Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in November 2020.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/11.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2020-11.
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:Flint, Wales, surrounding area

[edit]

This seems a somewhat subjective category, the location that the files are actually in can be used instead since they will be in a community we can use the community's category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we'd usually say "Environs of..." or the next level up in the structure. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywelyn2000: I'm not sure, as I can see only two images (Cornist Hall) which are in the community of Flint: the rest are in the surrounding area. I live in Flintshire. There are many such categories using 'surrounding area'; so are you going to delete the whole bunch? 2A00:23C6:9908:CD00:F82D:595E:F363:46E2 17:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Crouch, Swale! Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale, Rodhullandemu, 2A00:23C6:9908:CD00:F82D:595E:F363:46E2, and Llywelyn2000: We could use Category:Flint, Wales (community) which seems to be bigger than the town (and create Category:Flint, Wales (town), if these images are in the community but not the town. Alternately, we could also create Category:Downtown Flint, Wales if the images are in the town, but not downtown. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A community category would probably be more appropriate if its thought necessary to keep this, it should not be "Downtown" since that's not a term used in the UK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. "City centre" is used in the UK: Category:Downtowns in the United Kingdom. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be "town centre" since Flint isn't a city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another good point. But I'm certainly fine with using county as a broader category if they don't overlap exactly in terms of geography. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've nominated similar categories in bulk at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/03/Category:Abergele_surrounding_area. As far as Category:Flint, Wales, surrounding area goes, I strongly suggest it is merged to Category:Flint, Wales (all the images seem to be of the Flint community). Flint is a large town and its urban area comprises at least half of the comunity area anyway. Sionk (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Samsung Galaxy J2

[edit]

Please delete this category. There are not files about Samsung Galaxy J2 in Commons. Also Galaxy J2 and Galaxy J2 (2016) aren't same phone model. Smaug the Golden (talk - contributions - file list) 23:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Smaug the Golden: am I right that we should delete this redirect related to the nominated category? Estopedist1 (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we should. File Galaxy J2 Spanish.jpg is about Samsung Galaxy J2 (2016), not original model. --Smaug the Golden (talk - contributions - file list) 20:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cynthia Scott

[edit]

There are NO images of the Canadian director Cynthia Scott in the Commons. As the image caption indicates, this is an image of a different person of the same name, American actor/sculptress Cynthia Scott. Retaining this category only seems to me to further add to the ongoing confusion on this matter, which has spilled into Wikidata as well as several language versions of Wikipedia. There is no Wikipedia article on the other Cynthia Scott. the American artist actor, so this is going to be a mixup which will continue to recur and be perpetuated unless we take action. If a wiki article is ever created on the other Cynthia Scott, then a category could be created. In the meantime, I have removed the image from this category, so it is now empty, which may expedite things. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trautman Road Air (N6892C) at Fantasy of Flight

[edit]

Upmerge to otherwise-empty parent Category:Trautman Road Air. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was categorized as it is because it would have made a mess of the museum's category. The images should just be included in both categories.NiD.29 (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @LaundryPizza03@NiD.29: the nominated category is logical subcategory in Category:Aircraft at Fantasy of Flight. Can we keep the nominated category? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Durance à L'Argentière-la-Bessée

[edit]

Suppression suite aux déplacements des photos vers Category:Stade d'eau vive de l'Argentière-La Bessée ---TouN (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TouN: any objections against deleting?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hansjakobweg II

[edit]

Suggest renaming to Category:Hansjakob Way II, the English name of the trail. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally convinced. According to Commons:Categories#Category names, we don't translate many names. The en.wp lemma en:Hansjakob Way II was created by a wikipedian. You'd need to show that this translation is actually more broadly used in the English language outside of Wikpedia than the original name. --Sitacuisses (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Keep original names to avoid confusion. After all, commons is not an English but a multi language project. Common serves projects in many different languages. Thumbs up when you think that diversity is something to embrace.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Giftzwerg 88@Sitacuisses: I support solution per @1234qwer1234qwer4 and enwiki. Article in enwiki shows that this English name is well-established Estopedist1 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this as a proper name, which should not be replaced by a translation.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diplomats of the United States by sending country

[edit]

I think what the person who created this category meant was that it should contain subcategories broken down by where diplomats were posted. Unfortunately, this name is poorly worded. It might be a category, created by an ESL person, intended to contain subcategories of foreign diplomats, sent to postings in the USA.

