Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03

This page is for open CFD discussions started in March 2021.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/03.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2021-03.
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

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Photos and video from unmanned aerial vehicles

i think this whole tree should be separated into Category:Photographs_taken_with_unmanned_aerial_vehicles and Category:Videos_taken_with_unmanned_aerial_vehicles. photos and videos by conventional cameras are not united in a single category (there's no cat:photographs and videos of nyc for example). also the name should use "taken with" instead of "from" to be consistent with the structure of Category:Photographs by camera. RZuo (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Media from unmanned aerial vehicles, add to Category:Media by source and then subcategorize by photo or video if necessary? "Media by source" isn't a perfect fit, but maybe it's good enough? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media by source is to categorise files by the people/organisations that produce them instead of the equipment.

to unite Category:Aerial photographs and Category:Aerial videos is Category:Aerial photography.

so i propose this structure:

Aerial photography

Aerial photography by country

Aerial photography in Italy

Aerial photographs of Italy

Photographs of Italy taken with unmanned aerial vehicles

Aerial videos from Italy

Videos of Italy taken with unmanned aerial vehicles

Aerial photographs

Aerial photographs by country

Aerial photographs of Italy

Photographs of Italy taken with unmanned aerial vehicles

Aerial videos

Aerial videos by country

Aerial videos of Italy

Videos of Italy taken with unmanned aerial vehicles

if a cat for just drone files is really necessary, it could be "Aerial photography with/from unmanned aerial vehicles" maybe.--RZuo (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That has a certain logic to it, but I want to note that Category:Videos is not a sub-category of Category:Photography, so this would not match our existing category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

exactly why i said in the first place this tree should just be split in two and no need for a cat to unite them. because for example cat:photographs of nyc and cat:videos from nyc are placed directly under cat:nyc.

but if a category to unite them is requested then the structure of Category:Aerial photography can be followed.

please make up your mind, do you want a category to unite the two or not?--RZuo (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but I'm just not sure "Photography" is the right one. But if no one comes up with any better ideas... - Themightyquill (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the category to "Category:Photos and videos from unmanned aerial vehicles", since it wasn't in keeping with the other "videos" categories. I do like the suggestions made by both Themightyquill and RZuo, though structure of it needs some more discussion. Bidgee (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but is categorisation for sub-250g drone photos possible? In the UK that's a significant difference. -- Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 11:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you plz elaborate why "that's a significant difference"? RZuo (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK a camera drone of under 250g can be legally flown in situations where a 250g+ drone cannot, and with a lower licensing requirement. Whether an image is legally taken in not a matter for commons. I also observe that Ireland(EU) also seems to use a similar 250g cutoff. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 18:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ficus populifolia

The current redirect seems to be misleading. There are TWO species called Ficus populifolia (described by different authors), only one of which is synonymous (as expressed by the redirect), whereas the other is an "accepted species". So, I believe we need BOTH categories. Please see the Talk page for Category:Ficus citrifolia. Martinus KE (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinus KE: Do we have any images of the accepted species? We could turn this into a disambiguation page until such time as we get some. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe we do have 7 images of Ficus populifolia Vahl. They even have file names saying so, and they look quite different from the remainder of files in Category:Ficus citrifolia. The gallery on the Talk page is meant to visualise that difference. -- Martinus KE (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the suggestion is to move Category:Ficus populifolia to a disambiguation page and create Category:Ficus populifolia Vahl 1790? That seems reasonable to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's the best wiki-technical solution. That's where I'm glad to have this discussion page. First, I'm not sure if including the author name and year in the lemma is an accepted practice for botany categories. (I'd rather leave out the year at least.) Second, in Wikipedia a simple notification box (disambiguation note) at the top of the page might do:

This page is about Ficus populifolia Vahl 1790. 
 If you are looking for Ficus populifolia Desf. 1804, which is considered a synonym of Ficus citrifolia Mill. 1768, please see Category:Ficus citrifolia.

Practically, the "Vahl" images are to go into the populifolia category (exact phrasing of the lemma to be defined), and the "Desf." photos go into (resp. remain in) the citrifolia category.

What's the established Best Practice in Commons? And if you think somebody else might want to chime in (next week or so), I'm not in a hurry ... -- Martinus KE (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counties of Northern Ireland

This discussion is for all categories involving Counties of Northern Ireland after 1972. According to en:Counties_of_Northern_Ireland#Government_and_modern_usage, for the most part, Northern Ireland has been organized under districts since 1972, 26 created in 1972 consolidated into 11 after 2015. Nevertheless, @Billinghurst and Lamberhurst: disagree and suggest greater discussion. It seems mighty odd to figure out which portions of Belfast would constitute County Atrium versus County Down because it was a split used almost 40 years ago. --Ricky81682 (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

List of all categories for discussion

Please do not state in this discussion what you think is my opinion. I stated that the existing empty categories that you wanted to have speedy deleted were part of a series, and needed to be dealt with collectively.

