oas long as we don't have pics of gouvermental use, I'd suggest to delete this cat and move the files to the FN FAL parent cat. Sanandros (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral No problem to delete this category. I prefered to have the rifles sorted by user but I unsterstand your remark.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Not sure this category should be deleted. "In Libyan service" can mean any Libyan operator of a weapon--assuming it only means official government use is an unwarranted leap. Sub-cats can group these by specific named operators if need be. Take Category:Aircraft in Australian service, there sub-cats for airlines, government, military, police, and executive operators, as well as media of aircraft of private Australian operators. If any Libyan operator uses the FN FAL, then this category is warranted. Josh (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Small Arms Survery p. 49 says it's impossible to trace the origins of these rifles. So they could be from anywhere. Furthermore this cat is conncecete to Gouverment of Lybia over the Cats Military Eqiment of Lybia -> Military of Lybia -> Gouverment of Lybia. But we can't say that these weapons are linked to the gouvement of Lybia.--Sanandros (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They may soon be seen in service with Libyan "governmental armies" (GNA or LNA), cf this tweet.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soon is not at time of photography. And Twitter is not a reliable source.--Sanandros (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the purpose of Commons categories to maintain the current service status of military equipment. Who has what is something that is constantly evolving and is not always publicly known with authority. Category assignments are not referenced with sources, so they cannot function as such. They only serve to ease user access to files maintained by the repository. Whether or not the FN FAL is officially part of the Libyan government's inventory or not is completely irrelevant to our category scheme. If we have a file depicting the FN FAL being used by a Libyan operator, then it belongs here or in a sub-cat of this one. I 100% agree that the overall tree is far too misleading, as pointed to by Sanandros (talk · contribs). If the category were Category:FN FAL in Libyan government service then it would be more restrictive. The entire category structure of weapons 'in Foo service' should be reviewed, but as it is currently implemented, this category is correct to have files of Libyan rebels with FN FAL rifles. Josh (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the category tree, you are free to do so. But if you want to include non govermental organisations, then you need to define how they are, in this case, Lybian, as Tuareg from Mali fought in the Lybian War. So are these Lybian or Malian usage of a firearm?--Sanandros (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deep rabbit hole, Sanandros (talk · contribs), when a South African working for an American organization is operating on behalf of the Iraqi government, who exactly is their weapon serving? If we want to restrict 'in Fooian service' to mean exclusively weapons in the official inventory of government agencies, there is nothing wrong with that per se. Apparently some users approach these categories with this exact presumption. However, it is not explicitly stated and thus there are also many users who do not apply this presumption. Hence, situations like this. If you want to set on overaching precedent for 'in service' categories, that would really need to be discussed at a much higher level (Category:Military equipment by country perhaps). But until that is decided on, the fact that this category does not meet a restrictive definition that has not been broadly adopted does not constitute sufficient cause to delete the category. Josh (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: OK I started another discussion ant the miltary eqipment cat which u linked.--Sanandros (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of the Union flag by civil parish

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Union Jack.

Unnecessary depth, and this could grow to be both huge and pointless as few people know about civil parishes, let alone care. County then maybe town level is adequate. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a UK term for a fourth level administrative level division. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photographs of the Union flag by civil parishMove to/Rename asCategory:Photographs of the Union Jack by civil parish
Main parent cat for the flag is Category:Union Jack. These categories are valid so long as there are sufficient files to support them.
Josh (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The Union flag is only a jack when it is flown on a jackstaff. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Union Jack, your assertion is a matter of debate. It also misses the point that subs of Category:Union Jack should be named consistently. If you feel "Union flag" is a better name for the parent category, by all means make that case on its CfD, but so long as it is "Union Jack", its subs should match. Josh (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Districts in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Misleading title. Districts are of towns and cities, not counties or constituent countries of the UK. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a UK term for a third level administrative level division. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
District itself is too vague. There are, e.g. districts of Liverpool that are parts of the Metropolitan District (and City) of Liverpool but they are not Districts within the meaning of this category. Split into Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Districts and let the cities have their (separate) districts. Also, there are no statutory districts in Scotland or Wales. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me. Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Category:Metropolitan boroughs of England already exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Superficially attractive, but e.g. Ropewalks, Baltic Triangle and Cultural Quarter in Liverpool are not suburbs, they're in the City Centre. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least suburbs (and similar) shouldn't be mixed with local government districts since there two different things and Category:Districts of cities in England should probably be removed from Category:Districts in England (and the same for the likes of Category:Districts of Dundee). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disagreement Images of WLM 2019 in Taiwan

[edit]

If this category serves any purpose, at least, "Disagreement Images" needs to be defined(so that everyone knows how to use it).--Kai3952 (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. All these categories are hidden categories, so grammar exactitude is not crucial. The others are:

  1. Category:Disagreement Images of WLE 2017 in Taiwan
  2. Category:Disagreement Images of WLE 2018 in Taiwan
  3. Category:Disagreement Images of WLE 2019 in Taiwan
  4. Category:Disagreement Images of WLM 2018 in Taiwan
  5. Category:Disagreement Images of WLM 2019 in Taiwan
  6. Category:Disagreement Images of WLM 2020 in Taiwan

--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all. they are temporary cats.
@Reke: there's no reason to keep all your temporary "work area", "checked", etc., all these cats on commons forever. you hold the events once a year but there're still cats from 2017?!
alternatively, as far as i can understand, you should rename "Category:Disagreement Images" to something like "disqualified images" (取消資格? 不合規?), it that's what you mean, images that do not satisfy rules of the contest. that title would make sense and the cat can be kept forever. RZuo (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want these categories to be kept forever either. Please see the discussion before.-- Reke (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reke nearly two years later. can the 6 cats in #c-Estopedist1-2021-12-11T16:56:00.000Z-Category:Disagreement_Images_of_WLM_2019_in_Taiwan be deleted now? RZuo (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For categories in 2017-2019, yes, I think there won't be any problem for the events over 5 years.--Reke (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reke so files in Category:Disagreement Images of WLE 2017 in Taiwan should be moved to Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2017 in Taiwan, or? RZuo (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these moving is necessary. All pictures has been already in "Category: Images from Wiki Loves Earth YYYY in Taiwan", so just remove the category for working is fine.-- Reke (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spomenici kulture

[edit]

There already was discussion (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Spomenici kulture) but I think that DAB is not a good solution. Better is to redirect this title to the category:Cultural heritage monuments or just to delete this title at all, because it is not language/nation specific stuff (it is a general term for cultural heritage monuments)? Estopedist1 (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a dab page for nearly 4 years. Can you demonstrate what harm is is causing? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no harm, but just a bad precedent, in case if I am right (I do not speak Serbian)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:She holds the baby

[edit]

The name of this category seems odd and, moreover, the intended content seems to double the Category:Women holding babies hundred procent. Therefore I suggest to place the current content to the latter and remove this category. Eissink (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, @Strakhov, you might very well be right – I didn't see it that way before. So yes, renaming might be a solution. Still, I leave the discussion open, and let the community decide. Thanks. Eissink (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Comment: As Strakhov comments, this category is associated with the phenomenon of breastfeeding ...as the two categories to which it is anchored explain and reveal. It is also complementary to: "She pinches the breast", and other categories contained in: Category:Breastfeeding by posture... All of them make up a set of visual galleries related to catalogs initiated by art critical scholars such as Max Friedlander or later scholars of the Madonna col Bambino as a hagiographic theme. Personally, I don't see the need to change any of these names in the referred categories. They are clear and explicit, and allow grouping more current examples of this classification. But if after a thorough analysis and review of the related iconography, they get more 'appropriate' categorization titles, go ahead with the work.--Latemplanza (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see, as related also to Commons:Naming categories, is that 'She', 'The baby', or 'He' (see Category:He embraces the breast) are not plurals and that the titles are not describing what they intend to describe. F.i. "He embraces the breast" is really categorizing Breastfeeding male babies holding mother's breast, or maybe Paintings of baby Jesus holding Mary's breast – depending on whatever you really want to categorize. Eissink (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
 Comment:Nicely summed up Eissink. I too have been troubled by these sub categories of Category:Breastfeeding by posture. Categories need to stand reasonably alone in their description. If we don't change the name, Category:He pinches the breast might attract all sorts of images that have nothing to so with breastfeeding and surely not the intent of the creator of the Category!--Headlock0225 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Headlock0225 and Eissink. If we really need this cat at least it has to be renamed. Can one imagine breastfeeding without holding, so Madonna lactans categories are sufficient.--Oursana (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birgitta of Hohenzollern

[edit]

Name change of Category as no such Person as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ existing, though the individual here named as so is and should be renamed as ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’, a Swedish Princess who is only married to a Prince of the Noble Princely House of HohenzollernImperialArchivesRU (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Her legal married German name i Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern. Sweden (Schweden) is not mentioned. "von Hohenzollern" translates as of Hohenzollern. That's sufficient in this context. Unnecessary moves are not appropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This category was improperly moved to Category:Princess Birgitta of Sweden by Rereader1996 (talk · contribs) without proper conclusion of this CfD. Since SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) has offered objection and it has not been answered, I do not believe we can close this in favor of a move yet. I have reversed the move pending completion of this CfD. Josh (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: , @SergeWoodzing: Princess Birgitta’s official name and title as well as the title of which she is always referred to by the Swedish Royal court and news outlets (the majority which base their articles on factual information) is: ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ as at no point in her entire life has she ever been, ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinzessin Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinsessan Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or even ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’; furthermore, her English Wikipedia page (which is always the go-to, for the majority of readers) is named en:Princess Birgitta of Sweden in addition to the German one, de:Birgitta Ingeborg Alice von Schweden.

The category category:Birgitta of Hohenzollern was most probably made due to the lack of factual information and assumption that due to her marriage to a Hohenzollern Prince, that she immediately becomes known as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ which isn’t the case in the slightest.

