Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in September 2020.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/09.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2020-09.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Female artificial red hair

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:Female red hair.

Arbitrary sorting by whim often takes place by users who do not actually know that the hair color is artificial. Can be insulting to living persons so categorized. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female artificial red hairMerge intoCategory:Artificial red hair
Category:Male artificial red hairMerge intoCategory:Artificial red hair
gender and hair color are an unrelated intersection.
Josh (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing, E4024, Auntof6, and Jeff G.: Any thoughts on @Joshbaumgartner's proposal? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: arbitrary sorting by whim often takes place by users who do not actually know that the hair color is artificial. Can be insulting to living persons so categorized and also impossible to verify in many cases. Red hair OK. "Artificial" not OK. What's so vital about whether or not it's real? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: Sure, that makes sense.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women of the United Kingdom

[edit]

Category:Women in the United Kingdom redirects here. That category would be perfectly clear: women who were in in the United Kingdom when the media was taken.

But this category could mean anything: in the United Kingdom, living in the United Kingdom, consider themselves to be from the United Kingdom, born in the United Kingdom, etc.

Example: File:Nude in public.jpg is now in the categories Nude women in the United Kingdom and 21st-century women of the United Kingdom. We do not know where this woman is from, only that she was in the United Kingdom when the photo was taken. I wanted to change the latter category to “21st-century women in the United Kingdom” (which would make the former category redundant), then I found this redirect. Brianjd (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Etsidun. Brianjd (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With natioanility, most people are clearly associated with one country (though this isn't always the case). The "Women of England" category contains English women, for example. But I can't see a rationale for redirecting Category:Women in the United Kingdom to Category:Women of the United Kingdom. There will be some overlap, of course, but in reality surely "Women of the United Kingdom" means "British women", while "Women in the United Kingdom" means women located in the UK when they were pictured. Sionk (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. If I see Category:Women by location, then subcategories are predominantly with the proposition "of". Because "of" is semantically wider (and more ambigious) than "in", then I am not sure which one should we prefer--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianjd, Sionk, and Estopedist1: What should we do with "women of" and "women in" categories? I support both categories with "in" categories under "of" categories. Pinging @Joshbaumgartner since he has worked extensively on people-related categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Using Category:People by country as the high-level index, we should maintain the same structure down through all of the people-country categories as best as possible per the Hierarchic Principle. "Category:People of <country>" is the highest-level people-country format, and cover all people related to a country regardless of that relationship. If only one such category exists for a certain people topic and country, it should use "of". If it makes sense, subs of this can be made such as "in" to specifically cover people physically located within a country, "from" to cover people that were born or originated from that country, and so forth.
The current Category:Women of the United Kingdom is valid as it is. It is also valid to have Category:Women in the United Kingdom redirect here, until such time as the contents of the "of" category that are specifically of women depicted physically within the UK are diffused to the "in" category (and it then would be its own category, not a redirect, under the "of" category). Josh (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galip

[edit]

We can make this a subcat of Category:Wood shavings or simply merge in; why do we need a foreign name for something universal? E4024 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Could any French user solve this CFD? Eg @Yann, VIGNERON, and Thibaut120094: ? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Girls reading in art

[edit]

If these girls become older they enter into the "Category:Reading women in art". One of these must be renamed: either "reading" before or after, but in both. E4024 (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I probably created this category because I saw "Category:Females reading in art". --Mjrmtg (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a native speaker please spend some of your volunteer time here to harmonize all those cats with one "correct" style. --E4024 (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. The nominated category is logical subcategory of Category:Females reading in art. We need concrete proposals what should be renamed--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: E4024 (talk · contribs) (unfortunately inactive since 2021) is correct here, in that the Universality Principle would dictate that it should be one format or the other. A more recent CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:People by posture has settled on "<people> <activity>" being the preferred format and this should be applied to people reading categories (in fact I believe it is pretty close to implemented there already). Unless there is something else specific to discuss, this can be closed as resolved. Josh (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Environmental art

[edit]

Please see Category talk:Ecology in art. We have a cat farm, similar cats being added to certain files. I am sure categorization around environment/ecology (and "art") can be made simpler. E4024 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki says that en:ecological art and en:environmental art are different concepts Estopedist1 (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude women with shoes

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01/Category:Topless and barefoot female.

