Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06

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

Category:All-female musical groups from the United Kingdom

[edit]

Unnecessary move and redirect from Category:Girl groups from the United Kingdom. Even Wikipedia for once uses the common term which has wide usage inside and outside the music industry. We seem to manage with Category:Boy bands so I see no compelling reason why this has been changed unilaterally and without any discussion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment As I told in my talk page, all female musical group is a technical definition that encompasses any musical group composed by female members, regardless to their age, musical genre, and so on. Girl group doesn't take in count any of the above criteria and is a questionable categorization (I found in that category groups formed by over-40 singers...). Placing an element into a category means hiding it to its mother category. If all I know about a group is that composed uniquely by females (technical definition), I must be sure to find it there and not to wonder how someone classified it according to questionable criteria. -- Blackcat 10:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that it's made the definition less specific, not more. If you look at List of all-female bands, there is a link to List of girl groups, which succinctly makes the distinction for us. "Girl groups" is an established and widely-understood term. By lumping, e.g. Fanny in with Pussycat Dolls, as this recategorisation does, you lose the important difference. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girl group is not specific and is vague, as every fanzine definition. Sorry but a music magazine cannot replace logics. A category is a subset of unambiguous elements. all-female musical group is unquestionable. You can discuss its genre but cannot discuss its composition of only female members. The rest is about categorizations of genre. -- Blackcat 13:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. and no, I don't use en.wiki as guide line. This is Commons, not an extension of en.wiki. We use Association football, not football, for example.
Why is Category:Boy bands NOT vague? Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is, too. -- Blackcat 20:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd seriously lump Led Zeppelin in with Take That? Nonsense. Perhaps you should get up to date with popular culture and its terminology. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girl groups from the United Kingdom should be kept, as there are notable girl groups coming from the UK, such as the Spice Girls, Bananarama, Girls Aloud, the Saturdays or Sugababes. However, All-female musical groups from the United Kingdom should be kept as well, as the Slits, Girlschool or Rock Goddess are not girl groups. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? And what't the difference between the Rock Goddess and the Spice Girls? I am waiting, so far you haven't explained what's the difference. -- Blackcat 07:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: Led Zeppelin are not an all-male group. The group is incidentally composed by male members. A same sex group is a group born on purpose with members with the same sex. -- Blackcat 07:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is rapidly losing any sense of sanity. I'm not going to split hairs nor multiply entities unnecessarily. But it is a fact that Led Zeppelin never had a female member. By your definition, that makes them an "all-male musical group". Boy bands are a proper subset of that categorisation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St Nicholas', Great Yarmouth

[edit]

Shouldn't this just be the common name, "Category:Great Yarmouth Minster"? Or at least "Category:St. Nicholas' Church, Great Yarmouth"? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other St Nicholas, Great Yarmouth? If so adding church would make sense. Judging from our image sources, the current name is correct, and has been since at least 1864. File:St. Nicholas, Great Yarmouth 1864 Ecclesiologist22camb 0046.jpg. If anyone uses Great Yarmouth Minster perhaps that could be a category redirect. WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Nicholas church, Great Yarmouth is the correct designation for this category as far as I’m am concerned, although the church's official title is The Minster Church of St Nicholas, Great Yarmouth. Should be kept as it is Kolforn (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it doesn't pick up people wanting to add photos of the Minster. Their website is https://gtyarmouthminster.org/ and doesn't call it St Nicholas (even if that is an official name) Secretlondon (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rioni of Rome

[edit]

Category:Rioni of Rome was apparently created as a replacement of Category:Districts of Rome, which was then vandalized and marked for speedy deletion. While this partly unassimilated wording might be a better category name, discussion must be held and if the the new name is found to be more suitable, moving of files and renaming of the existing categories should follow process. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the same name ("rioni") used on en.wiki. The translation of rioni with districts is not correct.--Arbalete (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment 'Matching enwiki' is not a valid reason for an undiscussed change to a category (such as spelling corrections or translation to English might be). Commons is not enwiki and has its own distinct category naming conventions, with good reason. Josh (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Arbalete: Why is the term "district" inaccurate when discussing rioni? Also, rioni appear to be exclusive to Rome, so why do we need to append "of Rome" to it? Josh (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After no news for 6 months, I enacted the proposed solution. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Rail Class 87 87019 (EVN 91 52 0087 019-3)

[edit]