I suggest that if the subcategories can't be left in Category:Diplomats of the United States it should have a different name, like Category:Diplomats of the United States by posting or Category:Diplomats of the United States by destination.

However, the subcategories could be restored to their original location, Category:Diplomats of the United States. Geo Swan (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does "Diplomats of the United States by sending country" mean? If they are "Diplomats of the United States" the "sending country" is also the US. Are we talking about "Diplomats in the United States by sending country"? E4024 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    stale discussion. @Geo Swan: I am wonderting that enwiki hasn't similar category. There is only en:Category:American diplomats. @E4024 solution seems logical, but I am not sure. Do we have analogues in Commons? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Howard61313 started this category.
  • No one has defended this category.
  • Everyone, so far, has found it confusing and ambiguous.
  • Note: Howard61313 moved first created this category, and then manually moved half a dozen existing categories from Category:Diplomats of the United States, into the newly created category. Howard31313, I think this is generally recognized as a disruptive practice. Please use a {{Move}} tag, where you provide an explanation, or initiate a discussion here. That way no one is guessing at what the categories means, and those who disagree with you have an opportunity to say so BEFORE everything gets changed. If your new category name wins support, an administrator will authorize a robot to actually move individual files. Geo Swan (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ThinkPad X201i

[edit]

Merging with a ThinkPad X201 - this is a same laptop with only difference (CPU). All another versions have different cases (X201s has slightly thinner bottom case, X201 tablet have absolutely another platform), but X201 and X201i is just a complectations of the same laptop model. ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok, then move this category to Category:ThinkPad X201 only. Still it's product with Wikidata page. And i don't see difference between this situation and actual situation. Skim (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for conversation! My current opinion was slightly changed. We may just moving a category link from "ThinkPad X series" to "ThinkPad X201", without merging galleries. Currently, I think, this can be a best choice. ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Skim@ThisIsNotABetter. Specific topic. Parent is Category:ThinkPad X200 series. Should we delete Wikidata item for ThinkPad X201i (Wikidata:Q86348211)? Estopedist1 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:October 1863 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas

[edit]

This seems like an unncessary and excessively detailed subcategory. This is the only city in Category:October 1863 in the United States by city (which is typically Washington, D.C.), the only subcategory of Category:1863 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and the only subcategory of Category:October 1863 in Arkansas. Propose deletion and upmerge to the three parent categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relationships and sexuality writers

[edit]

Am I the only one who finds this category strange and unnecessary? E4024 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on necessity offhand, but I do find it strangely worded: here “relationships” is quite awkward to parse as an adjective. IMO Writers about relationships and sexuality would be much clearer.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024 and Odysseus1479: enwiki has the same name category en:Category:Relationships and sexuality writers. We probably should discuss the topic at first there and then we can implement the discussion results in Commons--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Groups of 3 pieces of food

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/01/Category:One food.

I think the difference between this and the main cat Category:3 of food is so subtle people have added some images to both and many in here (or there) should be in the other cat. Do we have to be so sophisticated? Why not make things simpler? E4024 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Groups of 3 pieces of foodMove to/Rename asCategory:3 pieces of food
per current CfD consensuses, use numerical representation for quantities.
Josh (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for Category:3 of food it should be split up amongst Category:3 pieces of food, Category:3 servings of food, and Category:3 types of food as appropriate and then deleted. Josh (talk)
@E4024, Benzoyl, and Joshbaumgartner: I think we should implement the above proposal and move on. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Benzoyl (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kuyu kebabı in Kastamonu

