Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in May 2021.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/05.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2021-05.
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:Interwencja na fermie lisów w Goliszowie

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Interwencja na fermie lisów w Karskach.

This category should be renamed, from Polish to English. Ies (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ies: : English is definitely preferred but "Intervention at the fox farm in Goliszów" is not a very clear title either. Can we do better? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Sometimes in cases of rather unusual events category names like this are required. I had no idea about the meaning of the Polish category name and therefore couldn't make a suggestion. Now I would prefer "Intervention at the fox farm in Goliszów 2017". The additional 2017 to distinguish this one from (possible) other interventions and to put it somehow below Category:2017 in Poland. -- Ies (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
support @Themightyquill: I did some reading. The title means exactly how it goes: the depicted event is an intervention of inspectors and animal rights activists at this fox farm. I agree the year must be added, because at least one more intervention was in 2019 and after that the farm was shut down. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think that extremely low quality and repetitive images must be deleted. What do you think?Lembit Staan (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lembit Staan: Can you figure out which inspectors were present? Like government inspectors, or some activists? I think that's very important information to include in the category name - more important than the type of farm, for instance. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interwencja na fermie lisów w Karskach

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Interwencja na fermie lisów w Goliszowie.

This category should be renamed, from Polish to English. Ies (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support; the same issue as for Category:Interwencja na fermie lisów w Goliszowie. Lembit Staan (talk)

Category:Young women in Ukraine

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Adolescent girls by country.

Category:"Young women in x country" cats have all been redirected to "Adolescent girls", including in the case of Ukraine; but somehow there is an effort to make special cats for Ukraine that other countries do not have... As "adolescent girls" are the same in any country (just as "young women") we will have a standard categorization for all countries. E4024 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Young women is a much broader category than adolescent girls, as it includes women in their 20s. The UN defines adolescence as a period from 10 to 19 years old. The category of Young people by country has 60 countries in it. So, I don't see what the issue is with having separate categories for young men and young women. There are also 40 countries in the category Youth by country, which also overlaps with Young People and Adolescents. As well as 45 countries in the category Teenagers by country which also overlaps with all of the above. Because teenagers are from ages 13 to 19. Girls from 10 to 12 are children and cannot be described as young women although they are defined as adolescents by the UN. So it is not the same thing. Young women in their 20s are also young, but they cannot be described as adolescents.--Sanya3 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the change from "young women" to "adolescent girls" was made by a single editor in 2010 without any real discussion. When he moved those categories, there were so many people upset at this that he quit the project altogether. "The main actor, ARTEST4ECHO has been attacked quite strongly because some people where quite upset that he moved their "Young women" in Women or Adolescent women, so he quit working on Commons in the middle of the boys operations." This is definitely a good time to revisit this question, as this was not a logical move on his part and a mass change was done by him without any real input from other editors. --Sanya3 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it should be standard as with other countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sanya seems not to understand or pretend to do so that the question is Commons cannot make special arrangements for Ukraine (or any other country) in cats that involve many countries. Full stop. --E4024 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's you who doesn't understand that I am saying it has to be changed for all countries, because the categories were redirected incorrectly by one person without any real discussion. --Sanya3 (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanya3: If you want to revisit the larger question, please create a discussion for the larger question. You concede that there's no reason for Ukraine to be a unique case here, so there's no need to continue this small discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THE ISSUE IS MOOT because the category in question now is a redirect to Category:Young women of Ukraine rather than to "Adolescent girls" and "Adolescernt girls" is its subcategory. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dinners by country

[edit]

Some country subcats use "Dinner" while others use "Dinners"; this must be harmonized for all. OTOH we also have "Category:Lunch by country" (singular). Decide. Native speakers? E4024 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - not bad to have all of them renamed "Dinner in...". Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of flags by country

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2007/09/Proposal new Category:flag photographies.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Photographs of flags of Turkey.

I really do not understand these "Photographs of flags" categories. Of course there may also be "videos of flags" but if we need to add "photographs" to all similar cases, we would all be busy as hell and probably forever. A cat I like to use, Category:Women smiling with teeth, should become Category:Photographs of women smiling with teeth and all those junk cats like "Nude or partially nude women with shaved genitalia sitting and smiling while smoking" would have to be moved to "Photographs of nude or partially nude women with shaved genitalia sitting and smiling while smoking". Imagine how many hundreds of cats to move... Let us use and limit this "photographs" thingy only for photos of photos, like a "framed family picture" file. Please. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category as a result of this discussion. The basic idea was that the flag categories are really crowded and separating them into photographs of real flags and flag diagrams seemed like a good idea. This is different from the situation with Category:Women smiling with teeth, which contains nothing but photographs. The other flag images are sorted by type. There is a discussion for those categories, in particular on getting rid of the PNG, JPG and GIF flag categories. If we get a good word for flag images that aren't photographs, I'd be for putting the non-photographs there, but keeping the photographs category. --rimshottalk 00:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that separate categories between photographs of flags and diagrams of flags (or drawings etc.) are useful. The categories by country also seem pretty useful. I do not see a problem with them. Place Clichy 09:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shouting