Restore Category:British Rail Class 87 87019 which made sense, was entirely as specific and had nothing wrong with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:British Rail Class 87 87020 (EVN 91 52 0087 020-1) and Category:British Rail Class 87 87017 (EVN 91 52 0087 017-7)‎ Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These locomotives have new ids now, just in the same way E3137 became 86045 and is now 86259. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So that belongs in some explanatory text on the page. But as it is, these are meaningless to almost every reader and they've been made less useful by this rename. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they've been made more useful as all new picture of these locos will feature the EVN. The categories can still be located by their 87xxx number and from British Rail Class 87. They'll eventually be locatable via Railway locomotives of Bulgaria by UIC locomotive number, when it comes to exist.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then restore Category:British Rail Class 87 87019, create category:EVN 91 52 0087 019-3 as a category redirect, and then both can exist in the relevant places as clear (and sortable) identifiers. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And by extension should we do this for all renumbered locomotives or just class 87s? Not sure what you mean by sortable, |19 in the category links seems to be working just fine. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban Airship

[edit]

The company changed its name to "Airship" (see en:Airship (company)). I am not sure if it should live at Category:Airship (which could instead be a redirect to Category:Airships) or if it should be Category:Airship (company). Izno (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

move to Category:Airship (American company), since there was also a british company called Category:Airship Industries.--RZuo (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SS California (1923)

[edit]

This category duplicates Category:California (ship, 1923). Motacilla (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance at Category:Ships_by_name says to omit prefixes from ship names unless they are painted on the hull. I can't see the name here, but that is uncommon. It also calls for "ship" to be included in the disambiguation, and that's done almost universally. Therefore, I'd redirect to Category:California (ship, 1923). – BMacZero (🗩) 15:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bilingual Finnish-Sami signs

[edit]

There is no such thing as the Sami language; there are 10+ individual languages that belong to a larger continuum. As such, this category invites people to miscategorize media and I feel it should be deleted or individual categories created for each Saami language separately by someone who knows which combinations of languages are going to be found together. If this category continues to exist, a warning should be slapped on it that this category should only contain subcategories. Yupik (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be  kept and, as Yupik says, a warning for dissimination should be added. I disgree with Yupik about this being misleading: I think that even as it is, it is useful, as it provides a stepping stone towards exact categorization: It’s much easier to browse through this category and dissminate its contents into its (future) subcats, than trawl through much larger parents cats containing any other permutation of bilingual signs showing Finnish paired with any other language. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that keeping it with a warning on it is probably the best option, like you said. Perhaps with a note to use this category if they don't know what Saami language it is. I'll eventually get around to putting them in the right category. -Yupik (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: hit the nail right on the head. I believe if should be  kept, because there are currently relatively few images of bilingual Finnish-Sami signs and more than a few Sami languages. –Iketsi (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I reiterate, there is *no such thing* as a bilingual Finnish-Sami sign, so you're not going to get any images of them or if you do, they are incorrectly categorized. There *are* such things as bilingual Finnish-Northern Sámi signs, bilingual Finnish-Inari Sámi signs, bilingual Finnish-Skolt Sámi signs, etc. The category still lacks a warning that it should not be used, but I can't figure out which one to use on it. -Yupik (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yupik: I think we all agree that Sami is not a single language, and that this category could be sorted apart from other languages ("|*"). The temporary purpose of this category is to store bilingual Finnish-Sami signs until there are enough images of a particular Sami language to create a proper, dedicated subcategory for it. Its long term purpose is to be a container for bilingual sign subcategories that feature both Finnish and a Sami language. Since there are few images and relatively many Sami languages, grouping Sami languages together gives us an alternative to 1) creating lots of empty or single-file categories for every individual language; and 2) keeping the files in messy parent categories until more files are uploaded so that they can be subcategorized appropriately. People who do not know that there is a dozen different Sami languages will also expect it to exist, so I believe that we need to keep the category and add a note to clarify and educate. --Iketsi (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the category should exist, but it should mainly contain subcategories. I know that there are many different Sami languages. However, I am not that knowledgeable about them, I cannot classify signs correctly. Also, in Sweden Sami is one minority language, if I interpret the legislation correctly. Per W (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:S:t Sava serbisk-ortodoxa kyrka

[edit]

Move to Category:Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church, Stockholm. There are many other en:Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Churches. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: en:Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church redirects to en:St. Sava Church. Maybe our DAB page should be under Category:St. Sava Church?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodox Church in Düsseldorf

[edit]

Delete as unnecessary and without peers Themightyquill (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed
 Delete Category:Orthodox Church in Düsseldorf‎
 Delete Category:Orthodox churches in Düsseldorf‎
 Keep Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in Düsseldorf
Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Category:Orthodox Church in Düsseldorf‎ and Category:Orthodox churches in Düsseldorf‎ are now redirected to Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in Düsseldorf. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film locations of The Pale Horse (1996)

