Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01

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

Category:Green Valley Mansion, No.49-51 Wong Nai Chung Road 翠谷樓

[edit]

Do you allow categories in two languages? Bald Ollie (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC) No, this is a wrong question. I meant two alphabets at the same time. --Bald Ollie (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Procedural oppose @Bald Ollie: it is not allowed, but this double naming is massively used in parent Category:Buildings in Happy Valley and its parent categories. So it is much wider question. Estopedist1 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should. We have category redirects for a reason. Isn't it saying the same thing though? If the category name was Green Valley Mansion Green Valley Mansion, it would be silly. We could consider whether to just use the other alphabet but I doubt that would be popular. Are there a number of Green Valley Mansions at that exact address to need the other alphabets to clarify which one? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To confirm I see that we don't even have anyone using Category:Green Valley Mansion so this just feels like an excessively long duplicative name when the same information can be put into a title on the page itself. Suggest moving to Category:Green Valley Mansion and just writing "Green Valley Mansion (翠谷樓) is a residential building at No.49-51 Wong Nai Chung Road, Hong Kong" or whatever. Make Category:翠谷樓 a redirect or 翠谷樓 the main page if people want. This is actually more difficult for people to figure out than the shorter name. It only helps those who know this exact naming convention including the other alphabet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diagrams of airports by country

[edit]

Category:Airport diagrams by country and Category:Diagrams of airports by country seem to overlap, without a clear definition why some diagrams are in the one or the other category - in fact I didn't see a difference in the examples I checked.

The "airport diagrams by country" have subcategories that all are named "airport diagrams of airports in <country>" while "diagrams of airports by country" have "diagrams of airports in <country>".

I think that leading with "Airport..." in the category is important (not leading with "Diagrams...", but also that "airport diagrams of airports" is a bit awkward, but not that bad. Now, how to resolve this? Enyavar (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'Airport diagrams…' categories refer to a type of diagram created by the US government. The files they contain all have a distinct, consistent layout and the prominent text 'AIRPORT DIAGRAM'. I can only find official description of the ones made by the Federal Aviation Administration (on its website); these have '(FAA)' in their titles. The other diagrams appear to be made by other departments of the government, for example File:EDDF - FAA airport diagram.jpg, which says '(USAF)' (United States Air Force).
However, the top categories for diagrams of airports do not follow this convention. Cat:Airport diagrams is the topmost category (but should instead be the topmost category for AIRPORT DIAGRAMs), and Cat:Diagrams of airports has no subcategories (but should instead be the topmost category).  —wqnvlz (talk · contribs);  06:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar and Wqnvlz: the ICAO term for the "airport map to be used by flight crews during ground operation" is "aerodrome charts" -- see en:Airport diagram. I think this is a better name for that specific kind of publication. So something like this would work:

  • Diagrams of airports
    • Diagrams of airport terminals
    • Diagrams of airports by country
    • Aerodrome charts
      • (the FAA charts)
      • (other kind of charts to be used by flight crews)
    • Diagrams of runways

-- 痛Designism (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So we could rename all "Diagrams of airports (by country)" and all "Airport diagrams (by country)" into "Aerodrome charts (by country)"? That looks fine to me.
I was just concerned about the current existing (and unexplained) category structure with two "by-country" trees; and this proposal is one way to solve it. I originall thought one of the two existing trees would get restructured into the other; but your proposal seems to have a better foundation. --Enyavar (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar, "airport diagrams" is the same as "aerodrome charts"; both should be a subset of "diagrams of airports". So we can move all existing "airport diagrams (by country)" to "aerodrome charts (by country)". There are certain diagrams of the airport that does not meet ICAO's specification of what an "aerodrome chart" should look like, such as Flughafen Zürich - Pistensystem - 001.png but will still fit under "diagrams of airports" --痛Designism (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Time Magazine

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Time Magazine.