[edit]

I want to merge these wikidata items: d:Q1932016 (shout) and d:Q103931230 (Screaming), but there is a conflict between linked categories: Category:Shouting and Category:Screaming. I think they should be merged. Of course, the meaning is slightly different: “shouting” usually means articulate words, and “screaming” usually means inarticulate sound, but you can’t distinguish that from a picture anyway. -- Brinerat (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we have two entries for two meanings. Why discuss this issue furthermore? --Mateus2019 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brinerat: I see your point when it comes to images, but it can be equally unclear from an image if someone is shouting or yawning. Moreover, commons is not restricted to images. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran members

[edit]

It should begin with "Members of" and I guess "din" should be "deen". User:4nn1l2, User:Ahmad252, other experts? E4024 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Domnovo

[edit]

The category has the wrong name. The right should be "Domnowo" 5snake5 (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The English wikipedia article is at en:Domnovo. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews and Judaism

[edit]

Meaningless categorization. Please don't get confused for the interwiki, I looked at the EN:WP link which is an article called "Who is a jew?" (If I were active there I would also open to discussion that article but now let's concentrate on this cat.) IMHO simply delete this. E4024 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Can you explain why this is useful? Category:Jews is already a subcategory of Category:Judaism. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to make a case for deletion then please do so and I will listen. But "meaningless" is obviously nonsensical, and it's just more of E4024's nationalistic soapboxing. See the regular threads at COM:AN/U - another one opened just yesterday. I have no interest in E4024's "humble opinion", we work by policy instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I'm not necessarily proposing deletion, I fail to see how this category tree makes logical sense as it is structured now.. Category:Jews and Judaism is a subcategory of both Category:Jews and Category:Judaism, but Category:Jews and Judaism in North America‎ is a parent category of Category:Judaism in North America‎, of which Category:Jews and Judaism in the Dominican Republic‎ is a subcategory. Category:Judaism in the United States is a parent category of Category:Jewish people of the United States. How exactly should this category and its subcategories be structured? Shouldn't Category:Jews and Category:Judaism logically be child rather than parent categories of Category:Jews and Judaism? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
waiting to see Christians and Christianity, Muslims and Islam, Buddhists and Buddhism... i urge those users create these cats immediately.--RZuo (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you said, "Arabs and Islam", then you might have a point. The point with this (widely cited) grouping is that Judaism is much an ethnic group as a religious group. There's no equivalent with "Christians and Christianity" (Christianity is a proselytising religion, it has converts worldwide), nor for "Buddhists and Buddhism". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: That's fine, but then, in all cases, Category:Jews and Judaism (or "Jews and Judaism in X") should be the top category, encompassing both the ethnic and religious group. Correct? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grand Canyon National Park Service

[edit]

It's unclear what this category is supposed to represent. "Any activity of the National Park Service in the Grand Canyon" is too vague to be useful and doesn't have an equivalent in other park categories. Proposing upmerge to Category:Grand Canyon National Park (images will need to be diffused from there). – BMacZero (🗩) 03:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a legitimate category for images of people working for the NPS at the Grand Canyon. But many of these images are only here because they were taken by the NPS, which is already covered by Category:Files from Grand Canyon NPS Flickr stream -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, that first topic is covered more clearly by categories like Category:NPS employees of Grand Canyon National Park. If there is something useful categorized here, I think the category needs to be renamed to clearly explain what it is. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I hadn't seen Category:NPS employees of Grand Canyon National Park. Between that and Category:Files from Grand Canyon NPS Flickr stream, I see no reason for Category:Grand Canyon National Park Service to exist. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zvillinga Street, 13-4 (Chelyabinsk)

[edit]

Incorrect name due to inattention "-" instead of "/", please delete, created the correct category name: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Zvillinga_Street,_13/4_(Chelyabinsk) 攝影師 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@攝影師: could some Russia experts (eg @Butko and 1234qwer1234qwer4: ) confirm this? Related file names use the style "13-4"--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, the slash is indeed the common typography. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Russia, the designation 13-4 means house No. 13, apartment (office) No. 4, the designation 13/4 means house No. 13, building No. 4, such a designation when several separate buildings under one address number are listed. 攝影師 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taipei Metro geographic maps