[edit]

Cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is disingenuous of you to claim, "the category is empty" when it's only empty because you've just emptied it:
Also removing the parent categories:
It is misleading to present this DR as "the category was empty" as if you found it that way when you've been the one to empty it. That is a different situation and would require a different rationale for deletion.
If your actual rationale is "Pale Horse does not warrant this category" or "All 'Film location' categories should be removed" then you should state that, and we can discuss that on that basis. For the clarity of the situation to all concerned, that must be done before emptying the category like this. If it's questionable that particular locations belong here, then again that's a different question.
In the absence of any such rationale, then  Keep and restore the removed content. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy, maybe you've missed it, but the powers that be have decided that ALL film locations categories should be deleted. I did not agree with that decision, but am now trying to save all my hard work by moving info from those Cat's to gallery pages.--Judithcomm (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed that, but I'm unsurprised (I can pretty much guess the names who pushed for it). In which case this DR is pointless, and if it was posted, ought to have had that as a rationale.
If all film location categories are to vanish, and this has been decided already without any notification to affected cats (no surprise there) then work around the damage as best you can (good luck with the gallery), and let those who want to delete everything do their own legwork in the cascaded deletions. We can't stop stupid decisions, but we don't have to make effort over them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouraging remarks. --Judithcomm (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perba 29

[edit]

Bilder enthalten nicht nur og. Denkmalteile, sondern verletzten Private Rechte zB Briefkasten und der PKW. sind zu erkennen und zuzuordnen. Denkmal betrifft nur Fachwerk im Obergeschoss. Bilder sofort löschen und vorher fragen bei Privathaushalten wäre angemessen. Der Eigentümer!!!!. Felice2222 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Felice2222: , tut mir leid, dass du verärgert bist. Aber alle Fotos wurden vom öffentlichen Straßenraum aufgenommen.
Auf dem Briefkasten ist nichts zu erkennen. Die Autos und Kennzeichen sind nicht schützenswert. Was du gern machen kannst, die Fotos runterladen und dahingehend bearbeiten, dass du die Kennzeichen unkenntlich machst und die bestehenden Bilder "überladen". Aus meiner Sicht ist daher nichts zu veranlassen. Viele Grüße --Z thomas 11:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hoffe, das die von Ihnen so großzügige Überschreitung von Persönlichkeitsrechten und Datenschutz Ihnen irgendwann selbst auf die Füße fällt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felice2222 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Eocene lake sediments in Canada

[edit]

empty category, redundant to existing category trees, created by a prolific overcategorizor Kevmin § 23:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: this category is not empty, but I suggest to upmerge, because this category name (ie "Eocene lake sediments in") is unique in Commons database--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the category (and category tree) is/are redundant to the Category:Eocene deposits in Canada (which is highly overlapping with Category:Eocene formations in Canada). All are covering essentially the same geologic concept and should in fact be merged.--Kevmin § 19:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Johann Daniel Herz the Elder

[edit]

Duplicate: Category:Johann Daniel Herz der Ältere 200.116.104.66 05:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have several naming conventions for cases like this: for examples, see the dab categories Category:Jan Brueghel (uses Roman numerals to show order), Category:Lucas Cranach (uses "the Elder" and "the Younger"), and Category:Hans Holbein (uses "d. J." and "d. Ä."). "der Ältere" is yet another (because it's spelled out). Is there a guideline for this? If not, I favor Category:Johann Daniel Herz der Ältere because it is older than the other category, is the one attached to the Wikidata item, and matches the verbiage of Category:Johann Daniel Herz der Jüngere. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected for the moment, I would argue for the English title, but there are many other categories that are not in English either. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patriots from Moldova

[edit]

Unclear criteria. Patriotism is a highly subjective tag to be attributed to one person or another. Gikü (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patriots by country and subcats are also debatable.--RZuo (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Road bridges in Czechia by district

[edit]