[edit]

Nice cat, especially for people like me who like eating and lamb(s). If this is a title in English, "kebabı" sounds strange. We can use a completely Turkish title as for a local dish. Both "Kuyu kebabı" or "Kastamonu kuyu kebabı" are OK. I leave it to the cat-opener to decide which one to use instead of keeping this hybrid title. E4024 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course, as there is no participation nor other movement I can just walk in and do the necessary myself. Why do I bother this much to search consensus? Look at some of our discussions here, two-three years without any participation... --E4024 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have the strong feeling you do not always read texts with pictures, but focus on the defensibility of the category’s name. To the pictures I wrote in its summary: “Though it seems to be made elsewhere too, I think this is a rather special dishː a lamb (other kinds of meat seem to be used too) that is cooked in a pit (kuyu). One of pictures showing the cook, also with his wife, the pit and the lamb as it's exposed in the shop's window. I found it being mentioned in the Wikipedia in the kebab entry, but as "Prepared from the goat it is special for Aydın region". That left me wondering if elsewhere, as here, lamb is used, but in Aydın they use goat, or if the author suggests its a specialty of Aydın using the pit anyhow. To complicate matters, Wiki Commons has "büryan" for the same, but büryan is not in the Wikipedia.”
I hope you see my predicament: I did not dare use the suggested “Kastamonu kuyu kebabı” as that would, in my mind, imply this was the one and only style of preparing the dish. Using “Kuyu kebabı” in its stead would imply that there were no regional differences, contrary to what seems to be the case. By using the name of the dish as stated on the shop and adding “in Kastamonu” and adding my explanatory text I feel I made it clear that there was room for discussion, not for the name of the category, but for the more or less national status of the dish as found by me in Kastamonu.
You seem to complain people do not react to your invitations for discussion. If they are people in general, too bad. You might be inviting them to the wrong discussion. I for one find many of your remarks worthy of a discussion I do not want to go through for the simple reason that I find them too subtle, too remote from what I consider important. You must know by now I’m publishing thousands of pictures, and I try to label them clearly and add more of an explanation than I generally find done by others. But as I also reorganize many of the collections I come across, and often use my work on the Wikimedia Commons as point of departure to reorganize my own site, correcting textual mistakes I made ten, twenty years ago at a time the internet was much smaller and information was hard to come by, and as I also want to live safely pleasantly through a threatening pandemic (I’m 72 with a heart condition), I leave discussions such as the one you suggested to other users. The text warning me there was a discussion states it was made “so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed.” So I waited patiently for the community to respond. You and I have been waiting three months now, and in my mind it implies no one found it worthwhile to spend time on the subject. So I suggest you just keep the name as I chose it, for the reasons mentioned above. I’m not cognisant of Turkish cookery beyond having eaten in its restaurant some 1500 times (the number of days I spent in your country so far), give or take a few. If you feel you have the correct solution to this culinary problem, maybe it’s time to provide it and forget about the community's "consensus", whatever that may be. Though it may have to be büriyan after all.Dosseman (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean "büryan". Yes, "büryan" and "kuzu tandır" are alternative names. In Isparta they use "fırın kebabı" though. BTW we also have a problem about categorization (general) here also, as well as one about the WD item(s). The issue is that people visit Turkey, they eat something in some place, they like it (or not :) and make an article about it, separating one same dish with different names in a large (and great :) country or mixing up different dishes that may have similar ingredients and cooking methods. Note that I do not generally "read" your lengthy talk, but just take a "mental pic" of it and respond to the essence I guess. Afiyet olsun. E4024 (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone take a decision here? It's over two years now since it was opened and is only between me and E4024 (about whom one can read " This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.")
    I gave a lengthy answer, giving what I thought were sound reasons, and then had to read "Note that I do not generally "read" your lengthy talk, but just take a "mental pic" of it and respond to the essence I guess." I have tried to argue with E4024 repeatedly, and found both the invitations to discussion and the reasons given often to be of a peremptory style that was not precisely inviting. Often a “we” was used, where “me and several others” seemed closer to the truth, and I do not react well to a pluralis majestatis. In particular from someone who takes mental pic's, rather than discuss. Dosseman (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes

