Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/08

This page is for open CFD discussions started in August 2021.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/08.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2021-08.
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:Students in China (unknown date before 1949)

Also:

delete these three cats because of the customary time range. RZuo (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 1912 was the year when the last dynasty in China, Qing dynasty, was overthrown and at the Republic of China was established. Grouping these two categories as Category:Students in China in the 1910s is unhelpful as it groups photos from different political period into one. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"groups photos from different political period into one"

lots of different political periods existed for lots of different countries. but time (year) categories and political state categories are used for different purposes.

they could be categorised by the actual political state, namely students in qing, students in roc (1912-1949), etc., but not by an arbitrary year.

who says ROC ended in 1949? hainan was not conquered until 1950, whereas northern china was already not controlled by ROC in 1948. this example shows how problematic it is to separate things by an arbitrary year.--RZuo (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't address the problem I raised. With regard to your request to delete Category:Students in China between 1912 and 1919 and the suggestion to replace it by Category:Students in the Republic of China (1912-1949), I would argue 1912-1949 covers too long of a period. It is much better to split it into (roughly) 10-year periods, which works fine for Category:Students in China in the 1920s (and 1930s, 1940s) but didn't work for the 1910s, because 1912 is the year when the last dynasty was overthrown and the republic is established. For instance, readers looking for a photo of the school uniform in the first few years after the republic was established (say, year 1913) would find it unhelpful to discover Category:Students in China in the 1910s had photos taken in 1910 and 1911 of students with Qing dynasty style- pony tails. Also, readers will be frustrated by seeing plenty of photos in the 1920s-1940s in Category:Students in the Republic of China (1912-1949) when he/she is only looking for school uniform photos in the first few years of the new born republic (say, year 1913), which Category:Students in China between 1912 and 1919 would be helpful. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for your deletion request of Category:Students in China (unknown date before 1949), well, most editors could distinguish photos taken before or after 1950s, couldn't we? But I am open to moving it to Category:Students in China (unknown date). No problem with that.
-- Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support deleting the categories. These types are way to ambagious and it's not how we categorize images anyway and for good reason because it would be totally ridiculous to have categories for arbitrary date ranges. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lohner GT8 in Graz

Umbennenung / Verschiebung der Kategorie; Die Straßenbahnen stammen nicht von Lohner sondern von SGP (Simmering Graz Pauker). Öffis Graz (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming / relocation of the category; The trams do not come from Lohner but from SGP (Simmering Graz Pauker)

translator: Google Translate via --Estopedist1 (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Öffis Graz: could you explain the situation, and/or suggest the new name of the category?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I haven't seen your message; In that category are shown two types of trams in Graz. The one tram-type with numbers from 52X and 53X is from DÜWAG, and the other one are from Simmering-Graz-Pauker. None of them is from Lohner! Öffis Graz (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So let's split this cat up into SGP GT8 in Graz and Düwag GT8 in Graz (ex Duisburg), right? --Jacek79_✇✇ 22:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval Fusilier Special Operations Battalion

I can't help but feel that either:

This category is better suited for collating media related to the SOF component of the Fuzileiros Navais/Naval Fusiliers and consequently the "Batalhão de Operações Especiais de Fuzileiros Navais" category should be re-established as a redirect, or...
The "Batalhão de Operações Especiais de Fuzileiros Navais" category is better suited for collating media related to the SOF component of the Fuzileiros Navais/Naval Fusiliers and consequently this category should be re-established as a redirect.

The existence of a "Corps of Naval Fusiliers" category as opposed to a "Fuzileiros Navais" category gives credence to the former approach, but I'd prefer consensual confirmation of this. Dvaderv2 (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can move it if you think that's better. I don't speek portuguese that's why I took the english name.--Sanandros (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A9-A7 Junction

doublon de Category:A7-A9 Fork ; vide Fr.Latreille (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Fr.Latreille: La catégorie "A9-A7 Junction" n'est pas forcément un doublon de la catégorie A7-A9 Fork.

Le terme "Junction" correspond au terme français "jonction de 2 autoroutes" (comme ici : Category:A432-A46 Junction où la catégorie concerne la jonction des autoroutes A432 et A46).