  • The Royal Website of the Swedish Royal Family refers to her as: Princess Birgitta
  • The Top leading Royal news outlet refer to her as ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ Royal Central

Therefore I suggest for the category to be correctly reverted to ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ to comply with accurate and factual information rather than misleading based on ones own opinions of how she should be legally titled when the evidence outweighs the opinions.Rereader1996 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is her legal married name? Does anybody care? Like a genealogy site, Wikipedia always uses the maiden names of royal women, regardlesss of what their actual legal married names are. "Royal Central" has no official standing & is not a reliable source as evidenced by errors (bs) about the Swedish constitution in that very article. The Swedish royal court has never used "of Sweden" about Birgitta since she got married. In Germany, where Birgitta has lived for many years and where she gave birth to all her German-born children, policy since the abolishion of the Germany monarchies in 1918 has been to add the formerly valid titles legally to the surnames of the ex-royalty. Thus her name would be Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern as married. Alleging that she has never been known as "of Hohenzollern" or the like ignores her marriage and is just not accurate. Without seeing her passort, no Wikipedian call tell what's right or wrong. Nevertheless, this could easily have been solved by a redirect rather than a move. Much tadoo about nothing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: Depending on the country and it’s laws of registration, Imperials Royals and those members of ruling families don’t have married names as their name-title is what they’re registered under; Birgitta may have resided in Germany in addition to currently residing in Spain, however that does not mean her title changes even due to marriage; her current and only title of which she is known as and is officially referred to is ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’, not ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’, the Former also taking precedence over the two latter examples; if say she was ever known as ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or even ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’, the Swedish Royal Court has never referred to her as such as they only refer to her as ‘Princess Birgitta’ as they do with all Princes and Princesses in the family as you will see in this link [7], her elder sister has been referred to with her official and legal title and style ‘Princess Margaretha, Mrs Ambler‘ and their cousin has been referred to as just ‘Princess Benedikte’ though she is also officially ‘Princess Benedikte of Denmark’, infact even her nephew and niece as ‘Princess Madeleine’ and ‘Prince Carl Philip’ which itself proves that if Birgitta’s official and legal name was ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollenrn’ (like her husband has as you will see in the same link listed as ‘H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern‘) then she would literally be listed as such! @Joshbaumgartner: . Rereader1996 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why discuss this any further? Just to try to prove that one is wrong and the other right? It could easily be solved by a redirect rather than a move. Unnecessary category moves, just to satisfy one user's personal opinions or another's about format, are never appropriate. Birgitta married a titular prince of Hohenzollern and then became a titular princess of Hohenzollern. She is often called that & it is not incorrect to refer to her as such. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: Because there is literally no such person as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’ to exists. Technically Prince Johannes was never and has never been a titular Prince, he by descent and legitimacy has been a Prince as are his children however due to the implicated naming laws in Germany forced German Royals and aristocrats to have a family name however Birgitta being married to a Hohenzollern Prince doesn’t necessarily mean she is a Hohenzollern Princess as Princesses don’t just assume the titles of their husband unless changes have been made. @Joshbaumgartner: . Rereader1996 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We may be having a language problem, and/or what I've written here may have been mostly ignored, including the link to one of Sweden's major magazines which writes about "Prinsessan Birgitta av Hohenzollern". In any case some of the terminology makes no sense to me at all, and some of the statements are definitely conjecture. Seems like there is a wish to deny that a woman gets her husband's title when they are married. I've never heard of such a bizarre idea. There is a difference between Wikipedia's maiden-name-only policy for royal women and what actually goes on the real world. And Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia anyway. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Leave this alone and let a redirect cover her maiden name & status. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: As has been stated a few times, there is literally no such person as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’ to exist and nor is Princess Birgitta referred to or known as such and very rarely is she ever called as such by media, if it is that much of an issue then first of all I would suggest to change the names of the Wikipedia Pages en:Princess Birgitta of Sweden, es:Brígida de Suecia (1937), fr:Birgitte de Suède, it:Brigitta di Svezia, nl:Birgitta van Zweden (1937), ro:Prințesa Birgitta a Suediei, pt:Brígida da Suécia, sl:Brigita Švedska (1937), no:Birgitta av Sverige and cs:Birgitta Švédská to this apparent ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’ or whatever new name title she apparently and assumingly has because of being married to a Hohenzollern Prince. Rereader1996 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We must rely more on Svensk Damtidning in this matter than on the personal opinions of any Wikipedian. Ignoring the link I provided to that magazine, as an example of where she is called "Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern", is not helpful. Nor is repeating the same conjecture over and over. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: since when has Svensk Damtidning taken precedence of the Swedish Royal Court in facts? As I had literally posted a link above from the royal website explaining the difference in how Princess Birgitta and her husband were presented:“H.R.H. Princess Birgitta and H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern” [8] whereas if she was realistically ever ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinzessin Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinsessan Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or even ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ then the Royal website would literally write it as such, as they did with her husband whose Princely title wasn’t even mentioned before his name but was written as a surname (German law of naming conventions). Rereader1996 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is still a princess of Sweden, and (and) she is a titular princess of Honenzollern. The magazine knows that. So does the royal court. What the royal court chooses to call her is not decisive. If she is known as both, which she is, this move is not needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: As has already been explained before, if she were truly ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ then the royal website [9] would have referred to her as such (H.R.H Birgitta, Princess von Hohenzollern) as they did with her husband (“H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern”) whereas she was stated: “H.R.H. Princess Birgitta“, just as her nephew and niece were: “H.R.H. Princess Madeleine/H.R.H. Prince Carl Philip” in addition to her sisters being referred with their full title: “Princess Margaretha, Mrs Ambler/Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld/Princess Christina, Mrs Magnuson“ which in itself proves that she is officially not even referred to and known with ‘Hohenzollern’ in her title. Rereader1996 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Considering the fact that if she were to be titled as a Hohenzollern then she would literally be officially referred to as any of the examples: ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’, ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta, Princess von Hohenzollern’ etc... (like her husband has: “H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern”) just as her sisters have been referred to with their official titles: “Princess Margaretha, Mrs Ambler/Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld/Princess Christina, Mrs Magnuson“ whereas Princess Birgitta of Sweden has been referred to in the same style as a Princess of Sweden just as her niece and nephew have “H.R.H. Princess Madeleine/H.R.H. Prince Carl Philip”.[1] Rereader1996 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant to the fact that she is known by both names, her maiden name and her married name, as clearly has been shown. Thus the move is not necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: In what sense is it not relevant? As I have previously stated, if the Royal website itself states her as ‘HRH Princess Birgitta’ like they do with the other Swedish Princes and Princesses rather than referring to her as ‘HRH Birgitta Princess von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or whatever you believe she is titled as, that in itself presents the argument of her being officially known as ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’, as I have mentioned earlier in another page name change discussion, I understand that you want to take control of Swedish Royal Category Pages, however incorrect names/titles are pretty pointless and confusing. Thus I put forward the reiteration to Princess Birgitta of Sweden. Rereader1996 (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no constructive reason to respond input by any user who makes intentionally rude fantasy accusations like " I understand that you want to take control of Swedish Royal Category Pages". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: ‘intentionally rude fantasy’ according to yourself however evidently we can see this in other edits and CFD’s; as it is, I still stand by my statement on the basis of your not following factual information, rather, basing your edits and reverts on your assumptions. Rereader1996 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong oppose The official name used by the Swedish royal house and the press generally is "Princess Birgitta of Sweden." And more...

The only version of Wikipedia that uses "Hohenzollern" in the article title is nn:Birgitta av Sverige og Hohenzollern, anyway, Sweden is in the title and comes before Hohenzollern. There is no reason to justify this change. Minerva97 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ https://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/media/pressreleases/olderpressreleases/pressreleasesearlier/theentryoftheguestsofhonourintothecathedral.5.40e05eec12926f2630480003473.html

Category:Eglinton Country Park

[edit]

redirect to deleted category Robby (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target category does not appear to be a deleted category. It looks like you meant to close this discussion? @Robby: – BMacZero (🗩) 19:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the target category is not deleted. I wanted to ask for the deletion of the redirect page and should have marked this categary with the template bad name. Sorry for this 'black-out' moment from my part. Robby (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is any other Eglinton Country Park, this should be made into a disambiguation. Otherwise, keep the redirect, as it is what most people will type when searching for it. --rimshottalk 22:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @BMacZero, Robby, Rimshot, and Crouch, Swale: enwiki en:Eglinton Country Park is reserved to Scotland one, but its hatnote declares that "not to be confused with Eglinton Park (Toronto)" (we also have Category:Eglinton Park). Do we use enwiki solution?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Sounds like you mean to move Category:Eglinton Country Park, Scotland to here and hatnote Category:Eglinton Park on that page. That sounds fine to me. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested solution sounds well to me. Robby (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted we either need to move the Scottish one to the base name or have a DAB here, the current situation is both against item 2 of the category redirects page here given it means readers still have to click through it and against w:WP:PRECISION. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Category:Eglinton Country Park, Scotland back to Category:Eglinton Country Park and adding a hatnote to Category:Eglinton Park. Apparently Eglinton Country Park is also known as Eglinton Park, but not the other way around (cf. their website, which uses the name with and without country). --rimshottalk 22:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kiting

[edit]

same as category:Kitesurfing? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems similar, with the possible exception of the image that's on snow. I'm not sure it's kitesurfing if it isn't on water. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tropical Depression 21W (2019)

[edit]

Already have a new category at: (Category:Tropical Storm Neoguri (2019)) 👦 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

on the basis of en:2019_Pacific_typhoon_season I did the redirect to Category:Typhoon Neoguri (2019)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
mind if i reuse it for Kammuri? FleurDeOdile (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tätorter i Finland

[edit]

The category has many problems. Apalsola t • c 17:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories are problematic in numerous ways:

Finland is divided in municipalities (Finnish: kunta, Swedish: kommun; Wikidata:Q856076). Some of the municipalities are called cities (Finnish: kaupunki, Swedish: stad). However, there has not been legal nor administrative difference between municipalities or cities since 1977; it is a sole decision of the municipality itself whether it wants to be called "city" or not and, apart the name, that decision does not have other effects.