Other “nude” categories are subcategories of corresponding “nude or partially nude” categories. This category used to follow this rule, but now it is a redirect to the corresponding “nude or partially nude” category, which makes no sense! Brianjd (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nureongi

[edit]

A dog type nureongi does not exist. See also the recent comment on English wikipedia. Christian Bolz (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also made that comment in German here. --Christian Bolz (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Christian140: both discussions are still unanswered. Because the topic is suspicious and we have only one suspicious (?) file in this category (File:Dog Meat.jpg) we can upmerge the sole file and delete the empty category Estopedist1 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ulkar Umudova

[edit]

If her name is Ülkər Umudova, why do you write it differently here? In Azerbaijan they use the Latin Alphabet as far as I know. From calling your language "Turkish" in the past you came to not only use a new denomination for it and a "somehow special" Latin Alphabet, but now you also write proper names of Azerbaijani people in English media "differently". Why? In Wikidata we have the female given name "Ülker" and I added it to her. Do we also need to make "Ülkər"? And what about "Ulkar", where does her name appear as Ulkar, other than here, and why? E4024 (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Because in official profile in FIDE - Ulkar Umudova.--Nicat49 (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed. I am making a general inquiry for the good of Commons. Do people from Azerbaijan have two names in Latin script, one at home and the other at FIDE (or whichever other site)? Why? And why would we not use their original names? --E4024 (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I am not familiar with Azerbaijani transliteration, but maybe user:Mardetanha can help?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories containing images of Quranic verses

[edit]

These two categories contain images of individual verses of the Qur'an uploaded by a user who has been absent from Commons for at least six years (and, incidentally, from the Urdu Wikipedia for five). While it is clear that the text of the Qur'an is public domain worldwide (as evidenced by its presence on the Arabic Wikisource), it is unclear whether these raster renderings of each verse are also necessarily public domain.

In the case of the latter of these categories, the source given (which has since moved to this URL) does not provide a license for the images, nor for any other textual items, rendered as images or otherwise. (The only licensing information of any sort hinted at anywhere on the website, after a trip to the Wayback Machine to identify a broken link, is a CC-BY-NC license on the MP3s hosted therein.) In the case of the former of these categories, it is not clear whether in fact all 6,236 images subcategorized therein are renderings by said user, and a complaint to this effect was made about five years ago on the uploader's talk page.

If there is in fact a problem with the uploads of these verse images, then the other uploads of this user (which, judging from the user's total upload count, is few in number) may also need to be checked. --Mahir256 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any additional creativity present in the rendering of the text over and above the text itself, so I don't think there is a copyright problem here. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a categorization problem here and around (Urdu verses). 186.174.89.102 17:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dargahs

[edit]

If a "Dargah is a shrine built over the grave of a revered religious figure, often a Sufi saint or dervish" why is it a subcat of "Sufi mausoleums"? That means the two are the same thing. Also they have nothing special that separates them from "türbes". I am more than bored and tired trying to cope with cat farms made by either "devote moslems" ? who try to show their identity in each and every page of Commons and/or -probably- people who wish to call everything related to Islam with separate names. Islamic dress, islamic hat, islamic pants, Islamic tea or coffee... :) If this is a türbe/grave why is it also under a certain "ribat" which is defined as "fortress"? Ah? The graves for people considered to be religiously important are called "türbes" (or dargahs as I learn here), if they are the name of one same thing why do we have them both? BTW what about mausoleums? Was Mausoleus a moslem? AFAIK no. Therefore (hence) we have "türbe" and no need to put them under mausoleum. Am I wrong? Please do not complicate everyday more and more the categorization of anything related to Islam. I try to simplify them, as an "ant", I get deleted one cat every week or fortnight, everyday the "bees" add 10 others... Stop it. Please. E4024 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aye, the Tower of Babel strikes again, but it is an inevitable inconvenience when a religion is practised in hundreds of different cultures and languages. en:Ziyarat#Terminology lists a nice overview of the many terms referring to a Muslim's burial site. Türbe seems specific for the Ottoman sphere of influence, so I would not propagate that to other parts of the Islamic world, such as South Asia where dargah is the common word, or maqam in the Arabic world. The categorisation under Ribats is bogus, I've removed that. I think specifying the relevant location in the category description would already help a lot, i.e. a "Dargah is a South Asian shrine built over the grave of a revered religious figure, often a Sufi saint or dervish". Personally, I think it would make life so much easier to rename all of them to [Category:Islamic tombs in <insert place of interest here>]. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Girls heads

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:Female red hair.