For most of items, districts are categorized standardly through regions (Category:Road bridges in Czechia by region). Redundant flat level of districts is generally unwanted and should be avoided, non-hierarchic localization structure is unmaintainable and should be rather reduced than expanded. ŠJů (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Draceane and Ankry: The undeletion discussion Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Category:Road bridges in Czechia by district was based on the proposer's claim that "until now there is no category tree comparable with Bridges in the Czech Republic by region, so it's necessary to have a category to link existing district cats." However, there existed and exists the category Road bridges in Czechia by region, and both the existing 2 district categories are fully categorized through it. The district level is redundant overcategorization, as well as Bridges in the Czech Republic by district and Railway bridges in the Czech Republic by district, created hastily two years ago. The vast majority of items, however, have districts categorized through regions, without this redundant flat level of districts. Traditionally, we have here flat categories "by country" (redundant somewhere to the continent hierarchy) and for some topics also "by city" (redundant to the region+district hierarchy) - but I do not consider it sensible to expand such redundancies and introduce other levels of overcategorizing flat categories. Even the flat level "by city" causes many inconsistencies and significantly impairs the maintainability of the categorization, as other forms of overcategorization which made the structure unnecessarily complicated and disorganized (some city categories are categorized only to the flat category "by city" but not by the administrative division, some only by the administrative unit but not to the flat category, and consistency could only be ensured by having someone check all the included items individually, one by one, periodically over and over again.). Categorization based on principles of hierarchicality and modularity prevents such problems, all uncategorised content always floats visibly to the surface, into the parent category, to be classified properly. Sprouts of overcategorization, duplicities and redundances should be uprooted and weeded in time, as cancer tumours. When they grow already through the tissues, it is too late. --ŠJů (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luigi Mattei

[edit]

Articles about a general of the same name are leading here. He has his own category. Will that correct itself? WQUlrich (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WQUlrich: Incoming links will not correct themselves, you or another user should fix them. This category should be made a DAB category linking to Category:Luigi Mattei (Cardinal) and Category:Luigi Mattei (General). Additionally, we don't generally capitalize non-proper names in category names, so those categories would more correctly be called Category:Luigi Mattei (cardinal) and Category:Luigi Mattei (general). – BMacZero (🗩) 16:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: Thank you! They're both rather minor characters. I doubt that any more files will be forthcoming soon. I'll do as suggested. WQUlrich (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I should really do is create an English article for the cardinal, then move the one for the general...but SO many articles link to his page! :) WQUlrich (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WQUlrich: Thanks, your changes look good to me. I changed the "Commons Category" properties on the associated Wikidata items to the new ones, perhaps that will clear up the links you're seeing. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! WQUlrich (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nostalgia for the PSRA

[edit]

Should be re-organised like https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Nostalgia_for_the_Republic_of_Vietnam&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile , I'm not an Albania expert. Adding this here so someone with more experience dealing with Albania can fix it. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juni 2021 Bartiris auf der Terrasse

[edit]

Photographers experimental collection of flowers on his balcony. Thus to be deleted „not allowing Commons to be used as a general-purpose media-hosting service (like Flickr, Photobucket, YouTube, etc.), ...” 62.216.207.121 13:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges in Norfolk, England by month of photography

[edit]
Categories included in this discussion

I'm listing all of the various versions of bridges in Norfolk, England by month of photography. It seems too granular to have photographs of bridges by month for each county in England but I'm focusing on Norfolk for now. Even London isn't split by month. Each category isn't more than a few images. I know there are some things (like buses I think) by month of photography but Category:Bridges photographed in 2007 doesn't break down in months. It goes by country and then location rather than by date. At the same time, the UK bridges by county is not significantly large as upmerging to Category:Bridges in Norfolk, England, photographed in 2007 only leads to a total of sixteen images. The parent categories are thus incomplete and make little sense to me. I suggest that we limit ourselves to bridges by county at the yearly level and then maybe by individual bridge or something with the other side being the month in county category (with the UK photograph by day). --Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is that the User:GeographBot has been busy loading thousands of images from www.geograph for the past few years which include many hundreds of bridges in the UK from lots of different years so there is scope for placing them in category which include the county, the month and the year. If the work to place all bridge images in to year taken category only, these category’s would become very large and loaded. Kolforn (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolforn: How many do you think it would be? Where are the images? You may be right but I still wonder if we should go by individual bridge rather than county first but bridges don't change counties so it's basically the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good question, I spend some time categorising User:GeographBot uploads as they are very often wrong or vague or no-existent and when I come across bridges this is often the case. I think it will be in the many thousands, but this is a guesstimate only, but I will carry on categorising them when I come across them. Kolforn (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolforn: Do you think we should have a village pump discussion on how to organize bridge images? I feel like this requires more experienced editors (maybe it's done differently in the US ones or other nations) and that would be better than you doing the work and someone like me coming around rearranging it. ;) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: That’s really up to you. I for one have found previous village pump discussion rather a waste of words as there are people who can get very belligerent and I do not wish to get into that sort of discussion. At one point I was at the brunt end of cyber bulling so I am sorry to say I would not take part. Kolforn (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolforn: Then let's see here. We probably won't resolve this for years either way lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caricatures of living people