Municipalities are divided in municipal districts (Finnish: kunnanosa or kaupunginosa, Swedish: kommundel or stadsdel; Wikidata:Q21682724) and (more or less unofficially) to villages.

Currently there is quite comprehensive categorisation based on municipalities and also districts and villages in Commons.

Now the two categories in question bring another, ambiguous level of categorisation. Particularly the term "ort" is a bit problematic: it is Swedish and translates to "place", "site" or "location" but it is unclear to at least to me what kind of locations is supposed to be categorised under that category. Cities (would be redundant to Category:Cities in Finland), municipalities (would be redundant to Category:Municipalities in Finland), any human settlement (would soon to be bloated), any geographic locatin (would soon to be bloated) or something else? Thus, currently the category is quite problematic in terms of modularity and selectivity principles.

The term urban area (Finnish: taajama, Swedish: tätort; Wikidata:Q61492541) is indeed used also in Finland for some (e.g. statistical) purposes. However, (unlike in Sweden, for example) the term is not in daily use, so I doubt this category would urban area-based categorisation would only make things more complicated without providing any clear benefits.

And the final problem with the both categories is their language: they are in Swedish. According to Language Policy and Category Policy, category names should generally be in English, and these categories are generic categories, so the policies clearly apply to this case. And even if we (for some extraordinary reason) wanted to make an exception for the local language, Finnish would be a better choice since 87.6% of the population of Finland speaks Finnish as their native language and only 5.2% Swedish. (They both are official languages of Finland though.)

So, I propose that both of the categories are deleted and the files are categorised under current city/municipality-based categories. If the categories are not deleted, at least their names should be translated into English and the meaning of the word "ort" should be clarified. ––Apalsola t • c 17:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to join here by User:Apalsola in my discussion page in fi-wikipedia ([10]) and I also notice that Apalsola has also notified the creator of these categories who seems to be User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 in wikimedia commons. However, when one looks at the categories and the contents of the categories, it becomes apparent that the process has gone so that originally the image files seem to have been uploaded to wikimedia commons by User:SofiaEk who at her user page in wikimedia commons tells that she is "[c]urrently uploading media content for Projekt Fredrika r.f but also contributing to Wikimedia Commons whatever comes her way". And therefore it seems that the (then obviously red) linkks to these categories have been created when uploading these image files, and then it seems that only afterwards User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 only has made blue these red links by creating the categories and categorized them under the categories that somehow have seemed to fit to the topic.
And then the project in question, to which User Sofia Ek is working for is (in english) this: en:Wikipedia:Projekt Fredrika or in swedish: sv:Wikipedia:Projekt Fredrika or in Finnish: fi:Wikiprojekti:Projekt Fredrika. Within this project, as far as I can guess User:SofiaEk seems to work with uploading the files, and (as I happen to know previously) User:Alpark is working for the project as an experienced wikipedian and wikimedian. I now also notified the project about this discussion at the discussion page of the project in swedish language wikipedia. And I guess that the participants of this project could well be be able to help with the regategorizing of the material. - And as they best know the material they also probably could do it most easily.--Urjanhai (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After superficially looking at the material, the most would seem to fit under Category:Nagu, and catregozation under this could perhaps be done easily even by bot. After that the further categorization could be done manually, either to the existing subcategories or new subcategories that would be created when needed.
At the same time images would also be good to be categorized under different categories by topic, like: "Wooden Buildings in Finland", "communications in Finland" (or something like that, and the subcategories thereunder), "Summer in Finland" (or something like that) etc. Usually every picture should have a category by location (like Category:Nagu (and possible subcategories under that by location) and at the same time some category by topic (going down in the category tree from main categories like "Buildings in Finland" etc. both by location and topic). --Urjanhai (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think we can move the images to relevant established category trees and then remove these categories. People in the project agreed after having read the arguments. Most of the files should be moved to categories for the villages or islands, some of which need to be created. I think I will do that (in a week or so; I hope I will find them in these categories or in Category:Nagu). If someone wants to categorize according to subject matter (Category:Wooden houses in Finland etc.), that would be good, as some of those category trees are quite confusing. --Alpark (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Alpark@Apalsola@Urjanhai: currently both nominated categories are empty. What is the situation here? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the categories are empty noew, i guess they could well be removed. User:Alpark knows the original material best but as it has probably been sorted to the right categories now, the problem seems to be solved.--Urjanhai (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of dance

[edit]

A great majority of dance-related files are photographs, so this category largely overlaps Category:Dance. It's unlikely that someone would search for just photos of dance when photos are by far the predominant media type. Also, this category currently covers only a tiny fraction of dance photos; it would be a monumental task to increase coverage to a useful level and there seems to be no logical reason to do so. I suggest that it be deleted. Lambtron (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Many of the sub-categories don't fit into a tree anyway. We have Category:19th-century photographs of dancing bears but no Category:Dancing bears in the 19th century, Category:19th-century photographs of balls (dance) but no Category:Balls (dance) in the 19th-century. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tree includes a multitude of subcategories which are similarly problematic; these should also be deleted:

Lambtron (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambtron: I agree with eliminating the simply 'photographs of' categories under ballet, but not 'portrait photographs of' ones. Portrait photographs are a particular style of image that may well be sought to illustrate an article or other use, so it makes sense to have these remain. Any objection to moving forward with the rest while excluding portrait photograph categories from deletion? Josh (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Lambtron (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 19th century is the first EVER to have photographs of dance (or any subject). This alone should be enought to justify a seperate category. It's not drawings or paintings, but real images of dance and dancers. If you want more detail, fine, but let's keep this one to hold all the old images together. I'm talking of the 19th century here, not of the category "Photographs of dance"; I agree that a category "Photographs of dance" would be a little strange.--Judithcomm (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Judithcomm and Lambtron: probably should be used system: Category:19th-century photographs of ballet to be merged into Category:19th-century ballet. This system was already stated above--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
19th-century ballet is not just photographs, but also paintings, possibly documents, etc. Also dances originating from the 19th century, but danced in the 21st --Judithcomm (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Judithcomm and Lambtron: I guess, soon we ask: do we need Category:Photographs by topic (is already under discussion). Category:Images by subject is already emptied--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tibetan house

[edit]

Meaningless and replicated category. category:Buildings in Tibet and category:Houses in Tibet Available. MNXANL (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all buildings are houses. Tibetan houses are buildings where Tibetan households live. 钉钉 (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
House is a type of building where household(s) live, thus the category should be redirected to category:Houses in Tibet. MNXANL (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't sufficient academic studies shows that "Tibetan houses" is a type of architecture style adopted in Tibetan's houses: googling "tibetan house" will lead to the page of "Tibet House" founded by Dalai Lama; search using relevant Chinese words also does not. By looking at files at the category itself, I can definitely tell that the buildings in File:Tibetan House in Shigatse.jpg, File:Tibetan house.jpg and file:Tibetan house 3.jpg are absolutely not same of Architecture style; buildings in file:Tibetan house 1.jpg are apparently not residential houses. Since the term "Tibetan house" is not well-defined, I think the category is better to be redirected to category:Houses in Tibet and files in the category should be recategorized. MNXANL (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No all houses are Tibetan houses(藏式民居). There are also Han Chinese houses in Tibet. Yes, there are some difference in different regions. But they share common traits besides their differences. Han Chinese houses are not all the same either. "Tibet House" and "Tibetan House" definitely have different meanings. ̴̴̴̴̃

@钉钉: How would you propose we verify, from a picture, the ethnicity of the people living in the house? What should we do with houses of families of both Tibetan and Han Chinese ancestry? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are some proofs of Tibetan Housesː [11] [12] [13] [14] 钉钉 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@钉钉: Those are surely images of houses. How would you propose we verify, from a picture, the ethnicity of the people living in the house? What should we do with houses of families of both Tibetan and Han Chinese ancestry? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: you're making a mistake. Tibetan houses are houses built with Tibetan style. It doesn't depends on the ethnicity of people in the house. The sources I provided above prove that Tibetan house is a particular architecture in China..钉钉 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
if 钉钉 believes the Category:Tibetan house should exist, how you gonna differentiate it from the existing category:Houses in Tibet? MNXANL (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about skipping the houses part and using Category:Tibetan architecture or Category:Tibetan Buddhist architecture to match en:Tibetan Buddhist architecture? -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Tibetan architecture' is a too wide concept and those photos are not 'buddhist architecture' either. They are just ordinary civilian houses. 钉钉 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why Tibetan architecture is too wide a concept? We'll need a Tibetan architecture parent category anyway. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite ok to create a parent category Tibetan architecture and put Category:Tibetan house under it.钉钉 (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC) 钉钉 (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@钉钉: The 'mistake' that you ascribed to Themightyquill (talk · contribs) actually illustrates the problem with the current name. "Tibetan" by itself is not sufficient as an adjective to inform users of the actual purpose of this category. At first glance, one may well presume that 'Tibetan' means 'in Tibet', or possibly that 'Tibetan' means 'occupied by Tibetans' or even that it means 'built in Tibetan style'. None of those presumptions are any less valid than the next, so as a category, if it is to be one of these, it should be more descriptive in its name, such as Category:Houses in Tibet, Category:Houses occupied by Tibetans or Category:Tibetan-style houses to avoid the unnecessary confusion. Josh (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@钉钉, MNXANL, and Themightyquill: Any objections to simply renaming this category to Category:Tibetan-style houses? Josh (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: No objections, the new categories should under the Category:Houses by style and Category:Architecture of Tibet. Then What should we do with category:Houses in Tibet? I am thinking to put both category:Houses in Tibet and Category:Houses in Bhutan under it when the category is renamed. MNXANL (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to move "Category:Tibetan house". to "Category:Tibetan-style houses". 钉钉 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philanthropic organizations

