Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/08

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

Category:Princess Irene dok (ship, 1960)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Ships by name (flat list).

This is a floating dock, not a ship. Commons should not rename things (that are not ships) as "ships" in category names, from a mistaken sense that category members have to be pattern-matched as the same strings. That is just a misunderstanding of how categorization works. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Floating drydocks is a subcategory of Category:Ships by type, so it seems we have taken the position that floating drydocks are ships. I personally agree with that and don't see why they shouldn't be considered a specialized type of ship. The only reason I could possibly think of is if they were not self-propelled (I'm not sure if they are), but we also consider Category:Barges a type of ship, so being self-propelled isn't a requirement either. enwiki also agrees. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ships are all self-propelled. If they aren't, they're barges - or, more broadly, vessels. Barges aren't ships. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current category tree disagrees with you. If you think that's wrong, you should probably widen this discussion. – BMacZero (🗩) 08:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_B_ship "The Type B ship is a United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) designation for World War II barges. Barges are" it seems that it is one of cases where there is no universal definitions agreed on by everyone Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're claiming that an unsourced line in Wikipedia is the sole defining authority for this? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wine and Gastronomy in Cyprus

[edit]

We do not have any similar cat with other countries, and of course less with a wrong use of capitalization. Maybe this should be made a "gallery" better. E4024 (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I suggest to upmerge files and delete the empty category--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Départ et arrivée de la Ronde du Bosmont, Andelnans, 22 Apr 2019

[edit]

Other than this big category we have a huge gallery of the same event (sponsored by some company) with large photographs. All of this for a not notable event seems too much to me. I propose merging the gallery images into the cat, deleting the gallery page, or only making a gallery under a general cat (deleting this one)... Don't know. If people begin to occupy such big spaces for unnoticed (other than locally) events how can we tell other people not to add one personal image to Commons? E4024 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose : It's one of events wich I covered. No reasons to delete this. --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "I covered"? When "you cover" an event it acquires a special status here? (I waited for others to ask you this question but participation at CfDs is quite lower than I would expect.) --E4024 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Gallery has some sort of structuring. Our gallery policy is quite loose. About the category: we should rename it to English, unless it is a proper noun, or the name of the specific event--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women's handball in Turkey

[edit]

This category is redundant and should be deleted as there already is a category named 'Female handball players from Turkey‎' Artamart (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Seems that  keep. Sports discipline and sportsmen are different concepts--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harvested fields

[edit]

Unclear what the difference between Category:Harvested fields and two of its subcats, Category:Crop residue and Category:Stubble fields, is. The three should probably be merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The categories make sense to me as-is. According to my impression and the attached en:Stover, stubble fields are fields harvested of certain crops that leave stubble (not all do). I take Category:Harvested fields to show pictures of the wider context of fields that have been harvested, and Category:Crop residue to show close pictures of the remains of harvesting that aren't pulled out enough to really depict a field (and the usage appears to mostly match my understanding). The only issue I see here is that Category:Crop residue is a subcategory of Category:Harvested fields when it does not depict fields. Perhaps it should be a see-also instead. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @King of Hearts@BMacZero: it seems that to be kept. If different concepts then hatnotes to be added to dinstinguish them. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep at it is. it makes sense. i agree to BMacZero. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 20:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts and @BMacZero- can this CfD tag be removed now?
Category:Stubble fields - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AStubble_fields&diff=437835368&oldid=334371565 Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Medical colleges and universities

[edit]

These categories are quite messy:

  1. we have Category:Medical colleges and universities Category:Schools of medicine Category:Medical schools in the United States. names should be harmonised.
  2. Category:Medical colleges in English refer to some sort of medical associations, which are not teaching institutions. i dont know whether this cat name should be changed to avoid ambiguity.
  3. should this cat include institutions that dont train physicians but other medical personnel such as nurses, paramedics, therapists and midwives? RZuo (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @RZuo: probably wide topic. I just mention that maybe enwiki en:Category:Medical schools (or en:medical school) help to give ideas--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

enwp's structure seems neat. they have Category:Health sciences schools. subcat medical schools is for physicians. and other XX schools for other occupations. RZuo (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of participation, the proposal of RZuo is being implemented. Plus Medical colleges and universities is renamed to Medical higher education institutions. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: just saying, i dont have a proposal. i was hoping more users can brainstorm some ideas on the structure and naming of these cats.--RZuo (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already reorganised the categories related to medical colleges and universities. The scheme I have used is the following:
Of course, for countries without an obvious distinction between universities and colleges, you would merge Medical colleges and Medical universities into Medical higher education institutions. Anyway, thank you and happy editing and uploading! --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok. sounds good. thank you for reorganisation. RZuo (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mount Ondake (Nagasaki)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/08/Category:Mount Tonomine.