[edit]

imo this cat should be deleted because of Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Living people. it's really impractical. for example, Hosni Mubarak is dead but it takes time until someone could update it. RZuo (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep So a handwave at OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to a CfD that hasn't even got a conclusion?
One difference is that subjects for caricatures are rarer than potential subjects. Yet this category has a dozen times as many entries (and they appear to be valid) compared to the other category. Clearly this one is in use and offering some value in a way that the other isn't (I wouldn't miss that one going).
The maintenance issue seems unimportant - it's not an issue if this is running behind time after a death. Any BLP issues would be lessening at this point, not increasing - it doesn't matter if we're running behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
please start maintaining it, otherwise it seems disingenuous; after all talk is cheap.--RZuo (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conocimientos y uso relacionados con la naturaleza y el universo, como la medicina tradicional - 2020

[edit]
8 cats, zero sense

It seems to be quite a random selection of images with more or less misleading title. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two more like it:

(And there may be more.) (@Claudia Muñoz (WMMX), ProtoplasmaKid, and ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: pinged as cat creators.) Apparently created for Wiki loves Mexico, but even so, if useful, these should become hidden cats — and renamed more sensibly, maybe slashed under Category:Wiki Loves México 2020. (A Wiki Loves campaign that leaves a trail of bad curation and faulty categorization for us to clean up… Why am I not surprised?) No files should be considered to be properly categorized if all they have is any of these cats. I’ll try to rescue at least the most egregious cases. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • An example: This great photo is rendered completely useless for Commons work even though it is tagged with eight categories — because they are all of the same type as the claptrap above — not merely a matter of needing to be translated from Spanish to English, mind, it’s a sad spectacle of fuzzy criteria in cat characterization compounded with haphazard use of those said cats. (For example, this photo of a skeleton doll rolling dough is categorized as Arquitectura vernácula y popular, which would still be wrong if redirected to its established equivalent Vernacular architecture…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colorful objects vs. Category:Multi-colored objects

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03/Category:Colorful.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/07/Category:Colorful Art.

What is the difference, if any, between Category:Multi-colored objects and Category:Colorful objects? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to two similar discussions. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is very complicated. Neither of the two linked discussions really resulted in any sort of consensus. Here are my observations:

  • {{By color}} includes numbered multi-color categories up to four colors (although this one is almost completely unused), which suggests that colorful is intended for five or more colors.
    • However, some combinations of five or more colors (such as black, white, gray, brown, and tan) would definitely not align with most people's ideas of "colorful".
  • Multi-colored objects is a subcategory of Category:Color combinations, which has subcategories containing various specific combinations of certain colors.
    • It is unclear why most of the pictures currently in the multi-colored category would need to be categorized as just multi-colored instead of placed in the categories for their specific color combinations.
      • There are a few situations where the multi-colored category might be needed, such as when it is very difficult or impossible to tell which colors an object is.
  • There is also Category:Rainbow objects. I don't really think that its definition is really disputed, but I have found several objects in the multi-color and colorful categories that would probably better belong in it.

I think that this would be the best way to handle this:

I hope that this makes sense. We probably wouldn't be able to fix all of the confusion, but deciding on some basic definitions could certainly help. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:November 2019 in McDonough, Georgia

[edit]

I don't think any city this size needs a by month category. Mjrmtg (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete and solution per User:Ricky81682--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Category:McDonough, Georgia does not need any date subcategories. Can we move the file to Category:November 2019 in Georgia (U.S. state) as suggested above and then just leave it in Category:McDonough, Georgia. If we're going to make a history subcategory for this city the first level will be Category:History of McDonough, Georgia, which is unnecessary, considering the lack of Category:History of Henry County, Georgia. Building all that just to house one file is a solution that recreates the initial problem. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude standing women with shaved genitalia

[edit]

junior nude 181.90.244.91 20:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Murray Ince

[edit]

Not only is there no content here apart from an unused Creater template, more importantly I strongly get the feeling that this painter does not exist, but rather someone filled in the wrong first name for Joseph Murray Ince. Andre Engels (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andre Engels: I started discussion at en:Talk:Joseph Murray Ince--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statues of Our Lady of the Assumption (Viga, Catanduanes)

[edit]

Erroneus category. The two files here show a statue of Our Lady of the Assumption that is physically located in Pasay (National Capital Region), yet the category claims it is located in Viga (Bicol Region). This category is misleading. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two sole file occupants must be removed from this category. Note that these two are already categorized under Category:Interior of the Our Lady of Fatima Parish Church (Don Carlos Village, Barangay 146, Zone 16, Malibay, Pasay City). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Upskirt in sports

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:Downblouse in sports.