[edit]

A number of problems:

  1. what's the difference between philanthropic and charitable orgs?
  2. Why is foundation underneath this? I think many foundations could be set up for advocacy of, say, political causes or business lobbyist activity, which may not be philanthropic. Roy17 (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question. en:Philanthropy says "A difference commonly cited is that charity aims to relieve the pain of a particular social problem, whereas philanthropy attempts to address the root cause of the problem—the difference between the proverbial gift of a fish to a hungry person, versus teaching them how to fish." But I'm not convinced we can easily tell the difference here. I suggest merging, though I couldn't say which one to keep and which one to redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged a few more categories. I can't see the difference between Category:Charities and Category:Charitable organizations. I'm also not sure we benefit from having both Category:Charity and Category:Philanthropy. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
enwp has two cat trees w:Category:Charities and w:Category:Philanthropic organizations. Category:Charities description says See also: Category:Philanthropic organizations. This category is closely related to the Non-governmental organizations and Nonprofit organizations categories. For English-speaking countries, whether an article appears in one or the other depends primarily on local usage, which varies from one country to another. If we look at other wikis, more of them pair their cat with Charities than with Philanthropic organizations.
Maybe we should build our tree under Charitable organizations?
Is there an example of a philanthropic org that's not charitable, or the other way around?--Roy17 (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17 and Themightyquill: Sounds like for the purposes of Commons, there is no need for a breakdown between charity and philanthropy. It is only a question of naming. I have no strong preference between the two, but I would strongly suggest that the organizations category match the overall category (i.e. if we go with Category:Philanthropy we also use Category:Philanthropic organizations, or if Category:Charity use Category:Charitable organizations.) Josh (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Category:Philanthropy exists because it is somewhere to put categories like Category:Philanthropists‎. Which wouldn't work in Category:Charity or Category:Charitable organizations. As philanthropists aren't charities or organizations. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that substantial restructuring is required for the content of these categories. I am seeing a mix of images of logos, publications, and events/activities, each of which should be its own subcategory of thing. BD2412 T 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Thanks for your contributions. Please do not merge, keep both. By the way that was not the initial question or demand but : what is the difference ? Please be aware that
charity is a christian precept (Marc 12:30-31) and virtue ;
philanthropy is the moral principle of those showing unselfish solidarity.
Both are altruistic human behaviours.
I removed Cat:Atruism from Cat:Philanthropy = Cat:Altriusm was/is already parent cat of Philanthropy.
I removed Cat:Charitable organizations and Cat:Philanthropy from Cat:Social economy = they have no economic objectives
I added : Cat:Non-profit organizations to both of them
Please revoke if you do not agree. I suggest
Cat:Foundations (organizations) should not figure under Philanthropic orgaanizations. Please remove. Thank you.
There are lots of other things to do (wikidatas need correction, interwikis have erroneous translations... ) Kind regards, --Bohème (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support Bohème. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word charity may have its origin in Christianity...
But nowadays there're things like Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, Category:Buddhist charities...
Here's my suggestion:
Category:Philanthropic organizations and Category:Charities redirect to Category:Charitable organizations.
Category:Charitable organizations is a subcat of Category:Social economy (Umbrella term for companies that have a social objective). Roy17 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antique radios

[edit]

The scope of the category almost completely overlaps with Category:Vacuum tube radios, with the inclusion of far smaller Category:Crystal radios, but also currently including some transistor models (Category:AIWA radio receivers). As more and more ancient brands are revitalized on today's market, their digital products will end up in "antiques" too. This is manageable, but it does not solve the main problem: ill-defined scope of "antiques". While we may all agree that pre-WW2 Category:Cathedral style radios all qualify as "antiques", the 1950s styling is not so obviuos (Example: antique, really?).

Suggestion: merge Category:Antique radios, file by file into Category:Vacuum tube radios, Category:Crystal radios, Category:Transistor radios. Retired electrician (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Antique" is largely meaningless so if we have better alternatives, let's use them. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Retired electrician: No opposition. Do you want to procede with sorting and let me know when it's done? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to go, this will probably take a couple of weeks. I'm not sure that only two votes are sufficient. Retired electrician (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to contributors to category:Polish antique radios: @Artur Andrzej: , @Bin im Garten: , @Wp: . Retired electrician (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Retired electrician I see that enwiki has also en:Antique radio. Maybe we can keep the nominated category? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the beautiful English wikipedia where anything can exist regardless of how poorly sourced. Well, at least they have the (unsourced) definition: "radio receiving set that is collectible because of its age and rarity". This is applicable to practically everything that is not on sale today. The definition is fine for a close group of collectors, but it does not scale up to a worldwide perspective. And, as far as I know, there are no alternatives - in the end, they all default to the individual editors' "I know it when I see it" feeling. Is this 1985 model an antique? Why? Why not? Retired electrician (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree Merge Category:Antique radios into Category:Vacuum tube radios, Category:Crystal radios and Category:Transistor radios. Commons can decide about categories and category names independently from whatever other Wikimedia project, and just focus on which categories are needed for the organization of Common files. And please, give all involved categories good descriptions, with an indication of the period they were produced. JopkeB (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Retired electrician, Themightyquill, and Estopedist1: Perhaps rename this category to Category:History of radio receivers? And then also make Category:Radio productions by decade and Category:Radio productions by year subcategories (although one of the parents is Category:Radio programmes there are only files about radio receivers in it, at least in the sample I saw). --JopkeB (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could if someone wants to sort them by decade. Or we could just delete it after Retired electrician and others with knowledge sort the content into the existing subfolders. But there isn't much to do until they've been removed from this category. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: - done except for Category:Polish antique radios. Retired electrician (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Retired electrician: That can probably be merged up to Category:Radio receivers of Poland. @Wp and Artur Andrzej: Since Category:Antique radios will cease to exist, are you okay if we move everything in Category:Polish antique radios to the (mostly empty) Category:Radio receivers of Poland? -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stations of Sydney Metro

[edit]

While Commons doesn't have a consistent naming scheme for rapid transit/metro/subway station categories, it does consistently avoid using the term 'railway station' for these categories. This makes sense, because, in cities where commuter rail (mainline) and rapid transit networks operate side by side, this would be highly confusing. But this sensible, confusion-reducing practice is being resisted/usurped in Sydney by User:PhilipTerryGraham, who moved categories from.a 'metro station' suffix to a 'railway station, New South Wales' suffix and then a 'railway station, Sydney' suffix. This is entirely inconsistent with other rapid transit systems and makes it difficult to tell at a glance whether the station belongs to the mainline or metro systems. And for what benefit?

Not content with that, ThreeFirstNames then moved 'Category:Metro stations in Sydney' to 'Category:Stations of Sydney Metro' and 'Category:Metro maps of Sydney' to 'Category:Maps of Sydney Metro'. Not only were these changes verging on completely pointless, they also ignore the fact that Australian governments have an irresistible urge to rename things they control (an irresistible urge to rename things seems to be a theme). So by using the brand name of the moment, the categories would have to be renamed every time the government decides it simply cannot live with a name adopted by a predecessor.

Commons also has a tradition of categories adopting what ThreeFirstNames calls the 'service name' of rapid transit lines; Category:M1 Line (Bucharest Metro), Category:Jubilee Line, Category:Shanghai Metro Line 7, Category:Shanghai Metro Pujiang Line etc. But of course Three wanted to do things a different way, adopting a bizarre and almost impenetrably confusing mix of the names for the construction projects to build sections of metro lines and the names of former mainline railways the metro has or will take over. The first metro line will ultimately run from Tallawong to Bankstown; under ThreeFirstNames', um, system, this single line will be divided into four different categories: 'Category:Sydney Metro Northwest', 'Category:Epping to Chatswood railway line', 'Category:Sydney Metro City & Southwest' & 'Category:Bankstown railway line'. If that isn't confusing enough, consider that a section of the Bankstown line will remain part of the mainline network even after the metro opens. So apparently one category will cover both part of a metro line as well as a line of the conventional network. And good luck to the Commons audience trying to figure all this out.

As if to underline the stupidity of Three's approach (for want of a better word), the government has just announced the locations for the stations of Sydney Metro West, an entirely new line/project. Two of these stations serve suburbs that already have (actual) railway stations (Olympic Park and Parramatta), but the metro stations will not form part of the same complex as the existing railway stations. These new stations could and should be categorised as 'Olympic Park metro station' and 'Parramatta metro station', but we should shudder to think about what sort of lunacy Three might come up with to sandbank its own creation.

So...