Alors que le terme "Fork" correspond au terme français "échangeur/diffuseur autoroutier", c'est-à-dire la bretelle d'accès d'une autoroute vers une autre (comme ici : Category:A46-A432 Fork où la catégorie concerne l'échangeur entre l'A46 vers l'A432).

Pour beaucoup d'autoroutes françaises j'ai créé des sous-catégories "Fork" et "Junction" (comme ici : Category:A46 autoroute, où l'on trouve toutes les jonctions vers l'A46 et tous les échangeurs depuis l'A46).

Lorsque j'avais créé la catégorie "A9-A7 Junction", il m'avait semblé qu'à l'époque il y avait des photos ~~(mais je n'en suis plus très sûr). Mais comme elle est vide, alors OK pour la supprimer~~. --Poudou99 (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

En fait il y avait bien une photo : File:A7 (jonction A9).JPG. --Poudou99 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franchement, je ne comprends pas ces explications. Et en regardant les photos classées dans l'une et l'autre catégories je ne vois qu'un différence : les unes sont vues du nord et les autres du sud. A part çà il n'y a réellement qu'un lieu où se connectent ces deux autoroutes, qu'on l'appelle jonction ou échangeur (terme qui d'ailleurs n'est pas la traduction de l'anglais fork, qui signifie fourche).

Par contre j'avais cru comprendre dans les explications ci-dessus que le terme échangeur pourrait désigner plutôt un ou des raccordement d'une autoroute à la circulation générale (routes). Cela aurait pu être un motif de différence avec la jonction de deux autoroutes sans communication extérieure. Sauf que ce n'est pas le cas dans cet exemple.

Je reste sur ma faim. Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS : de plus certaines de ces photos ne montrent pas réellement les deux autoroutes concernées, à commencer par A46 aux Echets-64.JPG (qui, curieux hasard, est de mon cru...)

Et pour ne rien simplifier je découvre une catégorie "Interchanges in France", regroupant "Junctions..." et "Forks...", et interprétée dans le cas de Paris comme "échangeurs". Allez vous y retrouver... (à mon avis chacun a son interprétation ...) Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comme pour de très nombreuses catégories, leurs noms et leurs contenus sont souvent affaire de perception personnelle (de celui qui crée la catégorie). Il n'y a pas vraiment de règles dans Commons en cela si ce n'est que ce que l'on voit dans une photo correspond bien à ce que la ou les catégories associées sont censées être ou décrire. À moins d'erreurs flagrantes de mauvaises catégorisations (par exemple, classer une photo montrant les voies d'une autoroute dans une catégorie de type "rues"), il est souvent difficile de dire si oui ou non une photo doit être dans une catégorie "mère" ("A7 autoroute") ou dans une ou des catégories "filles" ("A9-A7 Junction").

Un des intérêts des sous-catégories communes à deux catégories distinctes ("A7 autoroute" et "A9 autoroute" par exemple) est que cela diminue le nombre de catégories pour une même photo. Une photo sera classée uniquement dans une sous-catégorie commune à deux catégories. Mais, cela aussi est une affaire de "goûts et de couleurs".

PS : je savais que la mention de la catégorie Category:A46-A432 Fork allait vous faire soulever un sourcil du fait de la présence votre photo "A46 aux Echets-64.JPG" dans cette catégorie. Ce n'est pas un hasard si j'ai choisi cette catégorie. J'avais vu votre photo dès son versement ou presque... empruntant régulièrement cette autoroute (l'A432) depuis son ouverture..--Poudou99 (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender (Eiaculatio)

Bizarre title— should be “transgender ejaculation” or something similar Dronebogus (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not! - Is ok! (That was the Latin and scientific name) World peace - --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lupus in Saxonia: Not really. First, the () should be used for disambiguation information, so the current name indicates it is about a type of ejaculation called 'transgender', which doesn't make much sense, nor is it what is being depicted. Second, category names should be in English in accordance with Commons policies at COM:CAT and COM:LP. Josh (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to Category:Transgender ejaculation. Josh (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus, Lupus in Saxonia, and Joshbaumgartner: I think we should close this discussion as rename. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 3 years later Dronebogus (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Línea Barca d’Alva-La Fuente de San Esteban