Wrongly titled and IMO unnecessary. Could we distance ourselves a bit from female bodies please? Heads, feet, fingers, toes... E4024 (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about feet and toes - but heads seem to me rather an important category. Especially when a lot of female representations don’t put the head or face in the center. For the sake of equality it is possible to open a parallel category for men instead of deleting this category. what do you think? Chenspec (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This might be okay if each image focused on the head (not bust-length even, just the head), but many of the images currently here do not. See, for example, this, this, and this. If we include every image that contains a girl's head, we'd be including almost every image that has a girl in it. Aside from that, I agree that we should have parallel male categories for this kind of thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I suggest two things - filter the images in the existing category so that only relevant images remain. At the same time open a category similar to men. Sounds good? Chenspec (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would help. Also, many in Category:Girls heads are also in many other categories. Examples:
Is having so many categories for one image helpful? I guess there is no limit for those who feel these categories are necessary. Krok6kola (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the categories aren't redundant, it's okay. However, that's outside the scope of this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I made this - Category:Male heads Chenspec (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenspec: Okay, but it's usually better not to take action until there's a decision as to whether we want this kind of category at all and, if so, how they should be organized. This discussion has been open only a couple of days, and other people could still comment. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got the impression there was an agreement - next time I will wait before taking action. Chenspec (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the least, that's not how "portrait" is used here. I think the meaning here could be explained as an image whose purpose is to show a person (not an image that just happens to show one). However, Category:Portraits says "A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation, in which the face and its expression is predominant," although Category:Portraits by view of subject and its subcats have categories for bust length, half length, three-quarter length, and full length. The last two of those don't show the face as predominant. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I became a Commoner with the hope to improve my English... :) --E4024 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also have a look at Category:Girls' faces please. No, not for the correct use of apastrophe but for the abundance or redundance of cats about girls, women, females. Leave these people in peace please, no need to examine their bodies so closely. Delete several "female cats" for the sake of Commons. E4024 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. I was unclear in attempting to make this point above e.g.File:Flickr - DVIDSHUB - Combined Task Force Lightning focus on women and girls health education (Image 1 of 8).jpg This image is about the health education of women and girls. Among the 25 categories it is in: *Category:Females with blue background, *Category:Girls with black hair, *Category:Front views of girls, *Category:Girls' clothing, *Category:Girls heads, *Category:Groups of females looking at viewer, *Category:Two girls, *Category:Female brown eyes, *Category:Girls' hair, *Category:Girls in the foreground, *Category:Girls' faces, *Category:Girls' hands, *Category:Purple clothing, female, *Category:Colorful clothing, female, *Category:Girls with bracelets, *Category:Girls looking at viewer, *Category:Portrait photographs of girls and notably no categories having to do with health or education, Category:Spin Boldak District, Category:Kandahar Province or any other aspect other than cats related to the gender of the girls in this photo. Krok6kola (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female artificial red hair

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:Female red hair.

Arbitrary sorting by whim often takes place by users who do not actually know that the hair color is artificial. Can be insulting to living persons so categorized. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female artificial red hairMerge intoCategory:Artificial red hair
Category:Male artificial red hairMerge intoCategory:Artificial red hair
gender and hair color are an unrelated intersection.
Josh (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing, E4024, Auntof6, and Jeff G.: Any thoughts on @Joshbaumgartner's proposal? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: arbitrary sorting by whim often takes place by users who do not actually know that the hair color is artificial. Can be insulting to living persons so categorized and also impossible to verify in many cases. Red hair OK. "Artificial" not OK. What's so vital about whether or not it's real? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: Sure, that makes sense.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with double-bass

[edit]

Do we need this cat? We also have "Category:Bassists with double basses" and in fact "people" are also musicians. I never saw a taxi driver with a double bass. OTOH, as in many other parts, we have different naming styles like "double bass" and "double-bass" side by side. Singular and plural at the same cat tree is another issue to make disappear... E4024 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is no obvious reason for having multiple categories for people posing with basses. Most other instruments have a "People with instrument" or "People playing instrument", but in this case there is already a large category tree for "bassists with various basses". I can help in moving the files to the correct category. Toresetre (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female red hair

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:Female artificial red hair.