[edit]

I have never seen a geographic map used for rail transport. Because no one knows what "Taipei Metro geographic maps" means, and I asked the user who created this category (see: special:diff/553156201), but I waited for almost a month without any response from User:Assanges.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ploiarium alternifolium

[edit]

Ploiarium alternifolium is not accepted anymore and now considered synonymous with Ploiarium elegans (whose category page Category:Ploiarium elegans also exists) by Turner (2018) and Plants of the World Online. I would like to redirect the former one to the latter. --Eryk Kij (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively Ploiarium alternifolium is not accepted anymore and now considered synonymous with Ploiarium elegans by POWO, however, it is still accepted by the Catalogue of Life and by World Plants.--MILEPRI (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MILEPRI: Right, but even Hassler regards these two names as synonymous ([1]), so there is no reason to let the files be placed at separate categories. At least we have to place all of them at only one page. What do you think the best solution is? I think concentration to Ploiarium elegans is so since I cannot find out any doubt about Turner's article nor POWO's (= the Kew's) decision based on that article so far. If Hassler left any note on Turner (2018) with a skeptical tone, I would be confused, though. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most correct thing is to leave it as it is, Ploiarium elegans and indicate in the taxon a note indicating that Catalog of Life and World Plants consider it a synonym for Ploiarium alternifolium.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MILEPRI: I understood that you would not like to merge both categories but just to leave notes, I am, however, still not sure about what you think is the best treatment of the files. How about this point? --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I explain. I made this taxon taking Hassler as a reference. If you have found the most current reference of Turner,2018 , you must change it to its correct name without having to consult me, since if you include this reference as Additional reference, you are justifying your change. If you still want to add more information about the taxon, you can add a note indicating that other authors still consider it a synonym.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MILEPRI: >you must change it to its correct name without having to consult me
I cannot do such a thing. Did you mean my edit on species:Ploiarium elegans? If so, I did justify my change there indeed and I thought you could revert my edit if you have other source supposing strongly the name Ploiarium alternifolium. Concerning these categories on Wikimedia Commons, I, however thought that I have to behave myself differently, since there are files that have to be stored in a single place and they makes the matter more complicated. I think we have to finally agree on where to place them. Now I ask you again. Do you think we can let the files be placed scatteredly? Don't you think we have to place them at just a single category? I think the more important thing is where to place the files than which is the more proper name in terms of Commons. --Eryk Kij (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to tell you that I have never merged articles, and I do not know how to do it, although I think that by leaving a single article, in the references of this, the data of the synonym are reflected.--MILEPRI (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Markus Ganserer

[edit]

The politician formerly known as "Maukus Ganserer" is no longer male and has had a sex change, becoming the female "Tessa Ganserer". I'm wondering whether this category for the pre-op Markus Ganserer should be merged with the category for the post-op Tessa Ganserer or if it should stay (perhaps with a message noting Ganserer is Trans). As far as I know, it's not "deadnaming" because Ganserer was a public figure BEFORE coming out as trans (Ganserer was elected as a member of the Bavarian State Parliament under the "Maukus" name in 2013 and only started using the "Tessa" name in 2018 while in office) I do think that a discussion should be had about this possible redundant category for future reference. Thanks in advance. 109.78.169.97 22:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should not have both this cat and also Category:Tessa Ganserer. There should be one cat for one person. Of course a subcat not based on a new name but on gender change can be added, like "X before something" or "X after something". "Something" may be the year of change. Or simply we agree on one personal name, make the other personal name an RD and then make subcats for "years", like Category:John Smith by year. IMHO. Please add a discussion tag also to the other cat (Category:Tessa Ganserer). --E4024 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely should be only Category:Tessa Ganserer, with subcategories as suggested. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Israeli actors

[edit]

Does this new cat sound strange only to me? Why not "Actors from Israel" not enough? Do these cats serve to actors who act in religious films? IMHO we do not need this cat and its male and female subcats; but of course this is only my opinion. If other people think differently, so be the consensus. E4024 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Jewish actors, though this could be renamed Category:Jewish actors from Israel. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be best because there is also an Arab population in Israel. Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 12:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trade in Arbil

[edit]

The cat is quite mixed up with Category:Commerce in Arbil and Category:Bazaars in Arbil, the latter of which should not have been moved to this name from Category:Markets in Arbil, but be a subcat of it... E4024 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Textbooks of foreign languages

[edit]