Gratuitous overcategorisation. (The category contains ordinary pictures of sportswomen wearing athletic apparel such as skorts, leotards, bike shorts etc; not privacy violations as the category title would suggest.) I am also nominating these subcategories:

Genericusername57 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about privacy violation, it's just a fact : we see upskirt on those pictures. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In particular the 3 sports (=strenuous movement), "Upskirt" may be inevitable (Compared to Golf, Bowling, Tabletennis etc). --Benzoyl (talk)
  •  Delete for being damn right creepy. Just because an accidental upskirt is seen doesn't mean it needs to be categorised. Very strange behaviour here. –Davey2010Talk 10:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - I agree personally that this is intrinsically very creepy but I vote keep because Wikimedia shouldn't be censored, and this is one of just many data points and once we start deciding what we personally find creepy it becomes very subjective. Nesnad (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nesnad, I'm certainly not here to bludgeon the discussion and you're absolutely entitled to your opinion but I wanted to say this - Wikipedia isn't censored and we should indeed show everything atleast within reason however I can't help but think by this category existing people will only try and take these sorts of images intentionally as the category for it exists .... and if it hasn't already people could branch this category out into "upskirts in public" ... which poses more issues. I do agree with your last point though where does the line stop at being creepy ?. Still I believe that line's crossed here. –Davey2010Talk 23:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but saying categories make some go out and make it is a bit like saying we shouldn't have categories like Category:Dead animals or Category:Bukkake (NSFW of course) or something. I personally think if someone makes a category such as blue eyes, or green socks, or whatever, those are data points used for sorting data, regardless of how "unsavory" we personally feel about the data point. I don't want to start down the slippery slope where we decide what is "ok" and "not ok" based on subjective feelings. I understand not wanting creepy things, but we have to maintain an objective view of tags as just data points or else some people might start saying that certain things make them "uncomfortable" which could be used to promote censorship. Nesnad (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Two users have said that this is "creepy". Does including young children make it more so? Brianjd (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, for nonconsenting adults, we drag our feet on this discussion. But for children, we quickly act to remove the category, condemn the addition of the category and ask that it not happen again. What's the difference? Brianjd (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand where you're coming from but there's a massive difference between adults and children Brian. IMHO I don't believe there's a real urgency to act as although nonconsenting they're still adults at the end of the day. –Davey2010Talk 15:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Question What about not-so-young children? I have confirmed that several subjects were aged 15 or 16 at the time. Sometimes there are obvious clues, like the word "junior", but not always. And, of course, I have only looked at a small subset of the files, I suspect there are many more. Worst of all, some subjects appear to be either young children or teenagers, but I cannot identify them to confirm. Brianjd (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have started systematically analysing the files in Category:Upskirt in figure skating, as that seems to be where the underage subjects are. So far I have identified eight files containing only adult subjects and 16 files containing underage subjects, covering 14 unique subjects with ages ranging from 13 to 17. Brianjd (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete seems inherent POV from voyeuristic perspective. Better to categorize based on neutral descriptive language regarding types of garments. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I don't understand the age argument if it's legal and not porn. We have other "creepy" categories like Category:Korephilia in art which has adult women in sexual situations with non-adults, which is even further than some data point like upskirt. I do agree with Infrogmation of New Orleans who said this category seems POV and personally I don't see much use in categorizing some vague idea of upskirts in sports. So I suppose a more literal category like "visible undergarments in sports" or something would be less POV. That said, I still don't see a good argument for starting to censor things that are legal though. It starts to be very subjective when you do that. Yes, this one might "make sense" as wrong but if we want to remain objective we have to just see things as data points I guess. Nesnad (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Following from Nesnad's argument, I would also suggest the category Open-crotch pants. It is similar to this category, in that both categories are about outer clothing being worn in such a way that something underneath is visible. Also, every subject in the category "Open-crotch pants" is a young child. It seems that, in at least some cases, no consent was obtained.
And let's not start with categories like Children's buttocks.
My first paragraph raised an important point: this is actually about the outer clothing. What is underneath the skirt could be anything from another piece of outerwear (shorts or leotard, the latter being common in the categories under discussion here) to bare buttocks or genitals. What is underneath the open-crotch pants could be a diaper or bare buttocks. If we rename the category to something like "visible undergarments", we are actually redefining it. Brianjd (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete First off, just because you can sexualize absolutely every photo of a human being with this or that fetish or according to anatomical focus (a whole other issue) doesn't mean it's censorship for people to say "let's not do that." Second, "upskirt" is not just "when you can see up someone's skirt" but a voyeuristic kind of photo that is inherently nonconsensual as per w:Upskirt. Thus files we host that are actually upskirt photos should be the exception rather than the rule as per COM:NOCREEPSHOTS. But this isn't about files; it's about the categories. Here we have a few shots which might have been timed as "upskirts" perhaps, but mostly just Commons users ascribing a particular fetish to photos that aren't really "upskirt" photos. "Tee hee, we can sort of see up the tennis player's skirt" is you deciding that it's "an upskirt" and not something inherent to the photo. You have decided to highlight it as a salient aspect of the photo, categorizing it but not any of the other random elements of the photo, again sexualizing photos that aren't by nature sexual. In short, if they're actual "upskirts" we probably shouldn't be hosting them; if they're just Commons users' fetishization of innocuous photos, then they shouldn't be categorized that way. Either way, delete the categories. (My use of "you" is general, not specific, by the way). — Rhododendrites talk |  15:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Certainly not the images, but the categories ... by using "upskirt" in the name we're basically sending a signal to the sort of people who look for this sort of thing, and then by extension the sort of people who go out of their way to get it for them and post it on the Internet. There are plenty of places on the Internet dedicated to accumulating and collecting these images; Commons doesn't need to be one of them.