I propose changing the categories which start with "Time Magazine" to "Time (magazine)" ", but is named "Time". More complete description at Category talk:Time Magazine. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities coinciding a state border within the United States

[edit]

Is this really just for cities or all populated places? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an old discussion but I would agree, Populated places seems more accurate. MuzikMachine (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pipe organs in Finland

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01/Category:Church organs in Finland.

Some church organs are in the category Pipe organs in Finland, some are in Church organs in Finland. What's the point? Is there some logic??? Periegetes (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I organized Category:Pipe organs in Finland by creating topical sub-categories. So this category in my opinion is in order. However, I do not have much motivation for doing the same thing for Category:Church organs in Finland because the content is actually 99% the same. This seems to be a problem plaguing in other countries as well. There are very few instances of church organs not being pipe organs and pipe organs not being church organs. These exist, but making the distinction results in 99 % overlapping categories. --Periegetes (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andy, it seems that it is internationally established category. If it is conceptually clear and items exist, then it is probably ok. --Periegetes (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should never work on that basis! This isn't a Wikipedia, we don't enforce WP:RS and WP:V. But at the same time, we shouldn't invent new distinctions based on no more than coincidence.
We have a lot of images of church organs. Some of those are installed behind the altar. So it's unsurprising that it has been possible to drag these out into separate groups, even if it's only a handful of images. But is this a meaningful distinction? Would someone, an organist or an organ maker, recognise this group as distinct? Are those organs any different, or is it merely that they were mounted on a different wall? Can we link to en:Altar organ ? (no)
I'm in the UK. I can't think of a single 'altar organ' in an Anglican church. There are a few centrally located in the larger chapels. This is owing to a clear theological distinction in church architecture: Anglican churches follow a traditional pattern of stained glass windows behind the altar, chapels do not. So there is a simple question of where the best piece of clear wall space is to place an organ. In particular, most of those chapels are from denominations which place the preacher centrally by not having an altar at all. So is a centrally-mounted organ like that an "altar organ", if it's not even behind an altar?
This distinction requires some evidence for its existence if it's to continue. If they're only found in Lutheran or Calvinist churches, I'm fine with that. If they're only common in Germany, then that's fine too. But then we should be able to give some background to them, and architectural or theological background as to why they're placed there, and only in some countries. Even better if it turns out that they're somehow distinct musically. But what we shouldn't do is to infer a distinction by nothing more than counting images, when no such distinction is recognised within the discipline of church architecture. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself, but I recommend that you have a look internationally, because you would have to challenge/convince a lot of people. See: Category:Altar_organs_in_Germany - what's the point of trying to resolve this issue here? --Periegetes (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only content I've found on these is at de:Wiesbadener Programm. Articles on "altar organs" seem to consist of no more than an unsourced "an altar organ is an organ above the altar", which is useless. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It ia a question of classification, not a scientific definition. Could you please help out and point to the right guideline because I was unaware of requirement of 'sourcing' category definitions. Where are these category definitions documented then? To me as a layperson an 'altar organ' is an organ located at the altar (of a church) and it is a distinct phenomenon. For instance there are numerous categories for 'beaches' without any definition of beach. To me it seems people just classify content based on "common sense". Maybe I need to study more, so I would be grateful if you would provide pointer to the guidelines. Periegetes (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church organs in Finland

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01/Category:Pipe organs in Finland.