Hair is not female, and the cat is named in the singular. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:Female artificial red hair.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! You never see female hair when you enter a bathroom, only male hair! :) No, that, of course, is just a joke. I agree with Jeff, we should not make "female hair" etc. If so necessary "man's hair", "women's hair" etc but frankly I see no reason for this kind of "segregation cats" as we are not a marriage catalogue. (Even if we were hair colour should not be a reason of preference. :) --E4024 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chagos Archipelago

[edit]

The Chagos Archipelago is functionally the same as the British Indian Ocean Territory; technically it is different, but it only serves to confuse people. Regular images are put into this category when it should be in BIOT. See also for a similar discussion. I proposed that we merge most of this category to Category:Geography of the British Indian Ocean Territory and the rest we parcel out, as that is pretty much what the category is. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Zoozaz1: good notice! Per enwiki en:British Indian Ocean Territory, I rather support the merging. But we probably need more input here Estopedist1 (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereignity of the Chagos Archipelago is to be handed over to Mauritius per 2024 agreement. Category:British Indian Ocean Territory should be made subcategory of Category:Chagos Archipelago as part of its history, soon to be over. Szczureq (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Territories under occupation by Russia

[edit]

Been "discussed extensively" (to quote from a log, see also [1]), yet recreated by an IP on 7 August 2020, and is filled with, em..., strange content. Siberian Republic (?) Tatarstan (?), Kaliningrad (?), Caucasus Emirate (?!). Since temporary sysop protection did not prevent dubious recreation, I propose to delete category and prevent its creation indefinitely. Seryo93 (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Not a particularly useful category, considering the only occupation AFAIK right now is in Crimea, and one subcategory of images is not enough to justify this category. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. I am not oppose to delete this 1-member category, but I just implied that the nominated category fits well into Category:Occupied territories by country Estopedist1 (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are now sufficient members to justify retention.
Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep If there are territories in the world that are under (or have been under) occupation by Russia, then this is a valid category for those territories. If there are other territories being included here that shouldn't be, that would be a matter of discussion for those specific categories and not an issue for retaining this category. Josh (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soups and stews

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/08/Category:Soups and stews of Switzerland.

Totally wrong. A mess left by a former user. I already opened this discussion on a parallel cat related to this "nonsense" (sorry). The nonsense is so big that it is under Category:soups! We all know very good that it is not good to make "apples and pears" cats. I will empty this and try to arrange everything else around here. No objections please. (I am not asking help, only do not come with obstructions, that is enough. "Snake soups and stews" can be divided easily into two, pork, even more easily; although I do not normally eat either this or that. Once I tried a turtle and I still repent. :) E4024 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sculptures in Piraeus (prefecture)

[edit]

piraeus prefecture no more exists must move to regional unit WIJIDE (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WIJIDE: which name do you suggest?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fra Angelico (Guido di Pietro)

[edit]

I do not understand a reason for this category in comparison to Fra Angelico. Files should go to the main cat Oursana (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oursana: in December 2020 the redirect was made. It seems to be a solved question--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--Oursana (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piraeus-Patras railway

[edit]

Athens Airport-Kiato the previous correct name, Athens airport-Aigio is now in operation, but the more correct name is Athens Airport-Patras railway(the finally destination which is under construction) WIJIDE (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @WIJIDE: enwiki article is under en:Piraeus–Patras railway Estopedist1 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nerantziotissa station

[edit]

Neratziotissa (metro station) same to other stations WIJIDE (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C'est une bonne idée Quoique (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: User Rb244 moved the page while this discussion took place. However, I still oppose the move because Suburban Rail trains serve this stop. --Minoa (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Petralona metro station

[edit]

Petralona (metro station) same to other stations WIJIDE (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Resident Representatives to the IAEA

[edit]