@Yasu: problematic (?) requested move:

{{move|Ondake (Nagasaki)|"Mount Ondake" is a redundant term since ''dake'' means "mountain" in Japanese|2020-07-12||Japan}}

for non-Japanese people, the name category:Mount Ondake sounds logically and is self-explaining. Hence, I am neutral Estopedist1 (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Estopedist1. If there were a mountain that literally had the name "Mountain" in English I would probably still have to call it "Mount Mountain" in conversation to avoid confusion. Additionally, a Google search shows most uses do prefix "Mount". We should only omit "Mount" when it is commonly omitted when referring to the mountain, such as Category:Denali. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vilayet of Istanbul

[edit]

@WhisperToMe: problematic requested move:

{{move|Vilayet of Constantinople|2=In Ottoman times "Constantinople" was the name of the whole city in French and English, and as such it was "Vilayet of Constantinople" of "Constantinople Vilayet" in English publications a the time, like [https://books.google.com/books?id=xGJIAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA102 Constantinople To-day; Or, The Pathfinder Survey of Constantinople; a Study] and [https://books.google.com/books?id=9_sWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA30 Journal of Botany, British and Foreign]|3=2020-07-09}}

in short with links: to be moved to category:Vilayet of Constantinople and URLs: Constantinople To-day; Or, The Pathfinder Survey of Constantinople; a Study and [1] Estopedist1 (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: I'm guessing "problematic" is in there because people with nationalist views of Turkey may dispute the usage of "Constantinople" for the Ottoman city, right? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe: I don't know this topic. I just cleaned up old (21+ days) moving requests. This moving wasn't obvious for me and just in case I opened CFD. I also mention that enwiki uses name "Constantinople Vilayet"--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. In any case i support the move. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe: when I see parent Category:Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire, then there is inconsistency of naming. We probably should follow enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Yep ENwiki has en:Constantinople Vilayet WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CfD, with whom? When someone says "people with nationalist views of Turkey may dispute the usage of (whatever)" can there be a civilized discussion? Disputing this user's "views" is already labelled as being "nationalist POV". I will say one sentence to you and nothing else: Go discuss with people as neutral and objective as yourself; and enjoy your discussions. --E4024 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has a point of view, but the reason why a discussion is held, instead of a non-controversial move, is when there is a possibility someone may dispute it. If you do not dispute it, then we may hold the move. And my statement is based on research seen here, in that among "most Turks" it is seen as politically incorrect to call the Ottoman city "Constantinople" even though it was known under that name in Ottoman times. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persons named after Flensburg

[edit]

I suggest deleting this category. This seems to be a category for people named after a municipality in Germany. Not only do we not seem to have a structure for people named after places, but I question whether all these people were really named after the city. Even if the surname (and the variant included in the category's entries) originated from the municipality, that doesn't mean that the people are named after the place. If they are, maybe it would be enough to put the surname categories under the municipality. Auntof6 (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: seems that unique category system, although we have yet Category:People named after Egypt with its subcats and orphan Category:People named after Alexandria (both author is user:Ashashyou)--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftly --- I think it's clear when you look into the scholarly literature that this category is ok. But however, beside the question to the town name, to the combination Flens-Burg: burg means castle and so on .... However. If this should be really the problem (what was first), than move the category to "Persons named Flensburg", and the problem will end. --Sönke Rahn (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barouches by country

[edit]

Is the word "barouches" or "calèches"? Why do we have cats for Calèches in Austria, Canada and Italy and Barouches for the same vehicle in other countries? It is either the first one or the second one; why two different names in English? E4024 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I support harmonizing to "barouche"--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ludorvay

[edit]

Needed to be clarify. We have Category:Ludorvay (open-air museum). Please remove the redirect. Vyacheslav Bukharov (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I am not sure about disambiguation. Maybe the current solution (ie reserving to the village is acceptable). However, I see that Ukrainian Wikipedia has DAB uk:Лудорвай--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hispanic and Latino American actors

[edit]

Hispanic and Latino American? Why is the mother cat only "Hispanic" then? Wrong title. E4024 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please let's at least delete/remove the part "and Latino American" from the cat's name, as this implies any actor from Patagonia to Mexico. Why does nobody participate at these discussions?