Some church organs are in the category Pipe organs in Finland, some are in Church organs in Finland. What's the point? Periegetes (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church organs is a sub-category of Category:Pipe organs. I guess not all pipe organs are in churches, but all church organs use pipes? Anyway, you should move everything to the narrowest possible category. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand the principle. After going through the categories Category:Church organs in Finland and Category:Pipe organs in Finland and benchmarking with other countries, it seems the overlap between categories is c. 99%. The overlap and confusion in categories is universal regardless of country. The exceptions could be a) pipe organs in parish halls, homes and concert halls (found one image), b) electric/digital organs in churches (did not see any images). Universally, unfortunately, documentation concerning organs is split between categories 'organs...', 'pipe organs...' and 'church organs...'. This makes search and especially browsing quite frustrating. Anyway, I assume that people interested in "organs" are looking for info concerning pipe organs. Therefore I did some work inproving the category of pipe organs (regardless of location). Without proper organization of the category 'church organs in Finland', it is useless. I guess I'll leave that to others. --Periegetes (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking at English examples. There is a lot of overlap between the two categories, church and pipe organs. Obviously, not all pipe organs are in churches, but many are. There are a couple of photos of organs in churches which appear not to be pipe organs, but overwhelmingly it is the pipe organs in churches which are photographed. In the case of Gloucestershire, someone has put church organs in Gloucestershire as a sub-category of pipe organs in Gloucestershire. I think that this makes sense for many English counties, but I am not sure that it is a universal principle.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite hopeless to clarify this. In terms of finding media concerning pipe organs, I prioritized organizing the Category:Pipe organs in Finland, on the other hand, theoretically, it is useful to have a listing of organs located in churches, there Category:Church organs would be relevant, but organizing both category structure involves lot of duplicate work. May I point out also the there is Category:Concert organs where organs in concert halls fit. Periegetes (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply. As you say, it seems difficult to envisage a complete solution which doesn't involve a lot of duplication.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools in Arrondissement de Briançon

[edit]

Subdivision inutile de la catégorie "Schools in Hautes-Alpes" (vide) Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category just asking to be more filled in. It would be better to work on it instead of trying to delete it.--Birdie (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools in Arrondissement de Gap

[edit]

Subdivision inutile de la catégorie "Schools in Hautes-Alpes" (vide) Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category just asking to be more filled in. It would be better to work on it instead of trying to delete it. --Birdie (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Je croyais que User:Birdie avait pour langue maternelle le Français. Passons. Donc Birdie, alias Gato76680, a entrepris de créer partout où c'est possible des sous-catégories par arrondissements à l'intérieur des catégories de département. Aucune discussion n'a évidemment eu lieu sur la pertinence de cette entreprise. Pourtant, il suffit de regarder un peu de quoi il s'agit pour comprendre que cette entreprise est sans pertinence, et même d'effet négatif. Tous les organismes d'état décentralisés (enseignement, santé, équipement, agriculture, etc.) le sont aux niveaux région et département, aucun au niveau arrondissement. Symétriquement, toutes les organisations syndicales, associatives (pêcheurs, boulistes, sportifs), professionnelles (industrie, agriculture, médecine, etc.) sont structurées au niveau du département, jamais de l'arrondissement. Alors, pourquoi diviser artificiellement les rubriques départementales en sous-rubriques d'arrondissement ? Pour que M. (ou Mme) Birdie soit fier d'avoir créé quelques centaines de catégories, et puisse dire aux autres qu'il n'y a qu'à les remplir ?
Activisme mal placé. Maintenant les dégâts sont là. Et une marche arrière semble hors de portée. C'est triste. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
L'User:Fr.Latreille semble ne pas avoir noté que Commons est un site anglophone et que réserver une discussion à quelques francophones semble pour le moins méprisant pour la majorité des participants. Je ne vois pas le rapport entre une fédération de pêcheurs et la subdivision des catégories mais passons. Ce n'est pas moi qui ait décidé de l'utilisation des arrondissements et d'ailleurs, où discuter ? Sur la page de l'arrondissement d'Abbeville qui est le premier alphabétiquement ? Sur celle de l'arrondissement de Belley qui est le premier numériquement ? Je n'ai fait que suivre le schéma adopté dans le Grand Est, le simplifiant même puisque l'on y trouve des catégories de mairies par arrondissement ET par siècle et bien d'autres catégories par arrondissement. Les département situés en PACA comprennent certes peu de communes et la situation serait encore gérable. Mais il en est tout autre dans la partie nord de la France où les départements ont comporté plus de huit cent communes, ce qui donne des listes départementales bien trop peuplées. En taxonomie, suivre la même catégorisation est toujours la meilleure solution et c'est la règle que je suis sauf lorsque c'est exagéré. Une petite remarque en passant, je crée les catégories, je les remplis moi-même au fur et à mesure comme chacun peut le faire, et je n'ai fait que faire remarquer que les remplir plutôt que de demander leurs suppressions semble une attitude plus constructive. La seule fierté est celle du travail bien fait. --Birdie (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai certes le défaut de ne pas faire quelque chose sans me demander si c'est utile et pertinent. Et je persiste à considérer que l'arrondissement n'est pas un niveau pertinent de gestion des écoles, mairies ou autres entités qui ont un rapport privilégié avec le département. J'aurais aimé pouvoir en discuter, et pas seulement avec des francophones si d'autres le souhaitent (où ai-je manifesté un quelconque mépris pour eux ?). Mais justement "où discuter ?". Ce n'est pas moi qui restreint l'espace de discussion, je demandais au contraire à l'ouvrir. Je ne vois qu'un fait accompli, et qu'on m'intime de faire avec. Je n'aime pas çà. J'ai aussi ma fierté, qui m'empêche de contribuer à un travail que j'estime mal fait. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Things by name