The move is wrong. See https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/19/02/gc62-turkey-statement.pdf for example. More are coming. E4024 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW not all permanent representatives are even "resident" in Vienna, but accredited from elsewhere. The move was wrong. Ask an admin to revert everything, please. Not pinging. --E4024 (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the terminology is 'Permanent Representative' (e.g. vis a vis UN; whereas the representative of an IO would be a 'resident representative') but MS Representatives at the IAEA appear to be generally called 'Resident Representatives'. Quick search on google and the IAEA website shows thousands of hits, and the terminology is used consistently on their Flickr feed from which we draw their pictures. See e.g. also the biography of the previous acting DG on the IAEA website to name just one example. So, I disagree, I considered this move carefully and think it is correct. -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC) P.S. Note that the caption of the picture you linked to refers to 'Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations' (not IAEA).[reply]
"Emine Birnur Fertekligil, the ambassador, permanent representative of Turkey in IAEA": https://rosatomnewsletter.com/2015/02/18/akkuyu-npp-project-was-assessed-in-vienna/ (5th line) E4024 (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the official terminology used at the IAEA (see e.g. for Emine Birnur Fertekligil here (one of many)). I don't think that a Rosatom newsletter in very poor English is a convincing counterargument. -- B2Belgium (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I haven't checked Google hits, but user:B2Belgium seems to be convincing. I guess that  keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpine foothills

[edit]

unsharp, definition-less, almost empty category about a potentially huge number of objects. Remaining entries should be moved to some mountain category and this cat should be deleted. Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Delete per @Herzi Pinki Estopedist1 (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Todesrune

[edit]

useless duplication of Category:Yr (rune), convert to redirect Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So Category:Yr (rune) is the symbol and Category:Todesrune the usage of that symbol (restricted to death symbols by not to nazi era). So double categorization as e.g. by User:Wolfmann is the way to go? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia scripts

[edit]

Suggest renaming to Category:Wikipedia user scripts for distinction from scripts used by bots, for example. See also Category:User scripts. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @1234qwer1234qwer4: enwiki has also en:Category:Wikipedia scripts Estopedist1 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pubs in Dublin

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Pubs in Dublin.

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Laurel Lodged) rational: This category to be moved to category:Pubs in Dublin (city), because: "To disambiguate the city from the surrounding county". Date: 2020-08-30

The parent category's name is category:Dublin which matches enwiki main article, but enwiki en:category:Dublin is DAB. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: If enwiki is DAB then Commons should follow suit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do discussions in Commons ever actually result in action being taken? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecco Homo Chapel in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:Pilate's City Hall chapel in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska.

Istnieje inna kategoria dotycząca tego obiektu (kaplicy w Kalwarii Zebrzydowskiej): 'Pilate's City Hall chapel in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska'. Ta nazwa lepiej odpowiada polskiej nazwie: Ratusz Piłata. Poza tym nazwa kategorii 'Ecco Homo...' zawiera błąd: powinno być 'Ecce Homo...' Proponuję połączenie obu kategorii w jedną oraz dodatkowo rozszerzenie nazwy kategorii docelowej do: 'Pilate's City Hall and the Holy Stairs chapels in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska' ponieważ te dwa obiekty choć mają różne numery identyfikacyjne w wykazie zabytków, są położone tak blisko siebie, że fotografie ogólnego widoku przedstawiają je razem (Święte Schody prowadzą do Ratusza Piłata)

There exist another category with respect to the same object (chapel in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska): 'Pilate's City Hall chapel in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska'. The latter name is closer to the Polish name: Ratusz Piłata. Besides, the category name 'Ecco Homo..' is misspelled, it should be named 'Ecce Homo...' I suggest merging both categories into one. Additionally, I suggest expanding the target category name to: 'Pilate's City Hall and the Holy Stairs chapels in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska' because the two objects, though of different ID number at the list od monuments, are located so close one to another that the photos presenting a general view generally include both of them (the Holy Stairs lead to the Pilate's City Hall)

Sorry, I'm new here and I'm not sure which language I can use here... Pliszka (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Pliszka-GP: do we have the other category in Commons? I cannot find it. Mistake "Ecco Homo" is obvious. I guess that this object hasn't well-established English name. What is the correct Polish name? Estopedist1 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 I guess you've already found the mentioned other category. This object, like many other objects in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska, has a unique name, even if it is related to well-known scenes from the Gospel. The Polish name 'Ratusz Piłata' witnesses also Polish culture of XVII-XVIII century and its exact meaning is 'Pilate's City Hall' (and not 'Pilate's Palace', as some people could say). However, the name 'Ecce Homo' is easily brought to mind as you see the facade of the chapel, with the scene of Christ in red robe between the Pilate and the soldier, the scene depicted in many paintings entitled 'Ecce Homo'. But the chapel is related to more than this one moment, here the pilgrims are encouraged to meditate two Christ's visits to Pilate's palace and all interrogations, and these scenes are depicted inside the building on large paintings. So the name 'Pilate's City Hall', being the exact translation of the Polish name, is more appropriate. Pliszka (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pilate's City Hall chapel in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/09/Category:Ecco Homo Chapel in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska.