Is my mistake searching consensus? Should I simply do things myself the way I believe they would be correct? --E4024 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete As nobody defends this nonsense I will wait for a day or two and later do what I believe correct. (I mean the second option after searching consensus from people who are not interested in my concerns. :) E4024 (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think it would make more sense to move this category to Category:URAA-related deletion requests/undeleted for parity with the other categories under Category:Deletion requests/undeleted. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I see we have both:

All similar categories are as follows:

  1. Category:Albanian FOP cases/restored
  2. Category:Belgian FOP cases/restored
  3. Category:DLI related deletion requests/restored
  4. Category:IA mirror related deletion requests/restored
  5. Category:Israeli FOP cases/restored
  6. Category:Moldovan FOP cases/restored
  7. Category:Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests/restored
  8. Category:Slovenian FOP cases/restored
  9. Category:URAA-related deletion requests/restored
  10. Category:URAA-related deletion requests (Philippine works)/restored

--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Individual

[edit]

What is the purpose of this category? I just depopulated it of pictures (mostly of individuals - groups of 1 person, plus few just mistagged). This should be upmerged to Category:Groups of 1. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose /  Weak oppose It's not an easy problem. It's not simple meaning Category:Groups of 1. I think Category:Objects for Individual.
A comparison of "Individual" or not is exist here.
For example, In normal, Couch is a chair for several people. Therefore, Single couch (for Individual) is not main case. Also Individual packaging & One per one are, In a sense, Dividing-solution (method). --Benzoyl (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, Team sports / Individual sports may "(Both are) even". --Benzoyl (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, There is d:Q795052. Would you mind if I ask you what you think about it? That is the most worrisome. --Benzoyl (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sub of Category:Individual adjectives and as such is a category which contains any categories which are described by the adjective 'individual'. I'm not super-convinced that these categories are useful or that we have a good schema for them, but nonetheless so far as they exist, this is one of them and is valid to keep, though probably with only categories under it. Josh (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Solo
Category:Single		Merge intoCategory:Individual
three different adjectives all describing generally the same basic concept, we don't need three separate categories for this.
Josh (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Philosophical topic, but maybe we should solve these questions somehow with DAB page(s). By the way, en:Individual is responding to Commons Category:1 person--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, Benzoyl, Joshbaumgartner, and Estopedist1: What should we do with Category:Individual, Category:Solo and Category:Single categories? As Josh has pointed out, all three adjectives are describing the same concept. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 I'm fine with a dab page, but I still think all three ought to be merged into one and it can then dab to the various things it could mean. Josh (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one (Groups of 1). Right now we have a terrible mess with categories listed above, which haphazardly contain various subcategories that use words 'solo', 'single' or 'individual' somewhere in the title. Those would be bad Wikipedia categories and are bad Commons categories; the make about as much sense as having Category:Big that would be grouping Category:Big data, Category:Big Brother and Category:Big Ben. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Folk dance by country

[edit]

Both this cat and all national subcats therein must be pluralised as there is no country, I guess, with only "one folk dance". OTOH, this causes nonsensical classification like "Category:Folk dances in Azerbaijan" when we also have "Category:Folk dance of Azerbaijan". Indeed we should only have "Category:Folk dances of Azerbaijan". E4024 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. "Folk dances" (plural) would be for specific dances, such as Category:Tarantella. "Folk dance" (not plural) would be for the concept, and might contain media/categories related to events or groups that do different folk dances. It could contain the category/ies with the plural word. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. Exactly like @Auntof6 said, but currently we even haven't category:Folk dances, but we probably even should have category:Folk dances by country. By the way, enwiki has both en:category:Folk dance and en:category:Folk dances Estopedist1 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soups and stews of Switzerland

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:Soups and stews.

I am opening discussion over an RD I just created. This (former) category had no stews in it. What I want to open to discussion is we should eliminate all "soups and stews" cats. Category:Soups and stews of Switzerland, Turkey, France all. Why? First, because a soup is a soup and a stew is a stew. Secondly, we do not like cats with "and" which cause confusion. Yes, some plates may resemble (or be considered) both a soup and a stew; say the Turkish cuisine "tavuk haşlama", it can enter into Category:Soups or Category:Stews. Then there is no problem in adding such a dish into both cats. We really do not need "soups and stews" cats; if you look at country cats and their mother cats you will see a lot of confusion (disorder) due to this "and practice". Let us eliminate all "soups and stews" cats. Please. E4024 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support deleting/renaming all "soups and stews" categories. Category:Soups and Category:Stews are separate categories (although stews is a subcat of soups), so subcats should also be separate. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you say "although stews is a subcat of soups" because this nonsense is a fact (I just noticed :) or do you really think they are? Look at the category image of stews, I see no water there. --E4024 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  weak keep In many languages and for many people these are similar categories, many people will be searching for them in this manner. In Russian there is a term "первое", it is similar to English "main course", but it refers to [soup|broth|boulion|stew]. Am I unfamiliar with the similar term in English, this would be the best supercategory. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿)

stale discussion. Same problem in enwiki: en:Category:Soups and stews by country and en:Category:Soups by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public domain by country

[edit]

the subcats are ridiculous. why some use hyphens and some whitespaces?!!! i believe they should be standardised.