[edit]

Rename Category:Topics by name to match parent category. Note Category:Things is a redirect to Category:Topics. Josh (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - Agreed. Hulged (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or redirect to Category:Named-after categories? -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Wait:
  1. If we treat Category:Topics by name like Category:People by name than it is a complete list of all categories sorted by name like in an encyclopedia.
  2. A better place for the items in Category:Things by name is maybe Category:Named-after categories by name
Regards --W like wiki good to know 01:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with places

[edit]

Delete. This is an unnecessary level between Category:People and Category:People by country, not to mention a COM:OVERCAT violation as currently arranged. On a logical level, all people are associated with some place, so "people associated with places" = "people" really. Josh (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we put the other contained categories? -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner@Themightyquill enwiki has also en:Category:People associated with places. Maybe acceptable in Commons as well? Estopedist1 (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Estopedist1: I would probably just upmerge to Category:People by association, but if folks are uncomfortable with that, I'm okay with leaving it as is pending a more elegant solution. On a side note, I don't see the relevance of enwiki's choices, there is no need to mimic them. Josh (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from the National Library of Ireland Fergus O’Connor Collection

[edit]

Today I came across this draft article w:Draft:Fergus O'Connor (publisher) and it shows the photographer died in 1952, so their work will not be in the public domain until 2023.

We know that the "no known copyright restrictions" claims should be verified and just because the NLI does not know of any copyright claims, does not mean their images are in fact freely licensed. Some of the NLI images have been deleted and some kept when their status has been verified.