[edit]

"Skirmishes"? Really? I think the word does not describe a 44-day war which changed decades of status quo. E4024 (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E4024, this covers the four-day long skirmishes early in July. Solavirum (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being in Category:Nagorno-Karabakh wars is wrong then; take it to the concerning "war" cat which I now see is named as "conflict". --E4024 (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. Enwiki article name is en:July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. Should we use enwiki name? Estopedist1 (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings in Shusha (town)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Shusha (town).

"Category:Buildings in Shusha" is good enough. There are several cats with "Shusha" as there is no need to disambiguate it from Shushi or sushi or anything else. E4024 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough for what? Enough to distinguish it from the Azeri rayon of the same name? Enough to distinguish it from the Arsakh province of the same name? try to maintain NPOV please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Arsakh" (sic) is a puppet not even recognized by the puppetteer. This has nothing to do with maintaining or forgetting NPOV. Shusha is the name and does not need disambiguation. We are speaking about lack of need for disambiguation, remember? Not talking about lack of reference to names of your personal choice. (That has something to do with POV, yes.) --E4024 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about Shusha District (NKAO)? What about Category:Shusha Rayon ? What about Category:Shusha's Realschool ? Looks like a need for disambiguation to me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know about that school, thanks. Two of the three cats in which the school cat is placed: "Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Shusha" and "Category:Schools in Shusha". Bold Shusha. Ciao. --E4024 (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So we're agreed: there is a need for disambiguation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shusha (town)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Buildings in Shusha (town).

"Category:Shusha" is good enough. There are several cats with "Shusha" as there is no need to disambiguate it from Shushi or sushi or anything else. E4024 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a proposal here? Merge? Delete? Rename? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disambig. This page itself makes reference to a district which appears as both "Shusha Rayon" and "Shusha (rayon)" (I have no knowledge as to which is more appropriate). An excess, unnecessary, disambiguation is one of the least problems we can ever have for ourselves, especially when it also makes it clear that this is a town we're referring to. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Category:Shusha. Commons:Categories, which is an official policy of Commons, declares general naming principles: "Category names should generally be in English." And this category is no exception to this rule. English Wikipedia names the city as Shusha and the name of the article is not disambiguated.--BSRF (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will close it as done. The town's name is Shusha. There is already a related disam page and no other disam need. Category:Shusha does not prevent anybody to write on top of it how the city is called in different languages. (For example in Turkish it is Şuşa.) Thanks to all. E4024 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Input Methods

[edit]

Not sure why "methods" is capitalised. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

seems obvious. Affected categories:
# Category:Array Input Method
# Category:Chinese Input Methods
# Category:Japanese Input Methods
# Category:Korean Input Methods
# Category:Radicals of Array Input Method

--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: can you please move the cat to the lower case "input methods"? thx! RZuo (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caps lock keys

[edit]

Suggest (a) harmonising the capitalisation with the one used on Wikipedia and (b) unify the grammatical number with the other categories in Category:Computer keyboard keys (except for the ones where there are multiple such keys on a keyboard), which would result in Category:Caps Lock key. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @1234qwer1234qwer4: I agree with suggestion (a). Not very sure with suggestion (b), although we seems to use plural Estopedist1 (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Département des sculptures, Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille

[edit]

Can this category be merged with Category:Sculptures in the Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille? Auntof6 (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Auntof6: seems to be a tough one. If I see eg Category:Paintings in the Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille, then its subcategory is also Département Foo. Estopedist1 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assiut Shawl (Tulle bi telli)

[edit]

Shawl or shawl? For some reason many ordinary nouns begin with capitals if the cats are related to Egypt... E4024 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS

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

User:Logan created a redirect of Category:Taken with Canon PowerShot ELPH 350 HS to Category:Taken with Canon Digital IXUS 275 HS this July. There have been other contributors who have been very motivated to create similar redirects. None of them had a meaningful answer for the counter-arguments for doing so.