I will note that there are works that were created before 1972 and/or related to parts of Northern Ireland that need to be considered in this discussion. I will also note that counties of Northern Ireland were part of a unified Ireland prior to the 1920s when they may refer to, or for where they were created. So I hope that any solution created in this discussion is able to manage this broader discussion and look at how it will also be resolved in Wikidata. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done for pre-1972 time? It seems fine to continue the county categories for centuries/decade/years before 1972 because that was the categorization used in Ireland. Pre-1920s are within Ireland itself since "Northern" didn't exist. Wales is similarly somewhat similarly under historic counties (pre-1974), preserved counties (1974-1996) and principal area (post-1996); Scotland similarly under shires (pre-1975), regions (1975-1996) and now council areas. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an easy question to answer. It seems obviously reasonable to me to keep Category:Counties of Northern Ireland and subcategories like Category:County Down at least for the sake of maps and such directly related to the counties. Categorizing by country pre-1972 also seems to make sense, but I think post-1972 categories like Category:2019 in County Armagh are confusing for the reasons stated above. I'm also not sure about categorizing other images of things within the historical borders of County Down in subcategories of Category:County Down (e.g. Category:Buildings in County Down. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The background history is complex: boroughs from 1921-1972, then 26 local government districts until 2015, subsequently reduced to 11. Sticking to this strict categorisation will involve a great deal of work in checking what was where, which I suggest is disproportionate. In addition, it strikes me as over precise to be categorising images on the basis of the local government borough/district in which they were taken. This isn't the case for English images and I would suggest there's even less for a case for it for NI images given that there are far less. Counties still exist in NI - the County Boundaries (Ireland) Act 1872 has not been repealed. This is reflected in Section 131 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972 which does not abolish counties, but merely removes their status for local government purposes. Counties remain well understood geographical entities. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamberhurst: The same remains for England, Wales and Scotland as well. While it looks horrendous, many images are located within the correct Category:Geograph images in Northern Ireland by Council subcategory. I think it is easier than keeping counties as keeping track of images based on their current logical district categorization and the historic county categorization. I mean, it is much more logical that Belfast is its own district than that the two counties it used to belong to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: But it's not the same for the rest of the UK. Take for example the county of Surrey, following the NI approach we would be categorising according to the 11 boroughs and districts: Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley etc, and then checking back to see when and how these had changed over the course of time. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamberhurst: Yes, pre-1972 it is chaos but I'm not saying to use boroughs and districts there since England uses "counties" (called ceremonial counties). There was some discussion about it at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#England_by_county. Across the board I was looking at en:Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 and en:Local government in Northern Ireland. For England, we can discuss that separately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where the problem arises. Wikipedia has contemporary categories for Northern Irish counties. I came here via the Wikimedia "County Down" category. For example, on Wikipedia the town of Bangor is disambiguated using "County Down". From a cursory reading of the info about County Down, it still exists, though the political administration is now at District level. Based on what categories Wikipedia has, I would definitely keep the County Down and other county categories on Wikimedia Commons. Sionk (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retain by county - very large number of cats organised by county in NI (as in the rest of the UK and Ireland) and seems to be no reason to change. The counties exist physically and geographically. If people insist on putting files into council area cats (ie two sets: post 1972 and post 2015) they are welcome but it seems like a bit of a nightmare to me. Such Council area cats should then also be categorised into county cats which in all cases should be retained (not least of all to retain the historical run of county cats). Ardfern (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also noticed that the naming of the proposed new cats is incorrect eg March 2009 in Omagh (district) should actually be March 2009 in Omagh District Council area. The name of the Council area should be in every title. Ardfern (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also noticed a lot of cats titled 'by district' - these are all incorrect and should read 'by district council area'. Lot of problems to be fixed with all of this. Have to consider whether categorising files down to this level of local detail is actually worth it (or even possible), rather than just by county/town/city. Ardfern (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ardfern: Looking at en:Local_government_in_Northern_Ireland#Districts and en:List of districts in Northern Ireland (pre-2015) the term seems to be local government district so why district council area? A number seem to be articles on the council, the local authority, and not the area but en:Ards (borough), en:Castlereagh (borough), and en:Banbridge (district) amongst others call it the district. en:Omagh District Council (not the district but the council) is an article about the council which merged with another council to become a new council and does use council area though. Should that be a separate discussion? I don't know this stuff but we have Category:Council areas of Scotland so maybe that is the more consistent term. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can live with districts. However, believe we should retain by county cats as they are relevant geographical areas with a vast number of files and a historical consistency. See no reason why if you insist on by district cats (eg Fermanagh (district), Fermanagh and Omagh etc they cannot co-exist with by county cats - one does not need to replace the other. Perhaps we could agree this approach and end this discussion to get on with the work. Ardfern (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But why would that be necessary when we don't do it for Ireland or GB? In fact, I'm having trouble finding another country where that is the case. It's not done for the US, Canada or France, so why NI? Is county/city categorisation not sufficient? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heraldic sea horses

This category seems to be a duplicate of Category:Heraldic seahorses and could be deleted Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we also have a separate Category:Seahorses in heraldry for actual seahorses, wouldn't a move to Category:Hippocampus (mythology) in heraldry be less confusing? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Confusingly the horse-fish hybrids are called seahorses in heraldic blazons while the actual animals are often called hippocampus to differentiate them from the more common horse hybrids. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I see that, but I also agree that it's confusing. I think using "Hippocampus (mythology)" solves the problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Latinate plural of hippocampus is hippocampi or hippocampuses in English. And sometimes the -us is dropped: hippocamp, hippocamps. Anyway, the name of a genus wouldn't get pluralised. Arlo James Barnes 08:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heraldic beasts

Since Category:Heraldic beasts apparently includes both real animals and legendary creatures, it seems strange that it's a subcategory of Category:Animals in heraldry and Category:Legendary creatures in heraldry (rather than a parent category). Themightyquill (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: It's probably redundant: I think I created this category by accident. Jarble (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: Should I make it a parent category of animals and legendary creatures, or a disambiguation page between the two? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Opinicus in heraldry