    I would distinguish the open-crotch pants image I took in China that shows part of the boy's bare butt through the open seam in the back of his pants as a) taken not only in a public park but with the full awareness of the boy's parents ... I was ten feet (3 m) away sitting on a park bench, and they're in the uncropped original of that image which I have never uploaded and don't plan to (they were clearly aware of me taking the picture and did not object) b) preserving the subject's privacy since we cannot see his face (granted, it's hard to take that sort of image from the front anyway) c) taken with the intent of documenting that this is a real thing that exists, as without the picture people the concept sounds so unbelievable that people think it's made up.

    I would also note that it does not seem like we are accumulating a gratuitous amount of these images ... there are all of six in Category:Open-crotch pants, and one only shows a pair of such pants, or rather pajama bottoms, on sale. One would think that if there was some community of people who showed a suspicious interest in images of this sort, we'd have over three hundred (Also, looking through those images, someone has a rather generous definition of upskirt).

    I admit that I might be more in mind of keeping these categories if we also had, say, Category:Phallic bulges in clothing or something like that ... it seems that unlike upskirt photo collections, they are a fair subject for respectable media. Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I don't understand the "categories make people make it so it's bad" argument. What about the "children's buttocks" or "dead animals" etc categories? I do think it does sound a little sexualized so renaming it isn't bad if a non-POV name can be made (as one user pointed out it is just a fact of what it is though, so maybe the POV is being put on it by us) but data points are data points. I would have no problem with Phallic bulges or whatever as a category. My point is, inappropriate sexualizing of something is of course inappropriate but just adding categories to define something that can be seen (socks under shoes, hair on ears, men in bikinis or whatever) is useful for categorization and we should be careful of bringing our own sexual hangups to the discussion. I just don't think we should start being the thought police and using sexuality as a way to decide what is and isn't OK if it is legal. I just don't want us to fall down the hole of censorship under a disguises of prudish self "protection from evilness" morality arguments. It's a slippery sloppy slope. Nesnad (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • it is just a fact of what it is though - no. Talking about a photo of a tennis player being an "upskirt" isn't "a fact of what it is". "Upskirt" isn't some objective description of clothing but a genre of voyeuristic fetish. It's only a "slippery slope" insofar as we're categorizing slippery slopes as "naughty wet curves". — Rhododendrites talk |  04:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per Rhododendrites. Not much I can add but the consent issues are justification enough. Add in the dubious basis upon which the these images are categorised and the dubious worth to the projects. Seddon (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait I'm confused are we arguing to delete the main upskirt category too? If so, I would be more for deleting this one too. I just don't like deleting data points selectively. If we agree as community that this is a data point we don't need, then I'm all for having it not be used. But if we can use it in some categories, but we can not in sports? It just seems like moral panic instead of just objectiveness. And if we are deleting all those categories are we also going after any other category that has potential consent issues or potential "naughty" thoughts? I don't get the arguments here, but seems I'm just being a dinosaur. Nesnad (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I wouldn't argue to delete the main category, as long as it's limited to images where either the subject is doing it on purpose or had no problem with being photographed. Maybe we could/should rename it, to, say, "women lifting skirts" as "upskirt" is just to me too connected with that genre of voyeur porn, whereas my proposed rename clearly implies intent. Women wearing short skirts as part of their sporting uniforms at contests played in public, while they couldn't possibly expect that the skirts wouldn't expose what was beneath them at least at some point (hence the choice of underwear that either are shorts or functionally the equivalent thereof), are not going out on the field with the primary intent of having their skirts flip up momentarily so they can be photographed at those times. This does not mean to me that we shouldn't have any such images (indeed, given that some cheerleading routines performed at games and competitions require that the cheerleader's skirt completely drop, completely exposing her panties (and that's why they're special cheer panties, worn over the woman's real underwear and coordinating with the rest of the outfit), but that we shouldn't categorize them on that basis.