i suggest the format PD-country name be adopted, since it seems to me these cats were initially named to follow the template names? e.g. {{PD-Russia}} puts files into Category:PD-Russia? and because all the templates have names with hyphens linking PD and country names, we should probably do the same for cats?--RZuo (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why open a discussion for this category?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of these three options:

  1. Do nothing. Leave them as they are.
  2. PD-country
  3. PD country

feel free to add extra solutions you think of.--RZuo (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

[edit]
#1 Do nothing
[edit]
#2 PD-country
[edit]
  1. For reasons I have given at start.--RZuo (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. And redirect the ones with spaces, so it won't break the current templates. We should utilise redirects way more often in this way. Plus all the major ones are already hyphenated like {{PD-US-Gov}} and {{PD-old}}. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You might as well start doing it now and see if anyone objects. Zoozaz1 (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Obviously, for consistency with the templates. I have a script to mass-move categories, so if this is closed, I could realise the decision. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I realised this is done through templates here, but I have a mass-cache-purging script and could help with that, too. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. And redirect the ones with spaces, so it won't break the current templates, per Donald Trung.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I support this format for consistency. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
#3 PD country
[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

I prefer option 2, but I think that redirects will work better than outright deleting the ones that use spaces instead of hyphens. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PD Polish
[edit]

imho Template:PD-Polish should be moved to Template:PD-Poland, and Category:PD Polish to Category:PD-Poland, right?--RZuo (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: Right.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It would save us the confusion. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

When renaming any of these categories, don't forget to change the category on the templates (sample edit). Otherwise the files wont be recategorized and remain in the redirected category. If you can't edit the page yourself, please place a {{Edit request}} on the template's talk page. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and white photographs in Europe

[edit]

@Senator2029: problematic requested move:
{{move|Black and white photographs of Europe|reason=All subcategories use the "of" preposition not "in". <span style="background:#000;padding:1px 3px;border:2px solid #0ff; font: .8em Futura, Optima, serif; font-variant: small-caps;">[[:User talk:Senator2029|<span style="color:#0ff">Senator2029</span>]]</span> 04:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC) |3=2020-05-06}}[reply]

Moving to category:Black and white photographs of Europe is quite massive. Affected also: Category:Black and white photographs by continent Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disease outbreaks

[edit]

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:ŠJů) rational: This category to be moved to category:Epidemics, because:

"See en:Disease outbreak: The terms "outbreak" and "epidemic" have often been used interchangeably. Researchers Manfred S. Green and colleagues propose that the latter term be restricted to larger events, pointing out that Chambers Concise Dictionary and Stedman's Medical Dictionary acknowledge this distinction. Really, this distinction is not usable for Commons categorization and the two categories work as duplicates and cause muddle and overcategorization, because epidemics are categorized also directly as outbreaks."

. Date: 2020-04-20

My comment: en:Disease outbreak and en:Epidemics are different articles Estopedist1 (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with Estopedist1's comment and suggest closing by rejecting this move .--RZuo (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT move: Larger events are Category:Pandemics, see also en:List_of_epidemics. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, there are outbreaks (plague in New Mexico, typhus in Los Angeles) that don’t become epidemic. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collars of chivalric orders

[edit]

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Carolus) rational: This category to be moved/merged to category:Collars of orders, because: "same category, different names". Date: 2020-04-28 Estopedist1 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communities in Nevşehir Province

[edit]

We have no "communities" as subdivisions in Turkey. We cannot invent terminology to our own taste. Please stop doing this and let us get it deleted. Those places may well stay under the categories of the "districts" to which they belong. E4024 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These places in this category are not district. So, they cannot belong there. Such settlements are called as 'belde' in Turkish but I did not want to create a page with such naming. I think the most decent defining word was community. The name of the category may be changed but they should not be listed under the district category. Thanks. --Gargarapalvin (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who said they were districts? --E4024 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only said they could stay under the cats of their districts. I am not proposing to open a cat for "belde"s because I do not see any need for it. If it were necessary of course we could open cats with the name belde, why not? What about Category:Freguesias of Portugal? Do we Turks have a complex to show we do speak English? (If we can barely do that it is because thanks to our Kurtuluş Savaşı guided by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk we did not become a British colony, and learn English instead of our national language, BTW. :) --E4024 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gargarapalvin if you do not have anything more to say I will either get the cat deleted or move the title to "Beldes" instead of the meaningless "communities". (Use that word for human groups better, like "Turkish communities in Central European countries".) --E4024 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @E4024: There is no need for obstinacy. Let's close the discussion. Then, we can use "Belde" for this category and future contents I think. Have a nice day! --Gargarapalvin (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since now Category:Beldes in Turkey exist, all categories can be moved there and this category can be deleted. May you close this discussion? @Túrelio @Achim55 @Mdaniels5757 @Josh Tün (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tün: Wouldn't we just rename this category to Category:Beldes in Nevşehir Province? Josh (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psyche