Reasons for discussion request Proponuję połączenie tej kategorii i obecnie istniejącej kategorii 'Ecco Homo Chapel in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska' w jedną, ponieważ dotyczą tego samego obiektu (po polsku: Ratusz Piłata). Proponuję dodatkowo dodatkowo rozszerzenie nazwy kategorii docelowej do: 'Pilate's City Hall and the Holy Stairs chapels in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska' ponieważ te dwa obiekty, choć mają różne numery identyfikacyjne w wykazie zabytków, są położone tak blisko siebie, że fotografie ogólnego widoku przedstawiają je razem (Święte Schody prowadzą do Ratusza Piłata)

I suggest merging the category with the already existing category 'Ecco Homo Chapel in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska' since they present the same object ('Ratusz Piłata' in Polish). Additionally, I suggest extending the target category name to: 'Pilate's City Hall and the Holy Stairs chapels in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska' because the two objects, though of different ID number at the list od monuments, are located so close one to another that the photos presenting a general view include both of them (the Holy Stairs lead to the Pilate's City Hall) Sorry, I'm new here and I'm not sure which language I can use here... --Pliszka (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geoff Evans (soldier)

[edit]

No indication of notabilty. He is a veteran. He was in a photo with one famous person. Paulbe (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Martello Tower CC

[edit]

There are two categories for the Martello Tower in Aldeburgh, this one and Martello Tower Aldeburgh. Dicussing how to reorganise this, Estopedist1 suggests the Category name "Slaughden Martello Tower" as this is the name recorded on the historic building register https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1269724. But Slaughden no longer really exists - it was a small fishing settlement that was lost to the waves of the North Sea many years ago, and only the tower remains. Most sources refer to it as the Aldeburgh tower, and it is within the parish of Aldeburgh. So I would suggest either "Aldeburgh Slaughden Martello Tower" or "Slaughden (Aldeburgh) Martello Tower", with the two existing catetgories becoming redirects. Kognos (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:H. Raja

[edit]

Uncategorized and broken category redirect. /Leonel Sohns 15:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If "H. Raja" is the name of a person and they are notable/have several images we should have a separate category for them, if not then it should be deleted. I'm not sure why this redirects to the surname since Category:Raja (surname) would surely be appropriate if we did have such redirects which we shouldn't anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonel Sohns and Crouch, Swale: we should almost always use not such abbreviated names, although enwiki en:H. Raja uses it at the moment. One image is added. The redirect to Sharma is invalid, but to be noticed that his full name is category:Hariharan Raja Sharma--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've converted the redirect into a separate category though we might need to see if we need to move it (and the Wikipedia aricle) to the full name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government meetings

[edit]

I cannot understand this cat. It has images like city council meetings or bilateral high-level visits between countries. Not a clear soup... E4024 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category in 2013. There were many government meetings in Category:Meetings because there was no more specific category, but they were obviously related to government. I anticipate that there would eventually be subcategories for different types of government meetings. (Local council meetings, legislatures, cabinet meetings, summits.) In the meantime, this category will allow people to find those kinds of meetings so that they can be categorized further. (When I originally created it, I put it in Category:Meetings by type but someone moved it to Category:Meetings by subject.) --Closeapple (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WebM videos

[edit]