Is Category:Opinicus in heraldry not redundant with Category:Griffins in heraldry? According to en:Griffin, "when depicted on coats of arms, the griffin is called the Opinicus." I propose a redirect in one direction or the other. Themightyquill (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I also read that opinicus is a bit different, they have the front legs of a lion. It's not exactly the same legendary creature. See here for example: https://yourknow.com/uploads/books/5dd9f0c815469.pdf. Triton (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Triton: At very least, we need a note to that effect in the category description. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female body shape of Europe

Invented nonsense. E4024 (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female body shape by continent

Gibberish. Stop examining women as if they were an "object". Where are the women and women's rights activists here? How can we tolerate such junk? This is too subjective. Sorry, but IMHO it is nonsense. E4024 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English WP say nothing about female body shapes according to continents. I think this category and its sub categories makes little sense. GeorgHH • talk 19:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women of Asia by decade

Only one decade (70s) and only one country (Iran). If this type of cat is necessary it must be for all the recent decades where we have tonnes of images; but also must be for the other continents also. If not, it sounds like special treatment to Iran. No need to single out a country. E4024 (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of November 2011, the category is a bit more populated, but I tend to

Delete--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pembrokeshire in the 1980s

From 1974 until 1996, Wales was organized as a series of en:Preserved counties of Wales. Pembrokeshire was a part of Dyfed so these two categories should be emptied and moved into Category:Dyfed in the 1980s. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also including Category:1987 in Pembrokeshire which should be moved to Category:1987 in Dyfed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to Category:Dyfed in the 1980s etc. being created, though I would oppose the Pembrokeshire categories being deleted/merged. Though the political administration of Pembrokeshire changed during the 1970's/80's, it still existed as an indentifiable area (part of Dyfed). I suppose more as a historic or ceremonial county during this period. Sionk (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: From what I can tell, Pembrokeshire was broken into two districts of Dyfed, en:Preseli Pembrokeshire and en:South Pembrokeshire. Would it make more sense to break it down into the two district components then? The problem is that the preserved counties were huge but it becomes inconsistent (and confusing) to sort of keep everything according to where a place was before and after this period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't categorise at the political District level. Pembrokeshire is readily identifiable and has been known as Pembrokeshire for centuries. Sionk (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the nominated category fits well into Category:Pembrokeshire by decade. Even if we simplify the situation a little bit by only using the category name <Pembrokeshire in the DECATE>, we probably get more user-friendly solution Estopedist1 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:L'Inconstant (brig)

Rename to Category:L'Inconstant (model) or something to that effect? Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: there seems to be a big mess, how to name ship models. Eg I saw Category:Models of ships and its subcategories. Could user:Stunteltje or user:Niklitov help?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a common way to name categories in Wikimedia Commons for ships. Standard: <Schipname> (ship, <year of completion>) Shipname as painted on the ship or by registrated name, without prefixes. When the year of completion is not known, just <Shipname> (ship), with Category:Ship categories with missing year. In this case I suggest Category:Models of brigs when this is a single image of the vessel and Category:Ships named Inconstant.--Stunteltje (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stunteltje: So then Category:Inconstant (ship, 1811) stays the same, but Category:L'Inconstant (brig) gets moved to Category:Scale model of Inconstant (ship, 1811) (matching the others in Category:Models of brigs)? -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also with Category:Inconstant (ship, 1811). (I did not check the year of completion.) --Stunteltje (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photography by William Scot

I think this and all other "Category:Photography by ..." cats should be moved to "Category:Photographs by ..." to help harmonization. E4024 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

harmonization of user categories' names is probably not so important--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Females with hats

This is all about "women wearing hats". If you have a quick look at subcats and their own subcats you will see how arbitrarily we have made a huge(ly confusing) categorization scheme and what a big proportion of files are placed in, naturally, wrong cats. Please cut the branches of the tree to make a simple, pragmatic cat tree. E4024 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bonjour, I did not build this category tree but I understand that there is a connection to upper categories Category:Female headgear and Category:Female fashion and to sister categories Category:Females with caps, Category:Females with helmets and some others. Devides women's hats # girl's hats and women with hats (p.ex. holding hats) from those of women wearing hats. Regards, --Bohème21 (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

seems that keep. We also have Category:Males with hats Estopedist1 (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:L-Amino acids physiological

Notice This is one of the category-for-discussion (CFD) which falls into WikiProject Chemistry. For more CFDs, see Commons:WikiProject_Chemistry/Deletion_requests#Categories_for_discussion

I see two issues with this category:

is this category really needed? contains amino acids as they usually exist under physiological conditions (of which species? human I presume, but not necessarily). Creating such summaries is usually a scope of Wikipedia with necessary commentary and sources, relatively it can be created as a gallery. I don't think that category is the proper way for this, especially with a fraction of images that could be put here.
name of this category seems to be incorrect, non-grammatical, should be more descriptive (incl. the above issue).

Wostr (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The pH does not vary that much between different species. What about renaming the category to e.g. Category:L-Amino acids under physiological conditions?
@DMacks: As the creator of the subcat Category:S-adenosyl methionine you may want to comment. --Leyo 15:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that creating such categories is not in the scope of Wikimedia Commons as it requires information (and sources) which cannot be deduced from the file itself. The description of the category would have to be very precise and every file in this category should be checked against sources whether it falls into this category or not. This is what Wikipedia or other projects' authors should be doing. Wostr (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All files in that category are from the same uploader who was an experienced member of the de-WP project chemistry. Hence, no checking is needed. What about the proposed category name? --Leyo 20:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no checking is needed → maybe not right now, but categories are not closed lists of files, there will be more files added by other users. About the name – Structural forms/Forms/Structures/... of L-amino acids under physiological conditions? I'm not so sure thatL-Amino acids under physiological conditions is precise enough. Of course with proper description in the category what physiological conditions means. Wostr (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GlobalReplace Logs