  • Metro stations should not be categorised using 'railway station' in the name, in common with Commons convention.
  • The Sydney Metro brand name should be avoided where possible, as it is almost certain to change at some point.
  • While government renaming hijinks mean the 'service name' is likely to change fairly often (and will definitely change for the current line once the extension to Bankstown opens) using it is consistent with standard Commons practice for rapid transit systems, is the name more readily identifiable by the public and is much less confusing than the absolute mess ThreeFirstNames is trying to enforce. 202.159.171.246 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@202.159.171.246: Please understand that Epping and Chatswood are railway stations that combine both the Sydney Metro and Sydney Trains services in one building [1][2], and that the case will be the same for Martin Place, Central, Sydenham, and Bankstown – they are not separate stations segregated from one another [3][4][5][6]. It wouldn't make sense to treat them as separate stations when they clearly aren't. I tried raising a discussion months ago about names for the physical railway lines at Category talk:Sydney Metro Northwest but there hasn't been a response, so it's unfair to put the blame on me for the status quo. One should also note that the Bankstown railway line will continue to exist in its near-entirety after the Metro opens, apart from a few metres of concrete in Bankstown splitting it in half circa 2024. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting response. No explanation as to why the current situation isn't horrendously confusing or why Sydney should ignore Commons naming convention. No suggestion for the Parramatta/SOP separate stations issue.
Please understand that creating new metro categories that separate media of the post-conversion state from media from the pre-conversion state — as done at Epping, Chatswood and the other ex-ECRL stations — makes for cleaner categorisation and provides a simple way to evaluate what was captured before or after the conversion. It's far more logical than creating one category for the platforms serving the inner tracks at Chatswood while leaving the platforms serving the outer tracks in the parent category(!). As previously mentioned, Category:Partick railway station includes a dedicated subcategory for the subway platforms. And while it's true that "Sydney is not Glasgow", that two separate cities are not in fact one and the same has nothing to do with coming up with a good way to categorise media files on Commons.
It's completely nonsensical to suggest the Bankstown line will remain opened in its (very near) entirety when one part of the line will form part of another line, while the other part will continue to form part of the state/national network. And there is "a few metres of concrete", i.e. a physical barrier, separating the sections of the supposedly unified line. The difference is pretty simple: Can you theoretically operate a train from Campsie to Dubbo, Canberra, Melbourne or Darwin today? Yes. Will you theoretically be able to operate a train from Campsie to Dubbo, Canberra, Melbourne or Darwin once the metro opens? No. Will you theoretically be able to operate a train from Birrong to Dubbo, Canberra, Melbourne or Darwin once the metro opens? Yes, because Birrong is on the section that will remain part of the main rail network. Unlike Campsie. Will you be advocating that (most of) the Carlingford line will continue to exist after the Parramatta Light Rail opens? After all that project is replacing one electrified, standard gauge, railed system with another, which seems to be more than enough to satisfy your criteria of 'still a regular railway'. 124.170.194.240 19:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just become aware of this discussion. {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Australian_and_New_Zealand_stations)] was prepared on the basis that at least in Sydney all stations would include "railway station" in the name including the Metro station. However in the last few weeks it has become apparent that in the case of Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park will have separate rail and metro stations and on that basis separate "metro station" articles were prepared (not by me) and that has been covered in the above draft naming convention (Fleet Lists).2001:8003:2C27:DC00:E16B:3745:8357:2932 08:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naming conventions are only useful when they are relevant, and it seems there is a perfectly valid justification for the change. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Category:Results of animations of geometry

[edit]

unique category: Why not only category:animations of geometry? Estopedist1 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't allow redundant categories and we don't allow unique categories that doesn't leave any allowable categories. Hyacinth (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyacinth: What is the difference between this content and Category:animations of geometry? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: None of the files at Category:Results of animations of geometry appear to be animations. Presumably they are film frames taken from animations, possibly the final frame. Hyacinth (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward Haas: Can you offer any input here? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Estopedist1, Hyacinth, Themightyquill, and Edward Haas: Is this similar to Category:Animated film screenshots then, just that these seem to depict geometric patterns? Is there value to differentiating them from Category:Geometric patterns just because there may be an associated animation that preceded/included them? Josh (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:溴

[edit]

Empty translated-name of existing cat (Category:Bromine). DMacks (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can't it just be redirected then? since it doesn't appear ambiguous (if it is it should become a DAB). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at Category:Chinese radicals and other grandparent cats of this one, they all seem to be for the characters themselves and not for files on the topic of the meaning of the character. And nor are they categorized according to those meanings. That is, they are strictly a typography portion of the commons category tree. DMacks (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The real question is, why should we keep it if it is empty? I agree that we can distinguish between the category for a character and the category for the concept that character represents. However, so long as there is no media in this category, it should be deleted until such media is added to Commons. @DMacks and Crouch, Swale: Josh (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No action needed - category is no longer empty. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC) {{cfdf]}[reply]

Category:Metal bridges

[edit]

Unclear purpose, scope, definition and contents.

See Category talk:Iron_bridges. We have a long-term issue where naming and meaning are confused for bridges, particularly iron vs steel. This category is part of that, although also the least useful.

We have Category:Bridges by material, which is clearly an important high-level category for the description of bridges. It should include, as direct children, all of the major material-based types. Even where that is contradicted by COM:OVERCAT (hiding major groups beneath arbitrary sub-categories is unhelpful). This category is a worst-case example of that.

"Metal" bridges mean either iron or steel. There are a vanishingly small group of bridges in aluminium, maybe even something obscure in another metal (but examples escape me at present). "Iron" is also sub-divided importantly into wrought iron and cast iron. This is such an important distinction (they have contradictory properties, thus are used in quite different structural types) that we should treat those two materials as distinct and place them directly under "by materials", i.e. a three way split between cast iron, wrought iron and steel.

The content of this category does not represent any rational grouping:

"Footbridges" would seem to be inevitable here as a valid and defining group, but it tells us little otherwise. Like this category, "metal" just doesn't work as a grouping.

"Riveted" bridges is again, a valid and defining group in itself (both iron and steel were frequently riveted, concrete is not). But again, it plays no useful part in any navigational pattern. "Riveted steel" bridges would be firstly bridges by structural type (arch, girder, truss etc.), secondly by steel as a material and in a far third place, by riveting. "Riveting" alone as a supercategory, encompassing the three materials in all their forms, is of very little use.

"Iron" and "steel", as such broad terms, have all the problems already described.

The files included here are such a random collection as to be meaningless.

A more rational structure here would include deleting this category. Probably iron bridges and metal footbridges too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the problem. I accept that all bridges should eventually be placed in the correct iron or steel bridges category - ultimately, it should have no images - but if someone doesn't know whether a bridge is made of iron or steel, it's better to have it in Category:Metal bridges, no? And if we're going to have Category:Metal structures, it doesn't seem outlandish that we might have Category:Metal bridges as a subcategory. Sorry if I've failed to grasp something important from your comments above. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this category permanent or temporary? If it's temporary, is that really temporary (i.e. files are expected to be moved out of it), or is it actually permanent, as a group for "We can't identify this and have given up trying"?
It's named here, and populated, as if it's permanent i.e. a useful sub-layer of grouping between "materials" and either "iron" or "steel". But it doesn't work for that, as discussed. It's just not a useful grouping to identify bridges as "metal", but no more than that. We need to either go deeper, or we might as well not bother to identify their material.
If really temporary, it should be named as "Unidentified bridges of either wrought iron or steel", and cast-iron should be excluded (as they're identifiable from their shape).
We can place both "steel bridges", "iron bridges" et al. directly into "metal structures" just as well, without a superfluous extra layer. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Holger1959, who created the cat is no longer active on Wikipedia and Commons (though his work lives on since many german wikipedians still work heavily with his lists and scripts). I am ambivalent about the cat in questions - decide on best judgement. --Ordercrazy (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley and Themightyquill: This appears to be a valid category. We have an established tree of Category:Metal objects as a parent to objects made of metal, so it makes sense to have Category:Metal bridges for all bridges made of metal regardless of type, with subcategories for specific metals as appropriate. This is not a 'temporary' category, though it would be good for as many contents as possible to be sorted by specific metal as research permits, but both new and old content which has yet to be identified need a home and so I suggest we keep this category as is. Josh (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep useful and valid category. I agree with Josh. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It's useful to have the general category, such as to fit under other metal-related categories that might not be limited to iron or steel. I do think that the various "iron or steel" categories could be replaced with general "metal" categories because combining different things, even if similar, is not a good practice.
If people are concerned about specifying which metal is involved, we can add a {{Categorise}} template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes

[edit]

La région Rhône-Alpes n'existe plus. Le contenu de cette catégorie devrait être transféré dans category:Railway lines in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, et la catégorie supprimée. Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this discussion to several other related categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr.Latreille and Themightyquill: Rhône-Alpes is a former region, but we should not just delete it and its sub-topics and move the content to Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Instead, Category:Rhône-Alpes should remain as a category under Category:Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes and likewise Category:Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes should remain as a category under Category:Railway lines in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (I have added it to this category). Josh (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in categorizing by non-existent administrative divisions, unless they are of longstanding cultural-historical significance. en:Rhône-Alpes was created in 1982. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I am not sure how we can successfully come up with an arbitrary basis for determining which historical entities should be categorized and which not based on how long-standing or culturally significant they are. I would venture the only standard should be whether or not we have media relevant to the entity in question. If we have media depicting rail lines during 1982-2015 when Rhone-Alpes existed, then this category should be retained. Merging that media into a category for an entity that did not even exist at the time the media depicts makes no sense at all. Rhone-Alpes categories should probably be linked to Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes categories, but not merged into them.
Additionally, even we were to have some kind of importance threshold, if a first-level country subdivision that was home to more than 5 million people for 33 years doesn't pass muster, that threshold is way too high, in my opinion. The point it though, it shouldn't be my opinion or yours on which arbitrary line is okay. It should be simple question of do we have media on this topic from this place and time. If yes, the category is correct and should be retained. If no, then it serves no purpose and should be deleted. Josh (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: While I see your point, all of the content in Category:Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes is already sub-categorized by narrower location, so there's no reason to keep this category. I think that's the same for many categories in Category:Rhône-Alpes. Obvious exceptions would be things like Category:Buses of TER Rhône-Alpes. For instance the flags of Rhône-Alpes in could stay, but the subcategories like Category:Flags of Loire could be removed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, I definitely see what you are saying, and it certainly presents as a bit of a conundrum. If all of Rhone-Alpes railways are diffused by department (which makes some sense), but since those same departments are now part of Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes instead, a lot of the content in those categories will not be really of Rhone-Alpes (everything since 2015). So then there is the question where should a sub-division be sorted if the sub-division has been part of multiple parent divisions over time? Should it only be under its current or most recent parent, or under all of its parents? That question is a lot bigger than this particular category though.
But let's presume we go forward with removing Railway lines in Ain (and the rest) from Rhone-Alpes, and only list them under their current parent, Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes. The first file I found in Railway lines in Ain is File:Vélorail - Pugieu (Ain).JPG, a picture from 2010 (in Rhone-Alpes). Currently, it lives fine where it is, in the Rhone-Alpes tree, but if Railway lines in Ain is moved out of that tree, this file is then no longer correctly in it, and so would then need to be added separately back to Railway lines in Rhône-Alpes. This would of course apply to a lot of images. This is not a problem and maybe it is the way to go if we decide sub-territories only belong under their current parent, but it wouldn't obviate the need to keep this category for those images that really are from that region, not the current one.
Alternatively, one could create a sub such as Ain, Rhône-Alpes under Ain for images specific to its time under that parent, with Ain itself living only under Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Then the Rhone-Alpes-specific cat could live as a geographic sub of this category. But again, that would mean keeping this category.
Either way, the fact is that we have images of railways of Rhône-Alpes that are not images of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Thus this category should be kept to retain that connection for those images. If we want to re-work how the sub-categories are arranged, that is fine, but the files of railways Rhône-Alpes should remain somewhere within this category under whatever new structure is adopted. This category therefore should be kept. 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Josh (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries have had regional sudivisions like this change many many times. I don't think it's reasonable to keep them all for all content. Keep general content in the most current geographic categories, and keep only content specifically related to former geographic categories (maps, flags, etc) in those ones. ---- Themightyquill (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water cannon salutes at sea