[edit]

Psyche to DAB. Same in enwiki: en:Psyche Estopedist1 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Combustion engine-powered pumps

[edit]

Not a useful defining scope. "combustion engines" conflates petrol and steam pumps, but it excludes electric or wind pumps. This just isn't a slice through "pumps" that is ever relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created it so that pumps powered by gasoline and diesel engines (of which we have many pictures) wouldn't be left unsorted when we have categories for electric and wind pumps (among others). And I don't think I'd call what happened to steam pumps "conflation" when they still have their own category as a subcategory of this one. They're not just mixed in with the gasoline- and diesel-powered pumps now.
What categorization scheme do you think would be better? Perhaps "Internal combustion engine-powered pumps", to specifically exclude steam pumps (with their category then being a sibling of this one)? ← PointyOintment ❬t & c❭ 03:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even then though, that's still not a useful categorisation. Diesel engines range from small portable pumps on building sites ("portable IC pumps" could be a useful grouping) but also to the huge diesel pumps on land drainage or water supply schemes in the 1930s-1950s. There's no reason to combine those two groups.
It's easy to make intersectional categories, but even when each parent is clearly a significant group, that doesn't mean that their simle intersection is. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young people in Turkey

[edit]

Over this Turkish cat (I am from Turkey) I open to discussion all similar "young people in" cats. Better said, I am kindly asking to rename these cats to "of" instead of "in". We have category:Old men of Turkey, we have category:Old women of Turkey and suddenly we make a turn and have "Category:Young people "in" Turkey". This is nonsense. Sorry. E4024 (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I chose this national cat, because I myself opened it, following the other examples. I know that some people get disturbed when their deeds are put into discussion, that is why I chose this cat for a general discussion. --E4024 (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Category:People by country by age the cat tree uses "of" most often. It also sounds better.--RZuo (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Big mess. Same problem with subcategories in category:Old people by country. Can native English speakers suggest which preposition we should use? Eg @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the intention. We have Category:People by country and Category:People by country of location. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There are cases (Armenia, Brazil) where categories exist for both "in" and "of". Maybe the "in" categories should be moved to something like Category:Young people by country of location. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

should be merged with Sculptures in the National Gallery of Art Oursana (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There doesn't appear to be another national gallery with the words "of Art" in the name, so we could probably keep the category without the location qualifier, instead of keeping this one. However, that is only a weak preferences for me. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one: the National Gallery of Art in Nigeria. The "(Washington, D.C.)" qualifier was used to distinguish the image files that were being donated directly from the Gallery to Commons, which are color-checked hi-res images (shot in a studio directly from the artwork) with embedded metadata, from those uploaded by other users, which can vary in accuracy and quality. If you insist on merging the categories, I'd recommend keeping it as a sub-category of Images from the National Gallery of Art, so that all the images donated by the Gallery remain in the same place. Thanks. -- Brwz (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brwz: I see. I guess what I should have said is that I didn't see a category here for another national gallery with "of Art" in the title. I just looked and still didn't find one. Did I miss it, or do we actually not have one? In either case, if there is another gallery, we should keep the qualifier even if we don't have a category for the other one so that things won't get miscategorized in the future.
This being the case, I would propose that any category intended to hold only images donated by the gallery should indicate that somehow -- it could have "from the National Gallery of Art (Washington, D.C.)" in the name -- and be in a dedicated subtree under the main museum category. The qualifier in the name of the category we're discussing just looks like it's trying to indicate which "National Gallery" it's for. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brwz: @Auntof6: Sub of Images from the National Gallery of Art if really necessary should be "Images of sculptures from the National Gallery of Art", the hidden system causes mass and mixture. You do not have the separation in paintings, drawings, prints either--Oursana (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oursana: Any category with "from the National Gallery of Art" in the name should be for files donated by the gallery, and any subcats under it should specify "from the National Gallery of Art". Many of the subcats here don't specify that, so they shouldn't be under Category:Images from the National Gallery of Art.
By the way, pinging only works if you save a new timestamp in the same edit as the ping, so I didn't get your ping; I only saw your post because I am watching this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brwz: @Auntof6: : so Sculptures in the National Gallery of Art (Washington, D.C.) should be moved to Sculptures from the National Gallery of Art (Washington, D.C.) or Images of Sculptures from the National Gallery of Art (Washington, D.C.), super cat would be Images from the National Gallery of Art--Oursana (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Settlement border signs in Austria

[edit]