Should probably be called Category:GlobalReplace logs or, per the names of the included pages, Category:GlobalReplaceLogs. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: first of all, this should be a hidden category. And it seems that universially the name form "GlobalReplace Logs" has been used. Probably keep for this hidden category tree Estopedist1 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with medicine

This is a subcat of "Category:People in health professions", it also has a subcat for "patients". Therefore, I understand, a patient is always working in some health profession. This scribe, as a truck driver, would not be able to ask for some medical care? Once I said: If we are giving awards to people for opening "too many" cats, before that we should give at least a "thank you" to people like me who try to stop them. E4024 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The Category:People in health professions was added by @Elkost about 26 minutes before you nominated this page for deletion. Maybe if you thought that was confusing, you should have just reverted Elkost's edit? I suspect that Elkost just didn't see the Patients subcategory, and would have understood the problem if you'd explained while correcting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Which deletion request? Are you as active as me in this area (CfDs)? Have you observed user behaviour about categorization? I am doing it everyday, not for a specific user though. --E4024 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistake! You are right, @WhatamIdoing, I have not noticed Cat:Patients and made this fault. I have already removed the incorrect super-category. --Elkost (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if "patients" were not there, the categorization hierarchy was wrong, to begin with; plus, I was/am not speaking about a 26-min issue, but the need to simplify categorization. The more "sophisticated" it is, the more complicated to use, understand and enjoy. (Of course here we are all very intelligent people making encyclopedias and their visual infrastructure, but we must also think about the "easiness" for our visitors.) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this category has been removed tom Category:People in health professions, I don't see the problem. Are we good to close, or is there something I'm missing? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liittopankin talo

Duplicate for Category:World Trade Center (Helsinki) --> Remove Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Susannaanas: I redirected the nominated category. If the solution is OK, we can close this discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ampang Jaya, Selangor

Is Category:Ampang_Jaya, Selangor redundant with Category:Ampang, Selangor? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Yes, I think. There are far more entries in Category:Ampang, Selangor than Category:Ampang Jaya, Selangor, suggesting most editors readily recognize the first category as the name. Also, according to Ampang Jaya, "Ampang Jaya, more commonly known as just Ampang, ..." supports this. Krok6kola (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: disambiguator qualifier seems to be misleading, because only one such named populated place. Why not to use enwiki-suggested Category:Ampang Jaya? Estopedist1 (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: I don't know what "disambiguator qualifier" you are referring to. But in general, category names on the Commons very often differ from that on enwiki. I try to use category names that other Commons editors would recognize. Krok6kola (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wesleyan Methodist Church

Is Category:Wesleyan Methodist Church redundant with Category:Wesleyan? And possibly with Category:Methodism? -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you follow the link to English Wikipedia you'll see that the Wesleyan Methodist Church is just one denomination among several within the wider category of Methodism. It is separate from the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Church of Great Britain, for example. Cnbrb (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cnbrb: And my first question, the difference between Category:Wesleyan Methodist Church redundant with Category:Wesleyan? -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Category:Wesleyan should be renamed → Category:Wesleyanism. The Category:Wesleyan Methodist Church would then be a child category of Wesleyanism. Cnbrb (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Or delete Category:Wesleyan and move everything into Category:Wesleyan Methodist Church. The church is now under Category:Methodist denominations, which makes much more sense.Cnbrb (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International Women's Day in 2017 by country

I think this cat should be renamed as "Category:International Women's Day 2017 by country", and all the subcats should follow suit, throwing out the first "in" from their names. If you agree, also move all other similar "year cats" and their subcats. E4024 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections, but this is a huge work. I don't think I have time to do it. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you found time to make many cats, but I can imagine that you prefer to spend more time in deletion requests. Your time, your choice; I cannot say anything on that. I only brought here my worries that these names are not good. --E4024 (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can keep the current situation, and no need for this massive renaming. If the nominated category's name is grammatically unacceptable, then the actions should be taken Estopedist1 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clarendon, Jamaica

Redirect to Category:Clarendon Parish ? Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Andrew Parish, Jamaica

In 1923, the government bodies of Saint Andrew Parish and Kingston Parish were merged to form Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation. Does it make sense to keep Category:Saint Andrew Parish, Jamaica as its own category, even though much of the contents are part of the city of Category:Kingston, Jamaica? It sounds like most of en:Kingston, Jamaica is not in en:Kingston Parish. Should we instead create Category:Kingston and Saint Andrew as a de facto parish category? Thanks for any input. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Boniface, Manitoba

Redirect to Category:Saint Boniface, Winnipeg ? Themightyquill (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Crimea. Crimea was part of Imperial Russia, prior to the Russian Revolution. When the Reds beat the White Russians it was part of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union dissolved it was part of Ukraine. And then Putin's Russia annexed it, so it is now, arguably, part of a new Russia, distinct from the Imperial Russia of over 100 years ago.
So, how should images from the Ukraine be classified?
I suggest that any classification scheme that puts ALL images from Crimea in a single geography category falls short of neutrality.
I think that images of Crimea, from the Soviet period, should be in something like, Category:Crimea, USSR. Photos from the Ukraine period? Category:Crimea, Ukraine, and so on, for all the periods. A disambiguation page is probably necessary.
So, how do suggestions about Crimea have to do with Saint Boniface? Well, we have images that date to when it was an independent municipality. I suggest they belong in Category:Saint Boniface, Manitoba. Images that date to when it was merely a neighbourhood in Winnipeg? They belong in Category:Saint Boniface, Winnipeg.
Yes, it might seem simpler to stick images into the most recent category, but it is also misleading, and when boundaries change the apparent advantages to this approach evaporate like spit on a griddle.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Your argument is logical, but I think the comparison with Crimea is a bit of a stretch, given the relative number of photos we are talking about. Category:History of Saint Boniface, Manitoba would work pretty well here. And even if I were to accept it, the Crimea categories are linked in some way, whereas the Saint Boniface ones are not. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alopochen aegyptiacus in Baden-Württemberg