Camera manufacturers may sell cameras that appear indistinguishable to a surface examination that, nevertheless function differently. We should rely, first, on the camera name the camera embeds in the image's exif data.

Second, relying on the name in the exif data is unambiguous. One doesn't have to be a camera expert to parse this code. Software can trivially parse this code.

A camera manufacturer, like Kodak, may sell a camera, with a bunch of features, only to have a rival manufacturer market a similar camera that has an advantage over their camera by introducing a brand new feature. They set their development guys on figuring out how to emulate that new feature. Suppose they find their most recent camera's firmware can be modified, so they too can supply their competitor's newly invented feature - but it will only work if the camera's circuit board has faster memory? They may introduce a new model, that looks exactly like their penultimate model. That new model might differ only in using different firmware, and faster memory. Those two cameras would not only look identical to a surface comparison, they would look identical if you opened them up and compared their circuit boards. The firmware upgrade would not be visible to even the most intense visual examination.

In spite of the visual similarity these would be different cameras. The different firmware would mean they worked different. So categories should not artificially conflate them.

In particular I believe contributor Logan made a serious, though no doubt innocent mistake in redirecting this category to a similar Canon camera. Geo Swan (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ottoman Muslim refugees

[edit]

Ottoman Muslim refugees are called "Muhacir" and we do have a cat for that. The cat that I open to discussion was created by an occasional visitor who stayed only a few hours in just one day in Commons. There is no need for these two cats together. Therefore I will make this an RD to Category:Muhacir and am only here to put this in the records. E4024 (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will merge the two cats as there is no opposition, but will leave the CfD open for those who wish to discuss another category here. I am out. --E4024 (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: If these people were inside Erzurum Province, present day Turkey and then part of Otomman Empire and you added this two images File:Wounded Muslim refugees from Alvar Village Erzurum at Caucasus Campaign in WWI.jpg and File:Wounded Muslim refugees at the Hasankale conflict of Caucasus Campaign in WWI.jpg to Category:World War I refugees in the Ottoman Empire and kept Category:Ottoman Muslim refugees, why in the same situation of people inside the same aituation and in the same country, you moved Category:Armenian refugees in Ottoman Syria to Category:Displaced Armenians in Ottoman Syria with the argument that Displaced within the same country, Ottoman Empire." and deleted said category from Category:World War I refugees in the Ottoman Empire? These two cases are exactly equal, same situation of having to flee because of war (and forgetting situation of being forced to flee do to ethnic cleansing or genocide), same country, citizens of the same country and why are ones displaced and other refugees? Tm (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for other people: As I understand the above user is either not aware or pretending to be not aware that I will not discuss anything with them, I have to give an explanation to others so they will not think I avoid any discussion: I wrote off this user from my list of Commons colleagues since their participation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hassan the bookseller (7550602404).jpg. Would you like to discuss with people who say those words? Your choice. I will not change my decision not to speak to them. I will not return here. E4024 (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remembered about this case, but you were blocked in the English Wikipedia, first for six months and few months later indefinitely for "Abusing multiple accounts" for (i.e. sockpuppetry), so that comment was factual, either you like it or not that i said of "those words". But either way, lets not derail this topic and answer my question of whay did you do an different treatment of two equal situations? And about Category:Ottoman Muslim refugees and Category:Muhacir , what about that fact that there is Category:Muhaxhirë, an subcategory of Category:Ottoman Muslim refugees. Tm (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Tm: any development here? Could you do concrete suggestion to help to solve this CFD? Estopedist1 (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Working Drawings for Traffic Signs in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Per Fae's concerned expressed elsewhere about OGL application to documents that are already marked Crown copyright, these were uploaded in good faith. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Are you proposing some action be done on this category? I'm confused as to what needs to be discussed. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like the files in the category are going to be kept. So there's zero reason to delete the category itself (I assume that's what this discussion is about). --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in Essex County, Ontario

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Swansea, Toronto.