I consider this to be an unnecessary duplicate of Category:City limit signs in Austria, IMHO there is no need to split these by type of settlement, where the Austrian StVO does not make a difference. Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I found this better named uppercategory, because not each settlement with a sign is a city, but every time a settlement. But I have not a problem with the other name, but than the uppercategories should be only one and not two. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 07:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NS: So the Category:Settlement border signs should be closed too. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 07:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see Category:City limit signs and related town sign (Q266488): Verkehrszeichen zur Kennzeichnung einer Ortschaft --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, aber dann ist dort die Commonscat falsch eingetragen, denn es steht untr der englischen Bezeichnung road sign placed at the side of the road or street at the boundary of the territory of a city, town, or village.
Es gibt dann auch noch Category:Municipal border signs - was wieder was anderes, aber ähnliches ist. Unsere Ortstafeln sind auf alle Fälle nicht auf Städte beschränkt und daher nicht korrekt. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 20:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Die englische Bezeichnung city, town, or village schmeißt alles zusammen, was mE richtig ist. Bei uns heißen die Tafeln Ortsanfang und Ortsende (de:Ortstafel (Österreich)) unabhängig welcher Typ von Ort oder Gemeinde vorliegt. Gilt wohl analog auch für DE (de:Ortstafel (Deutschland)). Ob die Kategorie heißt wie sie heißt oder anders, macht bezüglich der Einsortierung keinen Unterschied. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

demnach wäre ja das settelement border signs richtig, aber nur die. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 08:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn du der Meinung bist, dann betreibe bitte die generelle Umbenennung von Category:City limit signs in Category:Settlement border signs, was ja legitim ist, aber bevor zu einen parallelen Kategoriebaum zum bereits existierenden aufbaust. Mir geht die Einheitlichkeit vor, dir der korrekte Name, um den Preis, dass du einfach Uneinheitlichkeit erzeugst. Der korrekte Name wäre ohnehin Ortstafel, jede Übersetzung der notwendigen Abstraktion in einem länderübergreifenden Projekt geschuldet. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
da gebe ich dir rechrt, allerdings hab nicht ich ihn begonnen. Ich kann schon ändern aber dann sollten noch andere Meinungen sein. Ich weiß nämlich auch nicht, welche du von beiden, unabhängig von der Arbeit oder doppelgleisigkeit, als richtig siehst. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 14:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Herzi Pinki@Karl Gruber: what is the situation here? We have both parent Category:Category:Settlement border signs by country and Category:City limit signs (with many country categories) Estopedist1 (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As categories are in English language, we just have to follow the English terms settlement and city to decide which is what. Settlement obviously is a hyperonym (Überbegriff) of city, town, village etc. (vice versa: city, town ... are hyponyms of settlement) - see this page on the English Wiktionary. so, City limit signs in Austria has to be a subcategory of settlement signs in Austria. All the more, as there are signs indicating a border of a settlement in Austria which are different from city limit signs (such as this one). They are settlement border signs as well (even though the localities named by these signs are subdivisions of a municipality). (I don't know, whether there is a specific name for those sign.) Austrian Ortstafel might be a third kind of settlement border signs in Austria as well. So, what's the problem? Eweht (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serving food

[edit]

Should it not be integrated with Category: Cuisine dining and serving? SpiderMum (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Sounds reasonable, but I am not 100% sure. Some other comments are needed here, before we will act Estopedist1 (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But can there be first a clear definition/description for Category:Cuisine dining and serving? Because I do not understand well what that category is about. Is it about serving by people (like by a waiter or waitress) and/or about objects on a table, the way a table has been set? And what is the difference with Category:Serving and dining? JopkeB (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Support although I believe both categories to be clumsily named. Renaming Category:Serving food to Category:People serving food should clear up at least some of the confusion between the two categories. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spiral stairs

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/08/Category:Stairways.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Steps.

This category is a redirect from Spiral staircases. I propose that Spiral staircases is the preferred architectural term. It includes not only the stairs but the structure holding the stairs together i.e. the spiral staircase. Stairs or steps can exist for separate parts of a spiral staircase i.e. if only parts of a spiral staircase are shown that do not show its wonderful spiral form.