The species name is "A. aegyptiaca", whereas "A. aegyptiacus" is considered an "orthography error". See species:Alopochen aegyptiaca. If so, some 11 subcategories of Category:Alopochen aegyptiaca in Germany should probably be renamed from "... aegyptiacus in ..." to "... aegyptiaca in ...". I see that there were several category Moves in the opposite direction, back in 2015. But were they good? And why would the Germany-related categories have to be named "... aegyptiacus in ...", while the higher-level categories are spelled with an "a", Category:Alopochen aegyptiaca etc.? For Category:Alopochen aegyptiaca in Germany, the 2015 move was undone in November 2016. I think the same should be done for the subcategories as well. Martinus KE (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an obvious move to me. User:Kadellar, who made the move the other way, in 2015, might want to say something. --rimshot^talk 22:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright with me. I thought it was correct. I just tried to move the category, but the other needs to be deleted. --Kadellar (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parcel boxes

Proposing that Category:Parcel lockers be used as the main category, since from what I've seen the term "parcel locker" is what most files and subcategories in this category are referring to. From a quick Google search, it seems that "parcel box" more often refers to a smaller container more aimed at preventing porch piracy.

Also pinging @MB-one as the creator of the Parcel lockers category (currently a redirect).-- Veikk0.ma (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veikk0.ma: I'm not familiar with various dialects and meaning nuances of English, but internationally, "parcel box" is widely used as a term for modern automatic dispensing point for e-shopping. "Parcel lockers" evokes rather something like luggage lockers for me, e.g. rather depository than distribution. But you are right that Google search indicates that the term "parcel box" is ambiguous and used primarily for individual delivery boxes, not only for an automatic dispensing station. Btw., all those lockers/boxes should be distinguished by type and purpose but should have also their common umbrella category. --ŠJů (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only familiar with the "locker" term (e. g. Amazon Locker, etc). Parcel box seems to be the equivalent to a post box. --MB-one (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses locker not box no this probably makes sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I'd assume "parcel box" to contain images of boxes used for shipping (a subcategory of "box"). A google search returns parcel drop boxes and parcel delivery boxes, but not many hits where "parcel box" is a box to hold parcels. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support parcel locker as the term for mailboxes intended for package self-collection.

parcel box is ambiguous. it can refer to cardboard boxes used to package parcels. RZuo (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Valentine's Day in Turkey

"Sevgililer Günü" is not the Turkish translation of St. Valentine. This is a secular celebration in a secular country with an almost total moslem population. I was right to move this to Sevgililer Günü. It did not receive any (not even one single) objection nor changes in 3 years and 3 months (too long a period for Commons) until a colleague suddenly decided -I guess- "let me explore the areas related to Turkey". This is wrong. E4024 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it simply an issue of editors wrongly categorizing images? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to be discussion about one file (File:14 subat sevgililer gunu.svg). We probably need Turkish speaker to solve the categorization of this file Estopedist1 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1900 World Championships in Athletics

not actual event John123521 (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John123521: yes, it doesn't fit to Category:World Championships in Athletics. Can you suggest better name?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pintura sobre madera

Is this category different from Category:Paintings on wood? Is this category name the official name of something like a type of art, or should it be moved to have the category name in English? Auntof6 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

very likely same as Category:Paintings on wood. Maybe helpful is eswiki es:Pintura sobre tabla Estopedist1 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cycle racing by country

"Category:Cycle racing" has been RD'ed to "Category:Cycling (sport)". Therefore this one also has to be RD'ed to "Category:Cycling by country" or maybe to "Category:Cycling competitions and tours by country". For some reason there are less than 10 country subcats here! BTW please have a close look at things so as not to include in our -very branchy BTW- categorization tree events like "naked riding", "girls ride with hats" or any other nonsense riding activity like, say, "riding with a glass of champagne at hand" etc under "Cycle racing". (All these small or big branches have to join in one stem at the end.) E4024 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cycling by country is certainly not the correct category, as cycling is so much more than a sport. As the main category for Cycle racing is named Category:Cycling (sport)", which is certainly something different than Category:Cycling, I suggest to redirect it to Category:Cycling (sport) by country. Dovaere (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious figures by country

Religious figures by country, religious personalities by country, religious leaders by country, religious workers by country... Some people are creating a huge work of clean up in the area of categorization of religion for the coming generations of users in Commons. I am getting bored, and more importantly tired of trying to stop this irrational expansion. E4024 (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

eg enwiki en:Category:Religious figures was deleted, see en:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_29#Category:_Religious_figures Estopedist1 (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Please change the name is this category to "Category: Jörg Schmidt (Football player)" or something similar to match other such categories. Thanks in advance. 51.37.62.165 23:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, category names should be in English. I've looked through the existing categories and found two things: 1) there are quite a few Fußballspieler categories, 2) the usual disambiguation seems to be (footballer). I propose the following moves (already in CommonsDelinker format):