Commons is a multilingual project and it makes no sense to have a category for objects written about a "foreign language". It would be better to use the name Category:Language textbooks. Thuresson (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the concern here. Any name without "foreign" is welcome. --E4024 (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“Foreign language” can be related to the language in which the book was written and the reader (student) is expected to know. A textbook of Russian for an English speaking student is a “textbook of foreign language”, and so is the textbook of English for a Russian speaking student. A textbook which explains or helps to improve English grammar (orthography, pronunciation, style, etc.) to an English speaking student is a language textbook, but not a foreign language textbook. Hence the “foreign language” makes sence very well. Whether such a category is necessary or useful is another question and I don't have any strong opinion to it. Feel free to discuss it and change it.--Shlomo (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:Second language textbooks since it's in Category:Second language education? -- 08:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
… which itself is in Category:Foreign languages. Honestly, I don't know, seems to me as a linguistic subtlety of English which I as a non-native speaker don't feel qualified to judge.--Shlomo (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tustin, California by year

[edit]

Most of these years have 1 category in them, meaning there were photos 1 month out of the year. Why does this city need by year categories? Mjrmtg (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjrmtg: Did you mean Category:Months in Tustin, California? I think at one point it made some sense (I'm not even sure why) but @Pi.1415926535: told me to stop which is fair and in retrospect was the right decision. I apologize for not following up to fix it. I think it's fine to move them to decade as they are really, really small and in California by month. I'm fine with moving them myself and C2ing the whole lot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. Might be fine that there is a year category but a month category is overkill. --Mjrmtg (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern yoga

[edit]

Unused (and remaining so for many months); the category in use is Category:Yoga as exercise so this is redundant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It is expressly stated in Wikipedia. --Allforrous (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous: What is expressly stated in Wikipedia? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That both can coexist --Allforrous (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Denominational Yoga

[edit]

Category is unused; It looks at first glance as if it might be of some use, based on De Michelis's early understanding of "Modern Yoga" (another of her attempted categories that really doesn't work well and has not been taken up by other scholars) but it is very difficult to find groups who definitely belong as most groups are not purely religious and purely "modern", whatever that is, so the scheme doesn't work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: currently, the category is populated. Enwiki has also Category:Modern Denominational Yoga--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's probably just about defensible now. Your link points to the Commonscat but no matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pembroke Quadrangle (Brown University)

[edit]

Duplicate of Category:Pembroke Campus (Brown University) under a less conventional name. Should be deleted. Filetime (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Filetime: maybe not to be deleted but to be redirected? Google gives several hits to the phrase "Pembroke Quadrangle"--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fengguan

[edit]

"Phoenix crowns" are very doable for someone who's native English speaking in a way to name a category that people will perfectly understand what User:Daderot mean by "Fengguan".--Kai3952 (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To speak for myself, I am very happy with either name. All best wishes! --Daderot (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manhole covers in Sarthe

[edit]

changement de categorie vers "in le Mans" OldLion (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour User talk:OldLion, je pense qu'il vaut mieux laisser cette catégorie en place et mettre comme une sous catégorie Category:Manhole covers in Le Mans. Bien à vous. Lionel Allorge (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Todesmarsch

[edit]

Rename to Category:Monuments and memorials of the Holocaust death marches (or some better English-language title), because the current title means "death march" in German, i.e., basically duplicates a parent category, and its content is indeed monuments, plaques, memorials, etc.

Also all its subcategories have German titles. Maybe I don't know much, but I have never seen any mixes of English-language and non-English titles. For example, I would expect "Monument to the Victims of Fascism (Badeborn)" instead of "Denkmal der Opfer des Faschismus (Badeborn)", etc. If you agree that this is unusual, can we handle renaming of subcategories right here or each subcategory must have a separate discussion? Lembit Staan (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments and memorials of the Holocaust death marches makes sense to me. Or Category:Monuments and memorials to death marches of the Holocaust- Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether a Category:Monuments and memorials of the Holocaust death marches is a good replacement for the Category:Todesmarsch. After all, it was not only Jews who died on the various death marches. There were also, for example, politically persecuted prisoners from various countries who were affected in the same way as, for example, the death march of the Schwarzheide subcamp where there are also various memorial stones. From this point of view, wouldn't it be better to establish a neutral category like Category:Monuments and memorials of the death marches? Rigorius (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why this discussion was never concluded? Nakonana (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question. There where different death marches. Here in the second world war, this german Todesmarsch category affects

  • not only jewish men, therefor Holocaust death marches is false.