I found many uncategorized spiral staircase images that were called or described as "spiral staircases". Since there is no category for spiral staircases, they were left uncategorized or were put in another category that did not mention "stairs" or "staircase" at all. I believe the reason for this is the lack of a proper category for spiral staircases which are a unique form of staircase. Just "staircase" does not do justice to a spiral staircase, nor does spiral stairs, in my opinion. Krok6kola (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not a redirect. Category:Spiral staircases redirects to this category. I made that redirect 12 years ago. And the thing here about "Stairs or steps can exist for separate parts" etc. is fatuous near-nonsense. For one thing "stairs" can mean staircase (e.g. "use the stairs"). For another, individual spiral stairs are necessarily part of a staircase, and there is nothing wrong with using a category to refer to something that shows only part of the thing named. We don't require that every image in Category:Abraham Lincoln show the late president in his entirety, or that every image in Category:France portray the entire country. There should only be one category here, not Category:Spiral stairs and Category:Spiral staircases. The other should be a redirect.
That said, I think Category:Spiral staircases would be the better category name. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin, Wouterhagens, JotaCartas, DenghiùComm, Waldyrious, Eugenio Hansen, OFS, Bohème, Santosga, Ingolfson, Docu, ŠJů, Mattes, G.dallorto, and Ronaldino: pinging the human editors who have worked on this category. If I somehow missed someone, please ping them as well. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a naive question from a non-native English speaker: if English Wikipedia redirects "staircase" to "stairs", is there any particular reason Commons should do the other way around? Thanks. --A.Savin 15:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO I think that "Stairs" is a generic word for all kind of stairs (e.g. the mother cat of "spiral stairs", "staircases", "stair ramps", etc.). So "spiral stairs" is the mother cat of different elicoidal stairs. IMO a staircase il a big stair, e.g. in a palace. A spiral stair usually can be very narrow, e.g. in wood in a library, where only one person can go up at the time. I would call "spiral staircase" a spiral stair in a palace where more people can go up at the same moment. DenghiùComm (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonjour. Keep it the way it is since 12 years : simple and understandable by everyone.
    1. The problem is a question of vocabulary and also a BE/AE conflict : what some call staircase, is a stairwell (AE) or stairway for others. All these words are used for a stair flight or series of stair flights and landings. Usually staircase ist understood as including the surrounding structure. The dictionnaries (see onelook.com) do not unanimously define if surrounding structure designates the room inside a building and specially dedicated to enclose the stair flight(s) — that seems to be what BE speakers understand — or if it means only the stairs and the surrounding railing system (balustrades, handrails). The word staircase is kept out of the english Wikipedia (redirected to stairs) and, by the way, it is also systemtically dropped from the Getty art & architecture Thesaurus in favour of the preferred word stairs (see Getty).
    2. Spiral stairs in medieval castles were for defensive reasons part of the surrounding staircase tower wall (and clockwise turning for the same reasons). This is no longer the case today. Contemporary spiral stairs have certainly surrounding safety structures, but they are not necessarily placed indoor nor in a particular room. Space saving in comparison to classic staircases, they may be found in the corner of a living room or any other room of a building and lots of them are outside.--Bohème (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Floating spiral stair museum, entrance hall
    Floating spiral stair
    museum, entrance hall
  • spiral stair painter's atelier
    spiral stair
    painter's atelier
  • Solid newel stair windmill ground floor
    Solid newel stair
    windmill ground floor
  • Solid newel stair observation tower
    Solid newel stair
    observation tower
  • Solid newel stair outside, by Niemeyer
    Solid newel stair
    outside, by Niemeyer
  • Staircase, palace
    Staircase,
    palace
  • Staircase, opéra house
    Staircase,
    opéra house
  • Staircase, mansion
    Staircase,
    mansion
  • @Jmabel: Considering the comment above by User:Bohème and considering so much in stairs which is apparently used as a basis is unsourced or poorly sourced, what persuaded you to put the redirect on Category:Spiral staircases? How was consensus determined and how was it decided what language version to use?
  • Merriam-Webster: Definition of spiral staircase: a set of stairs that winds around a central post or column.
  • Merriam-Webster definition of a staircase 1.the structure containing a stairway, 2. a flight of stairs with the supporting framework, casing, and balusters
  • And Merriam-Webster definition of stairs: 1. a series of steps or flights of steps for passing from one level to another —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction, 2. a single step of a stairway
  • Merriam-Webster Merriam-Webster definition of a stairway: one or more flights of stairs usually with landings to pass from one level to another.
    Clearly not everyone agrees on any version, given that so many uncategorized files had "spiral staircase" in their name and at least two editors were happy to see the new category immediately after its formation. Also, many files in Category:Stairs (the Wikipedia article has a "sources needed" tag on it) have spiral staircase in their file name. I am trying to figure this out. Krok6kola (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made my category a redirect to avoid duplication, once I saw that the other category existed.
    • As I said, I prefer "staircases" but I don't think it is important. What is important is to be consistent.
    • At this point consensus can be inferred from 12+ years of the category keeping the same name with numerous people working on it and no one raising an objection until now. I personally think that consensus should change, but as I say, I don't think the name is important if the other is there as a redirect.
    • I definitely oppose having two undistinguished or barely distinguished categories with different names. Any consistent naming policy is better than that. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohème: Maybe off-topic, but as a native speaker of American English, I'd say a stairwell in not a stairway or staircase. The former is the enclosed architectural space in which the latter is built. In common usage, stairway or staircase can include the stairwell, but not vice versa. - Jmabel ! talk