Rename Category:Christian Clemens (Fußballspieler) to Category:Christian Clemens (footballer) (0 entries moved, 20 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:David Wagner (Fußballspieler) to Category:David Wagner (footballer) (0 entries moved, 3 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Detlef Müller (Fußballspieler) to Category:Detlef Müller (footballer) (0 entries moved, 5 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Emil Krause (Fußballspieler, 1908) to Category:Emil Krause (footballer, 1908) (0 entries moved, 0 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Florian König (Fußballspieler) to Category:Florian König (footballer) (0 entries moved, 3 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Florian Schwarz (Fußballtrainer) to Category:Florian Schwarz (footballer) (10 entries moved, 0 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Franz Gruber (Fußballspieler) to Category:Franz Gruber (footballer) (0 entries moved, 1 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Gerhard Karner (footballplayer) to Category:Gerhard Karner (footballer) (10 entries moved, 0 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Helmut Jahn (Fußballspieler) to Category:Helmut Jahn (footballer) (0 entries moved, 4 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Jochen Müller (Fußballspieler, 1925) to Category:Jochen Müller (footballer, 1925) (0 entries moved, 0 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler) to Category:Jörg Schmidt (footballer) (0 entries moved, 1 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Karl Decker (Fußballspieler) to Category:Karl Decker (footballer) (0 entries moved, 4 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Grave of Karl Decker (Fußballspieler) to Category:Grave of Karl Decker (footballer) (0 entries moved, 6 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Karl Wolf (Fußballspieler) to Category:Karl Wolf (footballer) (0 entries moved, 5 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Kurt Steinbach (Fußballspieler) to Category:Kurt Steinbach (footballer) (0 entries moved, 2 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Manfred Fuchs (Fußballspieler, 1924) to Category:Manfred Fuchs (footballer, 1924) (0 entries moved, 0 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Manfred Rottensteiner (Fußballspieler) to Category:Manfred Rottensteiner (footballer) (0 entries moved, 6 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Martin Hoffmann (Fußballspieler) to Category:Martin Hoffmann (footballer) (0 entries moved, 0 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Paul Süß (Fußballspieler) to Category:Paul Süß (footballer) (0 entries moved, 0 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Rename Category:Rainer Baumann (Fußballspieler) to Category:Rainer Baumann (footballer) (0 entries moved, 1 to go) (Requested by Rimshot) per Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Jörg Schmidt (Fußballspieler)

Note that I have included one footballplayer, to correct the spelling and one trainer who is also a footballer in my eyes. Feel free to post more if you find them. I have kept the birth year disambiguation if there was one. --rimshot^talk 21:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I solved more difficult ones. Only "(Fußballspieler)" need to be renamed yet. And when you rename, please use suppression!--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cambrian School District schools

Unnecessary, only content to populate Cambrian School District category is schools, no need for subcategory Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I added everything in Category:Cambrian School District to the categories that Category:Cambrian School District schools was previously in. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 09:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Campbell Union High School District schools

Unnecessary category, only content to populate Cambell Union School District category is schools, no need for subcategory Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I added everything in Category:Campbell Union High School District to the categories that Category:Campbell Union High School District schools was previously in. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 09:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cupertino Union School District schools

Unnecessary category, only content to populate Cupertino Union School District category is schools, no need for subcategory Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I added everything in Category:Cupertino Union School District to the categories that Category:Cupertino Union School District schools was previously in. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 09:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fremont Union High School District schools

Unnecessary category, only content to populate Fremont Union School District category is schools, no need for subcategory Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I added everything in Category:Fremont Union High School District to the categories that Category:Fremont Union High School District schools was previously in. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 09:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oak Grove School District (San Jose, California) schools

Unnecessary category, only content to populate Oak Grove School District category is schools, no need for subcategory Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I added everything in Category:Oak Grove School District to the categories that Category:Oak Grove School District (San Jose, California) schools was previously in. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 09:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Jose Unified School District schools

Unnecessary category, only content to populate San Jose Unified School District category is schools, no need for subcategory Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I added everything in Category:San Jose Unified School District to the categories that Category:San Jose Unified School District schools was previously in. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 09:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:East Side Union High School District schools

Unnecessary category, only content to populate East Side Union School District category is schools, no need for subcategory Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I added everything in Category:East Side Union High School District to the categories that Category:East Side Union High School District schools was previously in. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 09:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pastel de papa

"Pastel de papas" is the correct name. Google search yields 10 times more results than "Pastel de papa". Please stop imposing your personal choices. Can a kind admin revert the move please? E4024 (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose all three Wikipedias use the phrase "Pastel de papa". I guess that "pastel de papas" may be a plural form, but do we decline non-English terms in Commons?--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tongyong Pinyin

(Withdrawn) 22:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I consider it valid as Tongyong Pinyin is less and less common after Chen Shui-bian became former Taiwanese president.--Jusjih (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid category, nothing quiestionable about it. What should categorized in it and where itself should be categorized do not belong in this discussion. Please close is. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, no valid rationales for deletion. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male Luxembourgish pronunciation