I agree with User:Reaper35 that this category is useless (Category talk:WebM videos). The categorisation offers no benefits that the file extension itself does not already provide. If we draw an analogy from images, it is discouraged or actually prohibited to categorise by JPG or PNG (see the notes on Category:JPEG files and Category:PNG files).
I propose we delete this cat and Category:Ogv videos Category:MPEG videos. RZuo (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? Having the category will make browsers deal with some of those formats? A webm file would not be dealt with before the cat is manually added and that will suddenly magically change after something like special:diff/470015817?--RZuo (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For now, currently the search function is somewhat broken, it does not allow to distinguish between Ogv video, Ogg-vorbis audio, and something like Speex inside an Ogg container. It makes it easier to find something, one is looking for. Currently these categories are hidden (and I would argue that they should remain so). However, once there would be a good search feature, that would allow to search by the type (and preferably by the codec inside of the type). Then this category would become redundant, and could be removed. P.S. This proposal was made within a day or so after I have began adding these categories to my videos and also to other videos I come across of, did my actions trigger this request or was this just an accidental convergence? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the category for "Ogg-vorbis audio"?
What is the category for "something like Speex inside an Ogg container"?
Right now to find a file in a specific extension xxx, the technical way is to search "filemime:xxx". It's also possible to search "intitle:xxx". I dont know where are those specific files you talk about, please answer the first two questions. I dont see other files under Category:Xiph.Org Foundation. There're only ogv videos. Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/01/Category:Images_by_file_format shows no such cats exist for any other formats in the OGG family.
Yes your edits were annoying and let me notice this manually maintained cat that does nothing but duplicates the file extension.--RZuo (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no categories for other media, and I currently do not have energy to take on the task to create the whole category tree. The reason why I have started adding Ogv category was because I needed to search for ogv files, and it was anything but trivial to do so. Did you know tha Uplod wizzard actually renames OGG video files into .ogg (or at least it did when I tried it out)? And technically it is a perfectly acceptable extension for them. So no, there is no way to currently search for that. I do agree with you, however, that the category is not a perfect solution, and that is why my opposition is temporary, until we will have a way to search by the container (not just extension) and hopefully also by codec. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 01:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, you wanna find something in ogv, you can do special:search/intitle:ogv, and add any other restricting conditions or keywords as you like. See mw:Help:CirrusSearch. So this function you want is fulfilled and Category:Ogv videos is not needed for this. With the presence of this cat you're just using other cirrussearch commands like insource:"ogv videos" or incategory:"ogv videos".--RZuo (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll bite. Please find me OGV files which are titled with an .ogg extension with a Special:Search. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Define "OGV files".
Otherwise, a file that ends in ogv is ogv file, in ogg is ogg file.
https://wiki.xiph.org/MIME_Types_and_File_Extensions there's no such thing as OGV file with ogg extension.--RZuo (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that we can achieve a compromise if we at this time delete the category, but then if I will get a time to start creating a category tree for Theora+Vorbis in Ogv, Theora+Opus in Ogv, Theora with no audio in Ogv, etc, then the current categories need to be restored per request. The problem, of course, would be that this will swamp everybody's watch-list by first removing the category, and then restoring it. As I do want to create the category tree at some point in the future, I think that this compromise is silly, but I would accept it as a very bad half-way measure where everybody is annoyed, but nobody is more annoyed than another person. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These cats are redundant. There's no need for these just like there's no need for Category:JPEG files for jpegs because the file extension is self explanatory.--RZuo (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Castles in Lefkada

[edit]

Delete: There's only a single castle in Lefkada, that of Santa Maura, so the category is pointless. Constantine ✍ 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Don't make changes to categories that you want to discuss before the discussion has been resolved such as emptying the category; it makes it very hard to other users to evaluate your proposed changes. In this case I think the category should be kept because it is needed for structural reasons - for example, without it, Category:Santa Maura Castle cannot appear in Category:Castles in Greece by location. The existence of the other categories in Category:Castles in Greece by location justifies the existence of this one as long as there is any content for it. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century gravestones in Włocławek

[edit]

Kategoria pozostaje pusta, a jej zawartość dublowałaby kategorię docelową Mariochom (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariochom: the nominated category is redirected to Category:19th-century graves in Włocławek. But Category:Graves and Category:Gravestones are not synonyms--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caribbean Maps in Leiden University Library

[edit]

please delete the images in this category. I would like to ingest these files again with richer and better metadata. At first, I wanted to enricht the existing files, but doing the ingest again is a more efficient way. We will upload higher resolution images and with much more information in the metadata, including structured metadata. Wijkemvan (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please temporarily hold on to these images while the metadata are improved with translations and location, using these images? When done, of course these lo-res images should be removed after upload of hi-res versions. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Hansmuller (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wijkemvan and Hansmuller: this discussion is about files not the category name. I suggest to move the text above to Category talk:Caribbean Maps in Leiden University Library. As for the category name, the correct name is not capitalized "maps"--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/09&oldid=863460393"