[edit]
I have two suggestions. First, why should this category specify "at sea"?

Currently almost all of these images are of fireboats in fresh water, or in brackish estuary water - ie, not "at sea".

Second, Wouldn't something like Category:Fireboat salutes or Category:Saluting fireboats be a better choice? While fireboats use water cannons for fighting maritime fires, and for ceremonial salutes, water cannon are also mounted on big trucks, for fighting rioters.

If someone were to organize a salute from the water cannons on a vehicle normally used for fighting rioters, I think it would be best if those images were in a completely different category. Geo Swan (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, how do we distinguish from Category:Ships demonstrating water cannons ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Water cannon salutes at sea
Category:Ships demonstrating water cannons		Merge intoCategory:Watercraft using water cannons
@Geo Swan and Themightyquill: Not sure all of these are actually fireboats, so watercraft is more inclusive. Also not sure that we can always know the purpose of cannon use in an image, so this is again inclusive and if specific uses warrant categories they can be subs of this.
Josh (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Craters

[edit]
See also: en:User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization of craters.

IMO it is nonsense to disambiguate this because of a) subcats that have to dab'd too and b) of many interwiki links pointing here. Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters can be subcats of this one and everything is fine. Achim (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies for Category:Crater lakes. --Achim (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You posted a little bit ahead of me, but not the same list as I was going to suggest. I suggest keeping Category:Craters and Category:Crater lakes as disambiguations because, as happened on English Wikipedia, some well-meaning editor will probably just re-create them again anyway. But we should remove the array of Craters by continent, Craters by country, Craters in (country name), Crater lakes by continent, Crater lakes by country, Crater lakes in (country name), etc. I hadn't assembled that whole list yet. For background on the related cleanup on English Wikipedia, see w:User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization_of_craters. Ikluft (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I agree that it is helpful to distinguish. We should have and use the three cats Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters. The question is: Does a disambig suit our needs better that keeping these 3 cats as subcat members of Category:Craters in a regular manner, same way like d:Q109391 and d:Q55818 are subclasses of d:Q3240715. Regards, --Achim (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do what you want (the category system in general isn't worth much anyway...), I will generate a list of pages pointing to these disambigs that have to be fixed then. --Achim (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the definition of a disambiguation category prohibits any contents including subcategories. Ideally we'd want to limit the subcategories to Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters and Category:Explosion craters, and then force subcategorization into those. Unfortunately, experience has shown that if Category:Craters isn't a disambiguation then people will drop stuff in it, partly because tools like HotCat show the name without a definition. (HotCat re-prompts for the suggested alternatives if a disambiguation is selected.) Given those constraints, the suggestion for reorganizing the categories that I was working on would look like this... (total: keep 2 as disambiguation, delete 101)
So now you can see why that list was taking a little while to assemble... Ikluft (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. So we will have an assignment problem if the cats of 49 wikis + 42 wikis are regular ones linked with 2 disambiguating cats on commons. Do you intend disambiguating these 91 cats as well? Btw, on a wiki I saw a disambig page distinguishing between -Greek vessels and -landforms, then keeping the landforms as regular cats. But I think we will have to live with many wikis not disambiguating "Craters" and "Crater lakes" except just Commons. Good luck! --Achim (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This cleanup was already done on the English Wikipedia in 2009 and is getting maintenance cleanup right now. On Wikidata, the craters category is a disambiguation matching English Wikipedia. Most other wikis tend to follow the big ones. We can proceed one step at a time, and the next step is to clean up the crater ambiguity on Commons. Ikluft (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the first one who tries to transfer en:wp naming or structures to Commons. I'm tired, for the record I strongly  Oppose your suggestions and am off now. --Achim (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's about reducing ambiguity. Nevermind that the same problem exists on multiple wikis - we're dealing with Human nature. If you're giving up, please withdraw your CfD. Ikluft (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will post a CfD as listed above for removal of ambiguous unqualified crater-related categories after this one is closed. It currently blocks my proposal by holding the head of the category tree under process discussion. Ikluft (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no logical reason for Category:Craters to be a disambiguation page. There are different variety of craters, but they are all craters by the same definition. Disambiguation are for wholly unrelated things by the same name. Yes, people might put content into Category:Craters instead of the appropriate subcategories, just as they put content into Category:Vehicles instead of the appropriate subcategories. But we don't turn every category with sub-categories into a disambiguation page. If people put it there, it has a greater chance of being sorted appropriately by someone who can properly identify what time of crater it is. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is logic to it. See the "Categorization_of_craters" essay for background if you haven't already. The Category:Vehicles is a false analogy - vehicles are made of wheels, frames and (usually) motors and have much in common. Craters have a long history across the wikis of causing confusion among well-meaning editors over the apparent similarity in being forms of depressions, but being otherwise unrelated except by a broad definition in the English dictionary which separately lists impact, volcanic and explosion craters in order to fit them in because they're so different. The confusion goes further as people unfamiliar with craters mistake them for other kinds of depressions, such as sinkholes, and vice versa. It is worthwhile to provide some additional help to well-meaning editors. We also have the problem that tools like HotCat don't provide definition info, but will re-prompt for alternatives for a disambiguation category. Disambiguation categories are required to be empty. It would have been ideal if there had been a way for a disambiguation category to contain only their listed alternatives. But that option is not available - since the 3 kinds of craters actually have Category:depression (geology) as their common factor, this isn't a bad choice. Of the imperfect choices available, it's a good compromise which provides assistance for well-meaning editors to avoid a recurring trap of confusion. Ikluft (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the different types of craters are conceptual enough to have a container category so there should probably be a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a new update on my estimate of what a CfD reorg would take to implement this, after looking at how the categories are used. (total 128 categories = 3 disambiguation + 44 rename + 34 merge + 12 delete redirects + 35 delete ambiguous)
  • Keep as disambiguation categories
  • Rename categories (change "in" to "of" for consistency)
  • Merge categories
  • Remove redirect categories with ambiguous unqualified uses of crater
  • Remove categories with ambiguous unqualified uses of crater
If I understand correctly, since all those categories will need notices posted in them, it has to be a separate CfD/CfR/CfM reorg after this CfD closes. I don't think there's a way for this CfD to turn around and redefine itself to such a wider scope. Ikluft (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tunturi Lapland

[edit]

The following categories should be deleted:

Finland already has a comprehensive categorisation structure based on the regions (Finnish: maakunta, Swedish: landskap; Wikidata:Q193512) and municipalitites (Finnish: kunta, Swedish: kommun; Wikidata:Q856076). Adding a sub-region (Finnish: seutukunta, Swedish: ekonomisk region; Wikidata:Q762882) based layer between them only makes it harder to find any actual content without providing any actual improvement to the category structure. In addition, the sub-regions are used only in some strictly administrative purposes in Finland; the term is not in every-day use in Finland. (Most of the Finns probably do not know in which sub-region they are actually living in.) ––Apalsola t • c 11:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Category:Sub-regions of Lapland, Finland. ––Apalsola t • c 10:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Apalsola: Not sure I agree just yet. Sub-regions are an officially recognized level of administrative territorial subdivision. While I wholly agree that extraneous unofficial or amorphous groupings is to be avoided ('northwestern Foo'), official subdivision levels are usually a valid way to organize things by location within a country. It does not seem like there is much use of this level on Commons, but that does not make it an invalid level to organize by. Josh (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland, municipalities are unquestionably the most important level of administrative territorial subdivision. In contrary, subregions are the least important. The risk in adding subregion categories is that the (due to Hierarchic principle) municipality categories (which are the ones that people most likely recognise) would end up being buried somewhere beneath the subregion categories and that would just make finding content more complicated.
We also have to remember that we are talking about a country with a population of only ca. 5.5 million. There are only 19 regions and 310 municipalities in the whole country and municipality names alone are ambiguous (no municipalities share the same name). Thus, I do not think subregion categories would add any real benefit. ––Apalsola t • c 01:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rule 34 (Internet meme)

[edit]