This category is empty and can be deleted. The only subcategory, "Oldcastle, Ontario" has been moved to the category, "Tecumseh, Ontario" Johnj1995 (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not empty now. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's clearly a subcategory, Category:Municipalities in Essex County, Ontario. Also, I'm also not sure what to do with Windsor and Pelee Island. According to wikiepdia "The City of Windsor and the Township of Pelee are within the Essex census division but are not part of Essex County." But we are currently using Essex County as a census division. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Essex County, Ontario

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Populated places in Essex County, Ontario.

This category is empty and can be deleted. Please also see the discussion for the category, "Populated places in Essex County, Ontario" Johnj1995 (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not empty now. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brilliance China Automotive Holdings (Bermuda)

[edit]

The cat has no use. The main topic of the cat is "Brilliance China Automotive Holdings", which is incorporated in Bermuda but listing in Hong Kong. This cat should just merge with Category:Brilliance China Automotive Holdings instead of setting up like a box-in-box / matryoshka. Matthew hk (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

opencorporates for BRILLIANCE CHINA AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS LIMITED from Bermuda with Incorporation Date 9 June 1992. The articles in de and fi and perhaps some more are describing the company from Bermuda.
opencorporates for BRILLIANCE CHINA AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS LIMITED branch from Hong Kong.
Different companies in different countrys, different articles, different categories on commons. --Buch-t (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The company is incorporated as "Brilliance China Automotive Holdings Limited" in Bermuda which is the same company that listed in Hong Kong which is the same holding/parent company of the factories that make Brilliance automobile in China (ignore the part that there are a few JV, with BMW and Renault and not necessary to produce car that bear BMW/Renault/Brilliance brands). So, that is the point of the "(Bermuda)" affix???? Did you really understand the company structure or Chinese language? Did you really understand the same company is secondly registered in Hong Kong as "Registered non-Hong Kong company", but well stated in the official Hong Kong Companies Registry (https://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/), the place of incorporation as Bermuda? Are there any point to create over 100 cats for global company like Microsoft which have way many branches, instead of by common sense only create subcat that notable?
The real notable parent company of "Brilliance China Automotive Holdings Limited" is "华晨汽车集团控股有限公司" , transliterated as "Huachen Automotive Group Holdings" in Brilliance China Automotive Holdings Annual Report, or as "Brilliance Auto Group" on newspaper. Thanks. Matthew hk (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Registered office is in Hamilton, Bermuda. Found in Annual Report 2019.
Don't compare with Microsoft. Ford is another car manufacturer. Category:Ford Motor Company for the company from the USA. Category:Subsidiaries of Ford Motor Company for subsidiaries in other countries. The categories for the subsidiaries are in "Automobile manufacturers of their country". --Buch-t (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you still wrong. There is no car manufacturing facility in Hong Kong. "Brilliance China Automotive Holdings" is just a layer of holding company that dual registered in Bermuda and Hong Kong for financial interest as the SPV for the listing only. Matthew hk (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Annual Report well stated the "actual" office as a listed company is located in Hong Kong, while the actual management office assumed to be in Mainland China, not Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Hong Kong is not part of China until 1997 and Brilliance China Automotive Holdings is incorporated in 1992. It has no merit to place this cat in Category:Companies of Bermuda, however. Matthew hk (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. I guess that enwiki en:Brilliance Auto Group help to solve it? Estopedist1 (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not agree. There were a lot of edits by Matthew hk in en:Brilliance Auto Group at the day when he started this discussion. The English article is his point of view. The English article ist a mixture.
Remember that there are an active company with jurisdiction Bermuda called BRILLIANCE CHINA AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS LIMITED (incorporared June 9 1992) and a second find for a branch with jurisdiction Hong Kong called BRILLIANCE CHINA AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS LIMITED branch (incorporated December 22 1992) at opencorporates.com.
The German article de:Brilliance China Automotive Holdings is for the company based in Bermuda. It must be possible to have separate categories on common and separate entries at wikidata. Don't mix this two.
At wikidata we have 2 entries: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q917192 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q97961992. There were a lot of changes made by Matthew hk and Sofie Geneea in the last 13 months. Now this is confusing. --Buch-t (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical symbols falsely passed off as kolovrat and other Rodnover symbols

[edit]

Do we really need those category? It looks like someone's personal opinion. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female Students in Rahiane nur

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12/Category:Rahiane nur.