1. Category:Spiral stairs by country ;
2. Category:Spiral stair with spindel/solid newel stairs ;
3. Category:Concrete stairs ;
4. Category:Cantilever stairs ;
5. Category:metal railings ;
6. Category:Stair railings... ;
7. Category:Stair soffitts (lacking/optional)
What else ? Stair towers?
@Jmabel: I'm afraid only few contributors and users are well aware of that and are able to use the adequat categories. --Bohème (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: Categories for discussion 2008/08 / Stairways gets to the point. User:Werewombat (now @Ipoellet: ) stated :
« The Commons is a multilingual project (as illustrated by the no fewer than 30 languages that the word "stairs" was translated into). Given which, I'm concerned that this discussion is relying too heavily on subtle shades of meaning in English that may not exist in other languages [...]. ... keep this set of categories accessible to contributors and users of all languages... »
I very much agree with that and would add: keep it easy for those who do the categorization job !
— Most of the contributors are simply filling the Category:Stairs, some even use Category:Steps. And of course, the more categories exist, the less they are used and maintained. Adding one more (and douzens in the by country categories) means more categorization tasks and IMO a big waste of time for an extremely poor result.
— Are you aware of the fact that a new category:Spiral staircases does not make the category:Spiral stairs redundant, but that the latter will still be needed for spiral stairs by orientation (it's not the staircase that turns left or right, but the stair) and for close-ups which do NOT show the staircase itself but details (solid newels, winders...) ? --Bohème (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The indicated source onelook.com is exhaustive (one click to get the Oxford, Cambridg and Collins dictionaris) if you had the kindness of sparing me the copying. I don't mind about the language version and about who decided what, but I am very much attached to the idea that categories should be easily understood and usable by everyone around the world. I join Jmbabel and strongly oppose having two different named categories for the same purpose. My preference is for the current version --Bohème (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohème: I agree with you. I added the See also Categories for discussion 2008/08 / Stairways for that reason. Thank you for that one click source! It is clear this is a longstanding problem that causes confusion and has resulted in a mess of categories, most with no definition at the top. Hopefully now is the opportunity to thoughtfully resolve the problem. The directions existing at the top of a few of the categories e.g.Category:Spiral stairs, Category:Staircases are confusing (just now I can not remember other categories that have directions at the top). Some of these direction I think are wrong e.g. Category: Stairways "for streets and footpaths with steps". All of this causes some arbitrary reversions by other editors based on this confusion. I believe a simplification of categories with clear, simple (hopefully sourced-based) criteria for each would be best. Are we not supposed to respect to some degree the file name uploaders put on their images, or should we rename? Krok6kola (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category names do not particularly follow the filename a user happens to have used (those don't even happen to be in English) and tiny distinctions between categories are a bad idea: things tend then to get miscategorized a lot, and someone who is looking for something -- the main reason we have categories -- will have a harder time finding it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Krok6kola:  : see the guidelines in Commons:File renaming. Unless non-sense and completely meaningless file names please avoid the renaming. For improving lacking, confusing or erroneous category definitions on top of a category pages please open a new discussion under the affected category and "ping" us. Please do the same in Category:Stairs if you wish to start a general discussion about the simplification of the category tree. --Bohème (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there are no further questions regarding spiral stairs, please close this discussion. Thx. --Bohème (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Bohème: I am very aware of Commons:File renaming. I regret that comment; it seems to have led further comments to focus on that minor remark rather than the problems I tried to outline with the categories. For example, are you saying that Category: Stairways is correctly described as "for streets and footpaths with steps"? In response to a comment above that stairwells are not a stairway or staircase, you say: "I'm afraid only few contributors and users are well aware of that and are able to use the adequat[sic] categories." It seems nothing has resulted from this request other than the acknowledgment that the categories are not clearly defined to the users. Krok6kola (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krok6kola: Don't regret: I hear and do understand you. You are absolutely right. The whole Category:Stairs root needs definitely revision and correction, and all of it's sub-cateogries require a check of their description (possibly also a check of their translation and wikidata), but the current category discussion titled spiral stairs is not the appropriate space to start such a much wider debate that has been requested by many users for ages (see on top: 2008 !). The few of us discussing on this page will not be able to accomplish such an extensive task, can not make decisions for the whole community on our own, and should not do it here where nobody expects such a discussion. For this reason I recommend to continue the discussion in a new category-for-discussion thread. I would say that it would be easier to find a consens for the definition of the mostly rejected category:stairways in the category-for-discussion:stairways rather than in -:spiral stairs or -:steps. What I meant : if we are in agreement about spiral stairs, please close this discussion and re-open one on the right page for the suite of the discussion (concerning another matter than spiral stairs). The probability of obtaining a result will increase ... Good prospects, right ? --Bohème (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/08&oldid=918076058"