If pornography exists for every conceivable topic, then "rule 34" applies to everything, which is an unreasonably large category. Also, juvenile bulldhit that we don't need here. Thanks anyway. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per the wikipedia article, Rule 34 is a subcategory of erotic art and fanart. The definition doesn't mean "every erotic art." It only applies to erotic art that parodies an already existing (and usually non-erotic) thing, such as fictional characters, store brands, celebrities, anthropomorphic animals (eg yiff), mythical beings, etc. There's no other term for this concept, and it's a distinct category in most erotic art website or forums (See xkcd, reddit, and one of the many image boards based on rule 34). And I wouldn't call it juvenile, as it's a type of adult art. But even if you think it's obscene, that's not a valid reason to remove something here, as that would be censorship. VF9 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship? Hold on there, little fella. No one is saying the images should be deleted, just the category. And not because it is obscene, just because it is not a useful category. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Uncategorizing information makes it harder to find and denies the fact that the files are part of such category, which is information suppression. Deciding to do so on the arbitrarily basis that the information is objectionable (or "juvenile bulldhit," as you put it) is definitely censorship. VF9 (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This category is problematic with its current content. (odd things that were made erotic, which is too broad and subjective for a category) The category could exist for files that specifically refer to rule 34. For example, https://www.xkcd.com/305/ if it had a compatible license. If we don't have such files, there is no need for this category. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment User:VF9 has been blocked as the sockpuppet of a previously blocked user. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:World's Lamest Critic has been globally blocked for "Cross-wiki abuse: Blocked on two wikis for unrelated incidents of publicising other users non-public information". Tm (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Seriously, there are not many files within this category so the claim of ‘applying to everything’ is invalid as of today. It is clearly that only very few files in Wikimedia Commons which are really non-erotic subjects turned erotic images could be categorised as Rule 34. 🐱💬 08:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per above, now somebody please close this ancient discussion that’s been grinding on for two freaking years. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to category:erotic art by subject to better integrate with existing categories. Arlo James Barnes 06:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a logical migration? That sounds like a super-category (albeit a perfectly good one on its own). Dronebogus (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'if it exists, there is porn of it' sounds a lot like 'for every subject that erotic art can depict, there is erotic art' which implies a possibility to break down that set of media by subject. Arlo James Barnes 09:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Valid category and after so many years none of the concerns has materialized. Tm (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PiramideStatus

[edit]

Likely bad and not English name. What does it mean in Spanish? Estopedist1 (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PiramideStatusMove to/Rename asCategory:Social pyramid diagrams
@Estopedist1: Social pyramid (literally status pyramid), it seems to be for 7 versions of an animated GIF, plus a pyramid of conflict escalation thrown in.
Josh (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
enwiki has the article en:Population pyramid. In Commons we have Category:Population pyramids. Actually, the question is: do we need those images at all? Seems to be some sort of personal artwork, except the pyramid of conflict escalation--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 and Joshbaumgartner: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I think we should go forward with the rename. If, as Estopedist1 (talk · contribs) states, the contents are out of scope, handle them with a COM:DR and once the category is empty, it can be speedy deleted. Josh (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:B center

[edit]

Not useful Themightyquill (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Hungarian slang. Exists Category:Ultras--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It is hungarian slang (B-közép), meaningless translate. --Pallerti (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Ultras as a noun does not exist in Hungary. Anyway Ultras does not mean the same as B center. B center means a place in Hungary (B közép). The place at the footbal stadium, where the footbal fans stay. It does not mean people, it means a place. --Elekes Andor (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elekes Andor (talk · contribs) makes a valid point, that the booster section (called different things in different countries I am sure) where the super fans live is fair to be separately categorized from the fans themselves. That said, in this case we have only one file, which is video of a football match, not particularly showing the booster section/B center at all (it has some stands in the background but seems it was filmed from the booster section?) and so really shouldn't be categorized in this cat. This would leave the category empty and needing to be deleted. Alternatively, if it is populated properly, the name should be changed to a more inclusive and descriptive title such as Category:Booster sections or such. So I vote delete unless it is populated in which case rename. Josh (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:College sports by sport

[edit]

Rename to Category:University and college sports by sport or just Category:University and college sports? Or Category:Sports in universities and colleges by sport ? I'd say the "College (sport) in the United States" categories can remain unchanged, since that's regional usage. Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: the parent is Category:Sports in universities and colleges. I also wonder that we haven't something like enwiki en:Category:Sport by university or college Estopedist1 (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hydronymy by black

[edit]

Bad category name. Wouldn't a better name for this and other subcats of Category:Hydronymy by color be something like Category:Bodies of water named for the color black (or blue, or whatever color the category is for)? Auntof6 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Agreed. Hydronymy is the study of the names of bodies of water, not an index of the names themselves, so at a minimum, change to 'hydronyms'. However, I am dubious of the value of this entire line of indexing. I know we have a certain amount of namesake categorization on Commons, but it seems more a way to use categories to create lists than a meaningful way to curate media files. One of my problems with this kind of categorization is that it is making a statement of fact (claim) about a subject that can't be inherently substantiated by the media files themselves. Is the Black River really named for its blackish color, or was it named after a person named Black? Categorization is not generally given citations, so it is hard to track down the legitimacy of such a claim. Josh (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Do you think we should do away with these, or find better names? A better naming convention might be "Bodies of water named black". That could include such bodies no matter which meaning of black they were named for. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communes in Romania

[edit]

Summary: The subcategories of this category need a clear distinction between communes and villages.

Current situation: In Romania, villages are organized in communes, which are themselves organized in counties. Further documentation: en:Administrative divisions of Romania.

As of current date, the naming convention for Romanian communes and villages on Commons is:

  1. communes go by the following title: <commune name>, <county name>.
  2. villages go by the following title: <village name>, <county name>.
  3. multiple villages with the same name in a county are disambiguated using the commune name, e.g. <village name> (<commune name>), <county name>.

As of current date, the categorization convention for Romanian communes and villages on Commons is (with the exception of one county):

  1. communes are categorized in [[Category:Communes in <county name> County]]
  2. villages are categorized in [[Category:<commune name>, <county name>]] and [[Category:Villages in <county name> County]]

Problem: When a commune and a village (which are two distinct entities) share their names (which is almost universal, because communes are usually named based on their seat village), the same category contains files and categories related to the commune and files and categories related to the village.

Example featuring the problem: The problem is beautifully illustrated on Category:Cozmești, Iași. What happens here:

What should be done: The commune and the village should have distinct categories.

Proposed solution: A solution to this problem was already implemented for Category:Communes in Moldova by yours truly, and for Category:Communes in Suceava County by Musichistory2009. Steps:

  1. New category should be created to represent the commune: <commune name> commune, <county name>. It should be categorized in [[Category:Communes in <county name> County]]. It should contain files and categories related to the commune, as well as categories of villages belonging to said commune.
  2. The contents of existent category <village name>, <county name> should be properly re-categorized to include only files and categories regarding the village. Category should be categorized in [[Category:<commune name> commune, <county name>]] and [[Category:Villages in <county name> County]].
  3. The Wikidata item for commune should be updated with the newly created commune category: <commune name> commune, <county name>.
  4. To the Wikidata item for village, links to the <village name>, <county name> category should be added (they are currently set at the commune's Wikidata item).
  5. Wherever possible, commonscat templates should be corrected or added in Wikipedia articles.

Example featuring the solution: Category:Bosanci commune, Suceava. What happens here:

  • Category is linked to the Wikidata item about the commune (d:Q12724565). The Wikidata item about the village (d:Q848206) is linked to its dedicated Commons category: Category:Bosanci, Suceava.
  • Category contains files and categories related to the commune: commune's location, commune's CoA, and categories of the commune's villages.
  • Files and categories related to the village are placed in the village's dedicated category.

Community input: Please review the reported problem and suggested solution, the working examples (Category:Communes in Moldova, Category:Communes in Suceava County), and let me know whether we should put the effort to apply the solution and, if yes, is there something to add/alter to the solution. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I have in plan for 4 years, I'd be happy if this happens. Relevant previous discussions/work: ro:Discuție_Proiect:Localitățile_din_România#La_Commons and User_talk:Strainubot#Categories --Strainu (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category in 2011 to support categorizing a downstream image geographically; I claim no insight into the political organization of Romania and have no views on the correct outcome. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular problem with the proposal, but the "problem" as stated isn't a problem. A church in a village in a commune is also in the commune. So putting the church directly in the commune category isn't a problem (unless the village subcategory exists). A problem is if we have a category for the county and a category for the village, but a church outside the village goes into the village category with the same name. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I agree, we should not get too invested with categorizing trivial items like a landscape image; but eventually a commune's location map would find itself in a different category than village's entrance sign if the solution is adopted. Gikü (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gikü: One tweak I would make would be instead of using the format <commune name> commune, <county name>, I would use <commune name> (commune), <county name>, as 'commune' is strictly disambiguation and so should be in (). Josh (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Thank you for the input. I feel that brackets in this context are reserved to disambiguate a homonymous villages between communes in the same county (<village name> (<commune name 1>), <county name> vs <village name> (<commune name 2>), <county name>). What I also think, but am not too sure of it, is that 'commune' is not exactly disambiguation here and brackets are thus not needed, just like they are not needed for Category:Alba County. Gikü (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gikü: In the case of Category:Alba County, the word 'County' is part of the name (hence it is capitalized), and thus as you point out it does not need (). Were it to be 'Alba county' (lower case county), in that the name is really 'Alba' with 'county' added to describe it further, it should be named 'Alba (county)' (if there were other Albas). So really it comes down to that with these communes. Take the example of Category:Cozmești, Iași. The name is simply Cozmești per en and ro labels on Wikidata, so the 'commune' part should be in () as 'Cozmești (commune)'. This is also true for the village (Cozmești (Q2718462)), which should be 'Cozmești (village)'. ', Iasi' can be added if there are other Cozmestis out there to distinguish from. Now, if both Wikidata items and both Enwiki and Rowiki (and the other wikis I saw that have articles for them) are wrong about the names of these places, and indeed the proper names are 'Cozmești Commune' and 'Cozmești Village', then you would be right in that they should be written that way without (). Of course, in that case, the Wikidata entries and articles on the various Wikis should be changed to reflect that reality, and probably need a more concrete reference clarifying the names to make such a change. As for the case where you have two villages with the same name in the same county (different communes), just use '<village>, <commune1>, <county>' and '<village>, <commune2>, <county>' to differentiate them, no need for () at all. Josh (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: For uniformization purposes, would you advocate for applying such a standard to the subcategories of Category:Communes in Moldova and Category:Communes in Suceava County as well? (e.g. Category:Broșteni (Drăgușeni), Suceava -> Category:Broșteni, Drăgușeni, Suceava; Category:Drăgușeni commune, Suceava -> Category:Drăgușeni (commune), Suceava; Category:Drăgușeni, Suceava -> Category:Drăgușeni (village), Suceava.) Gikü (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gikü: Yes, I would agree with those changes. Josh (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: 's suggestions make sense to me. We might allow more input before applying this to Moldova, though it looks like Gikü has created a lot of that organizational structure. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parquet flooring