Audio categorized separately by gender and by language? Troll Control (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC) If I'm looking for Luxembourgish pronunciation, it's more likely that I don't care if it's male or female than I do care, in which case it's inconvenient to have two separate categories. The options seem to be: 1 - just have categories for language, and categories for gender, 2 - have categories for (language and gender) but have that as an extra category rather than replacing the language one, or 3 - make Category:Male English pronunciation etc and disperse the entries in Category:Male pronunciation Troll Control (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For German pronunciation I usually create categories only with one distinction attribute. Example: names of cities and toponyms of Lower Saxony, toponyms of Schleswig-Holstein, ..., but never Names of cities of Schleswig-Holstein. But I see the disadvantage: 'Names of cities' comprises all names of cities, e.g. Asian/American/African/... names of cities too. When there is no simple opportunity to filter with two attributes at the same time we have a disadvantage. For the topic of Category:Male Luxembourgish pronunciation it's the same with two attributes. For that reason we have Category:Male German pronunciation and Category:Female German pronunciation (but I'm deeply ashamed to admit that I never complete my pronunciations with this attribute). --Jeuwre (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What tells you that I care about gender when I'm listening to pronunciations? I don't. I just copied the category style of the other languages and the "gender" voice was usually added. If you have the time to create other categories for the Luxembourgish pronunciation one you can help me out. Aren't these categories here not enough for you? Don't forget there are "words" who can't be added in a category. --Soued031 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: pronunciation by a female or a male may have some linguistically important value, not sure about necessity for Commons. We also have parent Category:Pronunciation by gender which is not well-developed, though Estopedist1 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the re-use of pronunciation files, gender can be relevant and not just linguistically. Being purely pertinent to the file itself, this is typically the kind of metadata that Commons should provide. Categorization by subject should preferably left to the projects using the files: the same pronunciation can be valid for many, very different subject categories. MarcoSwart (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photos from westmidlandspolice

West Midlands Police is a British police force under the auspices of the Home Office and therefore its work (presumably) falls under Crown Copyright, with such works requiring release under the Open Government Licence (OGL) for them to be freely reusable. Since WMP's Flickr page does not indicate that any OGL licensing is in effect, shouldn't the absence thereof take priority over Flickr's CC licensing? Dvaderv2 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the side: Is "westmidlandspolice" something that has to be spelled like this? --E4024 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be rebranded as "West Midlands Police", but first let's see whether or not there's copyvio going on.--Dvaderv2 (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but copyvio is not something discussed in CfD, normally. You must open "deletion request(s)" for the suspected file(s). --E4024 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...Except that there's 314 files in the category and AFAIK there's no meaningful efficient way of filing deletion requests for that many files. I can file requests for the two WMP photos I've uploaded, but that still leaves the 312 photos uploaded by other users...--Dvaderv2 (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per my previous entry, I have filed deletion requests for my personal WMP uploads (here and here). Let's see how things turn out with those so that a precedent may be established.--Dvaderv2 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the parent is Category:Images from West Midlands Police. But being a hidden category, we may retain this strangely named category, until the copyvio questions are solved Estopedist1 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Java

Suggest moving to Category:Java (island) and moving Category:Java (disambiguation) here. I have cleared out several images for the programming language today and a few years ago and many of the non English sites such as De, Fr, Da, Es and Nl have "Java" as a DAB and have the island at a qualified title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This would be clearer. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

move the whole cat tree to Category:Java Island.--RZuo (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it called "Java Island" often enough rather than just "Java" for natural disambiguation? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's definitely not called Java (island) with those brackets in real life. why not make it simpler, neater and more natural? RZuo (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong reject

:groan: not this again... This has been discussed numerous time in w:Talk:Java and w:Talk:Java (disambiguation). I'm from Java, I speak Javanese, I write in Javanese script, I also know how to code in Java programming language, and Javascript.

Java (island) → Java, move, 16 June 2006, Talk:Java (disambiguation)#Requested move (2) June 16, 2006
Java → Java (island), no move, 28 October 2006, Talk:Java#Requested move
Java → ?, not moved, 19 January 2014, Talk:Java#Requested Move 3
Java → Java (island), not moved, 12 June 2018, w:Talk:Java#Requested move 12 June 2018
Java → Java (island), not moved, 16 June 2018, w:Talk:Java#Requested move 16 June 2018

Bennylin (yes?) 19:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per the discussions Bennylin linked to. Labdajiwa (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for primary topics for Commons categories is generally higher than Wikipedia articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relations of Brazil and Japan

What is the difference with Category:Relations of Brazil and the Empire of Japan? Did the Japanese Emperor pass away lately? E4024 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: Empire of Japan was the country from Meiji Restoration till end of WW2. analogous to Swedish Empire maybe. i have no comment on whether Category:Relations of Brazil and Japan should be split by period in the current form.--RZuo (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water supply and sanitation

i think this should be merged into cat:water supply. i found this by following Category:Water supply and sanitation by country, which i believe is about the same as Category:Water supply by country. RZuo (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They are different:

Category:Water supply and sanitation by country→Water pipes and sewers.
Category:Water supply by country→Bodies of water.

Allforrous (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous@RZuo: there is obvious logical mistake related to categories' names. I guess that Category:Water supply by country to be merged into Category:Water supply and sanitation by country. But this is not an easy task, because both categories are massive. Enwiki has en:Category:Water supply and sanitation by country. And at the same time enwiki hasn't "Category:Water supply and sanitation", probably because normally we avoid ampersand (ie &-sign) in categories names Estopedist1 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:W in Auckland Museum

Watchstands in Auckland Museum? Themightyquill (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dog breeds recognized by United Kennel Club

A number of categories specifically related to national kennel clubs internal classifications proposed to be deleted.

Breeds recognised by national kennel clubs – unnecessary over-categorisation, w:List of kennel clubs gives an indication of how many national kennel clubs there are, their websites are the best place to find out what breed’s each recognises:
- Category:Dog breeds recognized by United Kennel Club
- Category:Dog breeds recognized by American Kennel Club
Kennel club breed group classifications – each kennel club has a distinct and often very different way of classifying various dog breeds, to include every breed group of every kennel club would be onerous over-categorisation, again the specific kennel club’s own websites are the best place to find out their group classifications:

Cavalryman (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. These were created at a time when the Wiki projects were new, and establishing breed-related articles, collections, and categories were thought to be a priority. These are less relevant today, and the classifications tend to be arbitrary. William Harris (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. These categories were never intended as source of information, but as aids for searching for specific types of media. Attributing specific group categories (such as "Gundog group UKC") was intended to prevent endless category changes to breeds that have multiple classifications, like the Standard Poodle, which the FCI classifies as a companion breed, the KC as a utility breed, the AKC as a non-sporting breed, and the UKC as a gundog. If these categories were to be deleted, users of Commons looking for media on specific breed groups would be forced to cross-reference external breed listings with the main dog breeds category.