It has been advised not to use "Barca d'Alva" in Spanish, cause a Spanish name exists: "Barca de Alba". The correct category for this case is Category:Línea La Fuente de San Esteban-Barca de Alba. Please, delete it and protect it cause the user Tm creates it again, as you can see in the history. He cannot just create a redirecting category for every name he finds on the Internet. Is he going to create 40 categories? See: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva Lojwe (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, i´am the one that is "unbereable, obsessive and unpolite actitude" and to asked to "Please, stay away from me.", after i, today August 21 2021, reverted your acts of nominating to deletion versions of 2 images previously uploaded by other users, marking them as duplicates of more recent versions of the same image but uploaded by you, as said yourself as you tought that you "didn't see necessary to have all those editions, which are pretty similar and yet when were your versions that were marked as duplicates you said that "It is not a duplicate. They are diferent.

So, you that asked ""Please, stay away from me.", and what was your next action action??? Internalize that your actions were wrong? Of course not as you reopened this subject that is closed for several months for mere spite, rancor and a "unbereable, obsessive and unpolite actitude", liken when you had the sneaky attitude of moving a name that was created by a third user, after all what was discussed and when this DR is open, speaks volumes about your attitudes.

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva is clear and was closed as keep, but as dont care about discussion when goes against you (like in the deletion request linked above and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_85#User:Tm's_vandalism, so lets go again.

Category:Línea internacional La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca d'Alva is sourced from the spanish Royal Decree 1934/2000 where this line is called línea férrea La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca de Alba.

Category:Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e a Salamanca is backed up by sources "Silva, J.R. e Ribeiro, M. (2008). Os comboios de Portugal - Volume I. 3ª Edição.Terramar.Lisboa" and the quote of "Nesse mesmo dia inaugurou-se a Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e Salamanca, o que permitia assim a ligação, através da Linha do Douro à rede ferroviária espanhola e, consequentemente, ao resto da Europa", taken from pages 5 and 6 of "OLIVEIRA, NICOLE CATHERINE DIAS. SOLUÇÕES PARA A ESTABILIZAÇÃO DE TALUDES EM LINHAS FÉRREAS (PDF). Porto: Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto. Tm (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Línea Pocinho-La Fuente de San Esteban and Category:Pocinho-La Fuente de San Esteban Line are valid as said in the first discussion of this subject, open by me in the portuguese Wikipedia, where other user (the same user that moved this article from "Linha Internacional de Pocinho a La Fuente de San Esteban" to "Linha internacional de Barca d'Alva-La Fregeneda a La Fuente de San Esteban") said that "Vamos por partes, porque a questão é complicada. Do ponto de vista histórico, faz sentido incluir o lanço do Pocinho até Barca de Alva como parte da linha internacional, porque foi tudo inaugurado ao mesmo tempo. Ambos os troços foram construídos pelo sindicato portuense, que acreditava que a linha até Salamanca iria transformar a cidade invicta num grande centro portuário do Noroeste peninsular. Porém, a linha nunca foi o grande eixo internacional que se previa, apesar de até terem sido feitos alguns comboios internacionais com sucesso, como o famoso rápido do Porto a Medina. Ou seja, apesar de na teoria o lanço entre Pocinho e Barca de Alva ser parte uma linha internacional, na prática foi quase totalmente uma extensão da Linha do Douro, com uma importância muito maior a nível regional, servindo o extremo Norte da Beira Alta."

Again you make several claims with zero sources to back you up.

First, saying that a "name was discouraged in Spanish Wikipedia cause it may lead readers to error", maybe its better for you to say that to the spanish state as in their laws they call this line as línea férrea La Fuente de San Esteban-La Fregeneda-Barca de Alba or used by the European Federation of Associations of Industrial and Technical Heritage in spanish.

"Linha Internacional de Barca d’Alva a La Fregeneda e a Salamanca" is cited in portuguese article with 2 sources, per above, so the "argument" that this name is used because i showed it down other users yhroats is fully erroneous, as you know pretty well it was talked in the discussion page, but facts dont stop you saying that kind of things. If this names are so confusing then why did you add, a month ago, the names "Línea Barca de Alba-Salamanca" and "Línea Oporto-Salamanca", the last one, using your arguments, a even worst as it compreends the portuguese "Linha do Douro"? Why your double standards? If its me that add a name to the portuguese Wikipedia can be, by your standards, bullying, what are your addictions of similar names to spanish wikipedia?is what.