[edit]

Is Category:Parquet flooring redundant with Category:Parquetry ? Themightyquill (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parquet flooringMerge intoCategory:Parquetry
Agreed with Themightyquill (talk · contribs). These are one and the same topic so no need for 2 cats.
Josh (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the proposed merge. I have just updated the Wikidata item for parquetry to point to the parquetry category here. It's a better match even if we don't change anything here. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, support the merge. Redirection is good for consistency with cat:laminate flooring
I'm trying --Move |1= Category:Parquetry|2= discussed proposal to merge 2 cats|3= 2021-01-14|4= Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Parquet flooring|5= -- on Category:Parquet flooring.
technically: I can remove duplicate cat entries like ((Category:Parquetry)) ((Category:Parquetry))--Westbahnhof (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I read this correctly, everyone agrees to merge, but @Westbahnhof: is suggesting keeping Category:Parquet flooring, while Joshbaumgartner and Auntof6 prefer Category:Parquetry. Any further thoughts on which to choose? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly partial to one or the other, just a slight lean to parquetry, but certainly not enough to oppose going the other way on it, so long as they merge. Josh (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I, Westbahnhof, also like to merge (to the proposed Parquetry (or anyhow))! I just think, the Redirection from Parquet flooring to Parquetry, which would remain then like I suppose, is good for consistency with cat:laminate flooring.
By the way, I would appreciate a distinction between mosaic/ornamen/artistic symmetric kind of work and laminate/ engineered wood/click-Parkett like work, thinking of it, but this is another thing. None of these cats seems to represent one more than the other. --Westbahnhof (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that in some cases like this (or better book shelves and, what was the other?) with confusion I tend to believe it is better to make just one cat (even if there are slight differences or differences of used word in different English-speaking countries) but add a header saying This cat contains images about parquetry, bookcases, (?book cases :) and parquet flooring on top, but never make cats with the cat-destroyer word "and". (I answered for more than one CfD). --E4024 (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merging manually (Commons delinker is down) --Westbahnhof (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC) done. Westbahnhof (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steamboats of western North America

[edit]

"Western North America" seems like a strangely arbitrary location, and it's awkward to deal with because it includes parts of (but not all of) the United States and Canada. I propose deleting this category and diffusing it to the more common pattern Category:Steamboats by country and Category:Steamboats of the United States by state. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky, because many of the same boats served both countries. Seattle-Vancouver and Seattle-Victoria were both very busy routes; steamers from Alaska to almost anywhere in the Lower 48 often stopped in Canadian ports along the way (e.g. Prince Rupert, as well as the more obvious ones).
What I find more troubling is where we draw the line between "steamboat" and "steamship".
There might well be a better way to sort all of this out, but I'd like to see a concrete proposal and be able to throw some test cases at it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see how it could get messy to categorize ships that range across both the United States and Canada, or multiple states, in multiple categories. Would it maybe be reasonable to categorize ships by route? e.g.
It's also worth noting that "Steamboats of X" need not include any steamboat that merely makes a stop in X; I suppose it includes steamboats for which X is a significant or frequent destination?
The boat/ship distinction exists on a much higher level (e.g. Category:Ships vs. Category:Boats), and is primarily determined by the vessel's size, so I think it should be the same here. It's currently applied differently here - I would confidently say that this image depicts a boat and this image depicts a ship. Category:Steamboats currently says that the distinction is whether the vessel is ocean-going, though. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Steamships of western North AmericaDelete
Category:Steamboats of western North AmericaDelete
Category:Steamboats by riverCreate
"Western" North America is not a defined region so should not be used as a category name. Categorize by flag country (not every country it might visit) in Category:Steamships of country format. To answer Jmabel (talk · contribs) re: boats of multiple countries, if a boat legitimately flew more than one country's flag over its career, it should be listed in each country category, though again, this should only be those countries it actually was flagged in, not every country it 'served'. For steamboats specific to particular rivers, the "Steamboats of the river" categories should be under "Steamboats of country" for each country the river is in and also under Category:Steamboats by river. The distinction between ships and boats is not a concern for this CfD, as BMacZero (talk · contribs) states correctly that is already defined at a higher level (issues with that distinction should be raised in a CfD on Category:Steamboats and Category:Steamships). As for ships that range across multiple states, while one does not technically 'flag' by state, the same principal applies, and so in cases where the official home port is known to be in a particular state, the vessel can be listed under that state, but there is no value to listing it under every state or territory it visits.
Josh (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"By river" seems to me to be way off the mark, since most of these operated on the waters of what is known as the Salish Sea more than they operated on rivers. - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 film festivals by continent

[edit]

Categories should be used to find files, not to hide them in useles and almost empty categories that are hidden in useless and almost empty categories. If I go to Category:2019 film festivals I would like to see the subcategories of all the filmfestivals there are. Yes, if there is an enormous amount of subcategories it could be usefull to make subcategories to divide them between countries. But that is not the case. These subactegories are not helping people to find files, and that is what they were intended for. 2001:1C03:5A02:6900:CC9A:2DE5:1BCC:762 15:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this applies to all subcategories of Category:Film festivals by year by continent so I've tagged it for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Film festivals by continentDelete
Category:Film festivals by year by continentDelete
Includes all subs of film festivals by continent. By continent categories are not strictly useless in all cases, but in the case of film festivals, there are not so many of these that simple 'by country' indexing is more than enough to handle. All non-'by continent' cats in this tree are already sufficiently categorized in 'by country' indices, so we can simply delete the whole 'film festivals by continent' index tree.
Josh (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autographs

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Autograph manuscripts.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Autograph signatures.

The name is confusing. It is easily misuderstood to mean Signatures. This category should be renamed as Category:Autographs (manuscripts). Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autograph manuscripts is already nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
again, for the umptieth time, see the discussion at Wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat#Autograph and autograph-manuscripts for the explanation on why all three categories make more than common sense. How many more times does it need to be explained that not all autographs are signatures, that not all autographs are manuscripts, that not all signatures are autographs, and that English Wikipedia, as well as French Wikipedia, have an article on autographs, meaning an article on autographs both in the "signature" and the "manuscript" meaning. And that, further, several Wikipedias have a separate article on autographs in the "manuscript" meaning, each of these articles deserving an appropriate grouping via an appropriate Wikidata item – so that having a separate category, also for "signatures" (combining files regarding autograph and non-outgraph signatures), is the normal thing to do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I may have gone off half-cocked here. Before I noticed that Francis Schonken had reverted me (he did not ping me) I had moved several hundred autographs that were merely signatures from Category:Autographs to Category:Signatures. Category:Signatures is a subcat of Category:Autograph signatures, which is in turn a subcat of Category:Autographs, so I see no reason that something that is simply a signature should be in Category:Autographs, but perhaps I am missing something, and I'll stay out of this from here forward. It seems to me, though, that these belong in Category:Signatures, and to have them in a grandparent category is COM:OVERCAT. If that is a misunderstanding, feel free to re-add Category:Autographs, but I do not believe Category:Signatures should be removed.
  • For whatever it's worth, I got into this because of a discussion on Wikidata, where someone asked about what appeared to them (and to me) about a mess in terms of linking up the Commons categories in this area to the related Wikipedia articles. Anyway, if others are actually working on this, I think my own view is clear and I don't need to be further involved. If someone needs me to clarify anything I said, etc. feel free to ping me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I reacted with irritation to the whole situation: I was in the midst of sorting it out when I got several reverts, so I couldn't complete the work (couldn't even correct some obvious errors while they might have been seen as re-reverts).
    Jmabel, might you consider to withdraw your CfD proposal above, which at this time seems to have no obvious benefit? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll withdraw it if someone will commit to cleaning up the relevant categories and sorting out what category should be linked where in Wikidata. Tons of things that are just signatures presumably belong somewhere under Category:Signatures or Category:Autographs signatures. When I started this, literally hundreds were directly in Category:Autographs, many of them in no other category at all. Otherwise, this still needs a discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My plan was entirely to sort it all out unto the deepest details. The leave I took from that plan was entirely temporary, until agreement about the direction of the plan was reached. Yesterday I proposed my cleanout of the Wikidata items (and their connected wikipedia articles and commons categories). See Wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat#Autograph and autograph-manuscripts where I posted the scheme I applied for the Wikidata items (my post of 23:39, 30 November 2019). There was no reaction yet, and I'll wait still a bit to see if there are further comments, and then, if and when it seems OK, implement the commons side of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There is no need for three separate parallel discussions about these categories, so I have closed the conversations at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Autograph manuscripts and Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Autograph signatures and subsumed them into a single discussion here which can continue in one place until resolved. Josh (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Three years have passed since the last edit here. Is this still an open issue? —howcheng {chat} 22:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2019&oldid=358769157"