Furthermore, Cavalryman has misunderstood the scope. They imply a complete system of breed group categories would be massive and correspond to the number of national kennel clubs. This is not the case. Most of the world's national kennel clubs are governed by the FCI [1], sharing its breed recognitions and breed groupings. The major exceptions are the British KC and the American UKC and AKC. The number of relevant grouping systems is limited to four.

Furthermore, breed groupings are inherently arbitrary. Without some sort of authority, like these major kennel clubs and the FCI, what are we supposed to base dog breed categorisations on? Will we need to cite sources for including breeds in group categories? What sorts of group categories should we even have? "Non-sporting dogs" would be a near meaningless distinction and almost certainly against Commons rules as a category without its context as the "catch-all" group for breeds that don't herd, hunt, or retrieve as used by AKC. "Companion and toy dogs" without its definition as an FCI breed group would be almost useless, considering most dog breeds these days are pets first, utility animals second if at all. Existing "breed group (authority)" categories have the advantage of not only stating their authority but also their scope in the category name itself. --Pitke (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pitke, it is inaccurate to say FCI members share breed recognitions and groupings, they do are neither bound by nor adhere to either breed recognition or groupings; further most of the time kennel clubs create groups so they can award best in breed, best in group and best in show prizes as conformation shows.

Breed groupings are not arbitrary in the real world (as opposed to the world of kennel club conformation shows), and on Commons these categories should be based upon what is reliably sourced from one of the Wikipedias, not some external organisations. I have commenced that process here.

The other problem with these KC group categories is they provide an incomplete and distorted picture, they only represent those breeds of a type that are recognised by that kennel club, a far from universal picture. Even for established western breeds, for instance Poodle, the enwiki Poodle article now clearly states they are of water dog origins and some are still used as gundogs, whilst others are strictly companion dogs.

These are an incomplete list of groupings, most of which are empty, that are not maintained and not reflective of anything of substance.

I appreciate why at the beginnings of Wikipedia the kennel clubs were used as a base, they were one of the best resources freely available online. Now, with electronic libraries and contributions from Wikipedians from outside the Anglosphere, the kennel clubs are no longer the best resource and are increasingly seen as limited (or even biased) in their commentary. Cavalryman (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Wide open legs (knees close)

If the knees are close to each other, the legs cannot be "wide open". Can we also give a rest to women in 21st Century and do not poke our nose this much in their body? Why do we need such a thing? Delete it. E4024 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user who created this category is constantly interested in trivial matters. This is one of them.--禁樹なずな (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of common human posture. We need this thing. Or, In this case, better way is renaming. --Benzoyl (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You missed a basic issue: Why are there only women in the cat? Is Commons about male fantasies? E4024 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we find men's photo, adding in this category. --Benzoyl (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Claudio José Vicente Antolínez

El nombre con el que se conoce a este artista es «José Antolínez», y no «Claudio José Vicente Antolínez» Laci3 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Laci3: enwiki uses the name Category:José Antolínez. Solution per enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zainichi Korean people

An unregistered user is insisting (both with its own IP addresses and a VPN) on moving the content of this category to Category:Koreans in Japan so let’s discuss it here. Ping Morio. Thibaut (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to w:Koreans in Japan: The term Zainichi Korean refers only to long-term Korean residents of Japan who trace their roots to Korea under Japanese rule, distinguishing them from the later wave of Korean migrants who came mostly in the 1980s and from pre-modern immigrants dating back to antiquity who may themselves be the ancestors of the Japanese people..

The category Category:Koreans in Japan is a much broader category and I think both should be kept. --Thibaut (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ribaue

Is Category:Ribaue redundant with Category:Ribaué ? -- Themightyquill (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: No, based on enwiki Ribaue. The Portuguese rendering is "Ribáuè". On enwiki "Ribáuè" redirects to "Ribaue". I think if any change is made, it should be to "Ribáuè", based on Ribáuè District, Sometimes categories on the Commons use the country of origin's spelling, sometimes not. I never know what to do in these cases because either way can be seen as wrong by some. Krok6kola (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Also see enwiki Mount Ribáuè, now in Category:Mount Ribaue on the Commons, the opposite problem. You could take this up as a career! =) Krok6kola (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: But to be clear: Whichever one is the correct spelling, the two categories are redundant, yes? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Yes! Krok6kola (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rare dog breeds

Completely subjective categorisation. Yes some breeds may be rare in the west, but that does not mean they are rare.

An example of some of the ridiculous inclusions is Category:English Foxhound:

w:List of foxhound packs of the United Kingdom would suggest they are relatively common in their country of origin
whilst w:List of hound packs of Ireland#Foxhound packs and w:List of hound packs of Australia#Fox hunting packs would suggest they are well represented elsewhere too.

Suggest the category be deleted. Cavalryman (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category - subjective and meaningless, as there is no definition of what "rare" is. William Harris (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Something equivalent to en:Category:Vulnerable Native Breeds could be workable, where there is a clear list rather than subjective decisions by commons editors. But what we have currently is useless. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03

Counties of Northern Ireland

Navigation menu

Search