The other names were discussed in the portuguese article and are equally valid, but again, even after i opened this deletion request merely stating facts, you again attack my character, i feel free to point out why you should not be much trusted about your actions, but what can be expected from someone that

1- Fails to quote properly the locations of the train station even when presented with a source

2- Made the claim that the builders and operators of this line were also spanish repeting the same claim and making confusion between en:Subsidy:government incentive with en:share capital only stopping your actions after i pointed the minutes of constitution of the railway line operator where was clearly specified that the shareholders were all portuguese.

3-used a blog to quote the newspaper of the wrong year, instead of the correct one and when, after correcting this glaring mistake, i pointed this amateur mistake, you called me ridiculous.

And now if correcting your mistakes, pointing your double standards and actions is being disruptive, arrogant and obsessive behaviour, so be it.

But remember, it was not you that started the original discussion on the portuguese Wikipedia, it was not you that wrote and sourced all the material present in that article but instead was me and other users that made use of that page to discuss the article instead of, like you, make constant complains, but it is you that tries to, for whatever reason, to delete this sourced and valid names, be it in the portuguese Wikipedia claiming that this names lead to confusion (but it seems that you adding that same names to spanish wikipedia causes no confusion, trying to supress valid names in Wikidata and now here. Tm (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Lojwe: This situation appears resolved. Are you satisfied with the current redirect and category naming? Josh (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bus routes in Lisbon

Misnamed and/or unproductive category created without regard for the local issues and haphazardly populated with subcats previously in Category:Bus routes in Portugal (incl. uneven sortkeys), missing which are fully in Lisbon, which are partly so, and which are not at all. I request moving back all these to Category:Bus routes in Portugal and the deletion of this category (bus routes within the Lisbon municipality are adquately covered in Category:Carris routes). Renaming it Category:Bus routes in Greater Lisbon would be an accepatble alternative, although it’s probably premature, given the still meagre contents of Category:Bus routes in Portugal. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving any routes that are not at all within Lisbon back out to Category:Bus routes in Portugal, but

Oppose simply upmerging wholesale because some categories may not belong in Category:Bus routes in Lisbon. Let's fix the mistake, but not undo the other work. Also, given there is no Category:Greater Lisbon, it seems a bit odd to create a Category:Bus routes in Greater Lisbon, so probably not on board with that one. Josh (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB-one and Joshbaumgartner: Neither of you know anything about Lisbon bus routes. I suggest you rather work on categorizing stuff you know about and leave this to me and other who know what to do. Or instead we can keep this discussion going for a few years more. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: Bullying other users out of a discussion by denigrating their knowledge and threatening to filibuster the process is completely out of line with Commons community guidelines and more specifically counter to the purpose of CfD. Please stick to topical discussion here. Josh (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting Commons’ work by inserting ill-informed curation is also out of line, in my book, as it is joining discussions and voting left and right without any speficic knowledge of the subject. There are no public bus routes within Lisbon municipality that are not exploited by Carris company, not even weird stuff like tourist-only routes, special routes for concerts and sport events, free routes to malls and back, etc. (Carris has also a few routes that run partly outside Lisbon municipality; other companies have some routes partly running inside Lisbon municipality, but outgoing routes are not allowed to let passengers alight within city limits and ingoing routes cannot accept onboardings within city limits.)

To be clear, let me say that insisting on creating/keeping this category as if it were not practically the same as Category:Carris routes, as mentioned, is akin to ask our collegues who work on the curation of Category:Mollusca to stop their work and discuss your insertion of Category:Flying mollusks in the respective category tree, and then whine aloud when thye suggest that maybe you don’t know enough Zoology.

Rest asured that if/when Category:Bus routes in Lisbon becomes a viable category with any content aside what belongs rather in Category:Carris routes (which would need new legislation, breaking a 109 year old status quo), then it would/will be created and properly populated. Meanwhile, I suggest you respect your fellow editors’ work and assume good faith: Lets close this discussion and enact what I proposed in the o.p.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/08

Contents