Also, a great deal of the photos in these categories don't have an upward view into the skirt from ground level that gives the genre its name, the view that is almost always taken without the subject's knowledge or consent. Indeed, many of these sports shots show women from the side. So to me, as I implied in my comments above, the category name isn't even correct for them. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Come on. This has zero value, and is totally wrong. Zanahary (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twirling dancers with skirts flying up, revealing their underwear. Is this image sexual?
  •  Comment Many users seem to be taking a narrow view of the term "upskirt". This is justified by wiktionary:upskirt and the lead of w:Upskirt, but w:Upskirt#Social attitudes indicates that the concept is much more general:
    In less polite society, looking [at a lady] lifting up the skirt or otherwise exposing her underwear was regarded as bawdy, as in the case of cabaret dances such as the can-can or in the case of entertainment involving the raising of a dancer's dress by her spinning rapidly.
    For the first time, many women ... were even relaxed when in some situations their underwear would be visible.
Many users also seem to be suggesting that "upskirt" is somehow a sexual concept. Maybe that is justified by the quote above, but then the images themselves would also be sexual, so this does not seem to be a valid argument. And after removing the category Females without brassieres from the category Eroticism, I am naturally suspicious of such claims. [edit: Perhaps the difference between this and the categories under discussion here is whether it was on purpose? But this is not clear from the comments above.]
To answer (or to be fair, to offer my answer, as it may not be the answer) the question posed in the image cutline: It is impossible to say that there is not going to be anything sexual about any image to everyone ... I think after a quarter-century of public use of the Internet, there should no longer be any doubt as to that (There is a particular subreddit I'm not going to link to, for which we have no equivalent Commons category, an omission we need not be in any haste to remedy in my opinion, that rather graphically demonstrates the point (Suffice it to say that if, based on what I wrote here, you nevertheless find your curiosity getting the better of you and decide to go searching for it, once you find its very exactly-what-it-says-on-the-tin name, open a private browser window to actually look at it for however long you can stand to as you will probably agree you don't want that in your browsing history, much less to get ads based on you having viewed it. And don't come at me if you do ... you have been warned)). Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nesnad has an excellent point about deleting the main category Upskirt, which is obviously out of the question, given that the subject as a Wikipedia article. Brianjd (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a category Upskirt (on purpose), implying that the main category Upskirt contains many images where it was not on purpose. If it being not on purpose is a problem, we need to look at the main category too. Brianjd (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upskirt in tennis contains Female buttocks in tennis. This needs to change. The latter category contains images like 2015 Aegon International MG 8511 (18846945979).jpg and 2015 Aegon International MG 8504 (18846942529).jpg, which don’t even show skirts. There is also Elena Vesnina (19452045396).jpg, which does not show a skirt either, even if Elena Vesnina (19033184615).jpg (from the same event) does. Eugenie Bouchard (US) (23819859883).jpg does show a skirt, but not an upskirt in any sense. Brianjd (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep This is a widely discussed sociological phenomenon, and Wikimedia isn't censored. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The subject might be a bad taste for some but that alone does not justify deletion --Trade (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of the sociological interests or whatever, that is proper for the encyclopedia articles which can but don't have to include images to make the point. Commons doesn't create article for every encyclopedic article (especially ones with no media to host) and Commons has media/categories for which there is no current articles. It's a different project. The question is whether someone who is looking for images of cheerleading (by country, by year, by person, whatever) is going to want to separately look for images of upskirt images in cheerleading. Does it make sense to cross-reference these images with the country ones? Upshirt images by tennis player? I don't see the connection to the sports themselves or to sports in general. On the other hand, someone going down from upskirts looking for it in the context of sports is just fetishism at this point and that isn't the point of Commons categorizations. Other categories should be discussed if they listed for a CFD and the fact that inappropriate images fall or do not fall under this category scheme shows that the scheme is problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/06&oldid=820636589"