Not only memorials, but also maps and other materials of the (such) marches have to be categorized. Regards --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs from John Schaunlaub in August 2014

[edit]

This category is not useful because none of the files in it was created in August 2014. Could it be a maintenance category (files to be checked)? If so, it should be renamed to identify it as such. If not, category should be deleted and files moved back to Category:Photographs from John Schaunlaub. Senator2029 13:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. John Schanlaub is a talented photographer, who uploaded lots and lots of fine photos to flickr, under free licenses. He had also occasionally uploaded some of his images to commons by himself.
  2. At one point I thought I saw other commons contributors had uploaded something like 700 of his images to the commons.
  3. I uploaded one additional image to the commons, and left an explicit thanks.
  4. His reaction was surprising.
  5. He started vandalizing hundreds of images that had already been confirmed as having passed flickr-review - as if he could claw back the IP rights he surrendered.
  6. He was told this was vandalism, and that he had to stop.
  7. I initiated a discussion over whether we should delete the six dozen or so images he had personally uploaded.
  8. He became abusive. He asserted that he had spent tens of thousands of dollars on camera equipment over the decades he had been an amateur photographer, and he would not stand for people profiting from his the funds he spent on his hobby.
  9. He said WMF contributors were thieves. Although I think I had bent over backwards to be respectful to him I came in for a pretty hefty share of abuse.
  10. Courtesy deletion is not a right, it is a favour, one we can and do withhold from third parties who won't offer a polite explanation as to why they should get a courtesy deletion.
  11. When he did not get his courtesy deletion he modified his flickr page. He deleted all his photos and changed his flickr profile page to a vicious and nonsensical warning and denunciation of the commons and WMF.
  12. About a week later his flickr account was deleted. Perhaps at his request, or perhaps because his vicious denunciation violated flickr's terms of service.
  13. So, I was very surprised, a few months ago, to see almost all of those 700 images which had all been properly {{Flickrreview}}ed, were gone. Deleted.
  14. My theory is that Schanlaub directly contacted a helpful but ill-advised administrator, through email, or OTRS, or some other off-wiki manner, and made a second request for courtesy deletion. Administrators are authorized to consider requests for courtesy deletion - but only in the context of a discussion. Administrators are not authorized to speedy delete images in response to a request for courtesy deletion.
  15. In my opinion, if we can determine which 700 images were deleted, out of process, they should all be restored.
  16. In my opinion, if we can determine which administrator chose to speedy delete those 700 images they should be firmly requested to never do that again.
Oh, that. OK, so this is upload date rather than photo date (it's not obvious why we'd care, but maybe). Did we ever get any resolution here? Or else delete the lot. Life's too short. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sacré-Cœur chapel, Notre-Dame de Paris

[edit]

'There is no chapel of this name in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris, see Google search "chapelle du sacré-cœur cathédrale notre-dame" Of the three photos that had been listed there, two showed en:Sacré-Cœur, Paris on en:Montmartre hill, and one showed a panorama, seen either from the hill or from a tower of the basilica.' per these edits.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: I discover this discussion out of complete randomness : according to this website (in Fench), the chapel is the seventh on the right when you enter Notre-Dame. However, it seems to me that it is already covered by this category : c:Category:Saint Pierre guérissant les malades by Laurent de La Hyre and the other categories related to c:Category:Interior of Notre-Dame de Paris. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ulamm and Tpe.g5.stan: So let us make it a category redirect to Category:Saint Pierre guérissant les malades by Laurent de La Hyre.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I am not sure about the policy of Commons regarding categories and subcategories, I mainly focus on election apportionment diagrams... There is a map of the chapels of Notre-Dame. I may have missed some elements yesterday : c:File:Notre Dame 94 2012-07-01.jpg for example is not only about the painting, but also about this icon : c:Category:Our Lady of Vladimir (Sacré-Cœur chapel, Notre-Dame de Paris). It seems to me now that 1-this chapel exists and 2-there are relevant subcategories that should appear in this category. What do you think ? Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tpe.g5.stan: Thank you. On that basis, I have restored the wikidata infobox and cats to Category:Sacré-Cœur chapel, Notre-Dame de Paris and added Category:Our Lady of Vladimir (Sacré-Cœur chapel, Notre-Dame de Paris) to it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hohlsteinhöhle

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Hohlsteinhöhle.

empty category, would be identical to the parent category:NSG Hohlsteinhöhle Magnus (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsungam: , yes these two are identical, but why to prefer the name "NSG Hohlsteinhöhle" (German official name seems to be "NSG Hohlsteinhoehle") and not "Hohlsteinhöhle"? The latter one is used in Wikidata, NATURA 2000, and WDPA--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/05&oldid=940809347"