Students must be "students" but I am not sure of capitalizing "nur" or not. Iranian friends? E4024 (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See new discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12/Category:Rahiane nur. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Navies of Turkey

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

"Turkish Naval Forces" is the name. Turkey does not have several navies. The Coast Guard belongs to the Ministry of Interior and is not part of the "Turkish Armed Forces". OTOH, the "Ottoman Navy" has its own cat. BTW please see Category:Russian Navy. It is not "navies" although it even has the Category:Imperial Russian Navy inside it, as a subcat. Please, Admins, I do not wish to discuss this again, simply move this cat to "Category:Turkish Naval Forces". Please. Thanks. E4024 (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At best, this could be a disambiguation page, but I don't see that as necessary or helpful. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tête de veau

[edit]

Why do we need a French name for a common concept? What is the difference from other edible animal heads? E4024 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

enwiki article is also under the name en:Tête de veau--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish cigarettes

[edit]

Per category tree, this needs renaming to Category:Cigarettes of Ireland Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. They also should change. Most cigarette brands are transnational. So the brand is in Foo, not of Foo. They can be manufactured in one country (of) but marketed in another country (in). I think that the category attempts to capture the latter sense. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: I agree with you about the distinction between the use of the prepositions of and in within category names, however, the four images in the existing Category: Irish cigarettes were made by Irish manufacturers so they need to belong in a category called Category:Cigarettes of Ireland (which, arguably, could in turn belong within Category: Cigarettes in Ireland). O'Dea (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@O'Dea: They were manufactured in Dundalk I think and marketed in Ireland so they are "in" Ireland. But they were marketed in Northern Ireland as well. In that case, those 4 brands would be in the Category:Cigarettes in the United Kingdom if it existed. I'm dubious about using "of" at all. None of the components came from Ireland. Ireland is not known for growing tobacco. It would be more accurate to say that the tobacco was "of" West Virginia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been adduced to support any assertion that the tobacco used in Irish cigarettes is from West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Brazil, Italy, or any other tobacco growing region. And what of the other components: the paper, filter, cardboard, foil, and cellophane?
 
Tobacco is but one ingredient in the product and packaging, so no matter where that single ingredient was grown, the cigarettes as a whole were manufactured and packaged in Ireland, thus the preposition of ought to be used: Category:Cigarettes of Ireland. We are not talking about tobacco of Ireland but cigarettes of Ireland.
 
If an Irish carpenter builds a cabinet that includes some imported teak in his work, it is still Irish manufacturing; it is not an Indian or Burmese product simply by virtue of the inclusion of a hardwood from abroad. O'Dea (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be solved with an alternative like Category:Cigarette brands of Ireland or Category:Cigarette manufacturers of Ireland? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Themightyquill, but splitting the difference to try to please everyone is really unnecessary and your generous suggestions are not quite right because, in the particular circumstances here, the Category:Cigarettes of Ireland is the appropriate choice. I suspect the original difficulty in the first posting above arose because of a failure to appreciate the distinction between tobacco growing and cigarette manufacturing, as explained in my prior comment on 28 November 2020. O'Dea (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. I tend to support User:Themightyquill variant that somehow the country of the brand to be mentioned. See eg en:Category:Cigarette brands, and there are some country categories as well. But if cigarettes and their brands are rather international topic, I tend to agree "in Foo country" variant Estopedist1 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/11&oldid=881216177"