Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]