Both the category and its contents should be deleted and restored in January 2023. However, as it is only one year away is this really a rather pointless exercise? The proper PD license could be applied at that time. Ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To confirm Ww2censor@, Fergus O'Connor was a publisher. He wasn't the photographer of all of those images. (And probably didn't take more than a handful of those images himself. If any at all.) Hence I'm not sure if {{PD-old-70}} ("author's life plus 75 years") is the most appropriate licence/timeline to be discussing. As O'Connor wasn't author. He was publisher. If his "rights" to the images didn't expire with his death, or when the images/collection were handed over to the National Library of Ireland, they likely expired when the National Library of Ireland released the images under the Flickr Commons ("no known restrictions" licence type. Otherwise I'm not sure that an "author plus 70" applies here. Because he was publisher. Rather than author. Personally, I would advocate keeping the contents of that category. But, if we delete them, it should be because we have identified the photographers (and found them to have died after 1947). Or because we otherwise have clarity that no other Commons-compatible licence applies. Otherwise I think those images (like this one taken and published before 1910) are correctly labelled. And "safe" for Commons. Guliolopez (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Ww2censor: I was the creator of that draft, but Guliolopez has done the heavy lift. To be clear I am indef'd on the English Wikipedia though still active on other projects including commons (where I'm currently doing most focus). meta, wikidata, wikibooks, ga under this username or appropriate declared alias. My interest in O'Connor was initiated by OCO 346 WooHoo, Choo Choo, Great View (Where O'Connor is the claimed photographer), and I was reluctant to transfer that image until 2023. I recall, correctly or incorrectly, there may have been some uncertainty of O'Connor's date of death but I think Guliolopez has now cleared that up for certain. As an indef'd on :en its an issue if I incite a edit on that place but its on my todo to do an attributed translate to :ga albeit I'm not doing much there until the silage and turf is home and a cite book equiv is in place. I'm looking at File:Street (running over bridge) Athy, Co. Kildare (16293997882).jpg / [1] which is an unknown photographer in the Eason Collection / Fergus O'Connor. Collection which is the sort of more problematic. Hmmm. Now it would be good if the man had an article which would make him notable and entitable to a wikidata article and he could can his own cat for his own attributed photographs separate from these in his own collection, and while the latter collection is likely a subset of the former it might not actually be the case. I'm talking myself towards leaning towards a delete by I'm really sure of little except that wishing those photographs attributed to the man himself were place in a separate category. I'm made more sense after chasing rambling heifers. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Ww2censor, @Guliolopez: I've just come in from the garden and noticed a bot had touched File:Inniscarra is in Cork!.jpg which was on my watchlist and for which I did the upload from NLI/Flickr a while ago. I've added that to Category:Fergus O’Connor as NLI specifically specify this image was by him. My immediate thought is this category should be more helpfully moved to Photographs by Fergus O’Connor. On a practical note I'm happy to volunteer to move images identified by NLI as photographed by O'Connor (as opposed to simply in his collection) from Images from the National Library of Ireland Fergus O’Connor Collection to (Photographs by )Fergus O’Connor ... by this it means I'll add it to my to-do list ... and not everything on my to-do is being done (actually it might be doable with a simple batch task) but I'd really like a go-ahead to do it rather than my usual bold boy approach. Thanks. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

: Request: Move Category:Fergus O’Connor to Category:Photographs by Fergus O’Connor per comments above. I intend to do boldly this at some point after 30 3 August 2022 04:00 (UTC) if there are no objections. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC), Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC) : Request: Move images designed by National Library of Ireland as photographed by Fergus O'Connor to Category:Photographs by Fergus O’Connor and set Author parameter value of {{Information}} to [https://www.flickr.com/people/47290943@N03 National Library of Ireland on The Commons]. I intend to do boldly begin this process at some point after 30 August 2022 04:00 (UTC) if there are no objections. At the end of this process the images remaining in the top level of Category:Images from the National Library of Ireland Fergus O’Connor Collection should only be those in the collection that do not have Fergus O’Connor specifically designated at the author. If in the process should I happen to identify other license relevant information I may also add it to images at that time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC), Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Featured pictures from the Art Library Project

[edit]

None of the images in this "featured pictuers" category have been selected as featured pictures. Recommend deleting this as misleading. Eureka Lott 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Art Library Project aims to upload high quality pictures comparable with artworks in Google Art Project. We have been able to get support from the National Gallery in Prague and from other institutions in the Czech Republic, including Ministry of Culture. This category was created for high resolution photographs (obtained free of charge) from the National Gallery or from individual artists. We do not wish to mix them with other photos uploaded by lay photographers. NoJin (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we could find another name for this category that doesn't include the term "featured pictures". - Eureka Lott 02:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selected? -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NetBeans

[edit]

It need to delete DustDFG (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Apache NetBeans. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree The all Wikipedia articles are named w:NetBeans,, was arbitrarily renamed. @Themightyquill: Not redundant, because was arbitrarily transferred see here Shooke (Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 15:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooke: The two categories are redundant, regardless of which one should be used or how the files were moved. I don't especially care which one we use. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep enwiki en:Apache NetBeans is redirected to "NetBeans" Estopedist1 (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am favoring Category:NetBeans over Category:Apache NetBeans as the former is the more commonly-used name; it is less common for people to refer to "Apache NetBeans". Google Trends agrees. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crown Bridges

[edit]

"Crown Bridges" is a translation, which is not the name of the bridges. Other bridges with proper names have not been translated either, like Pitkäsilta or Sateenkaarisilta. Category should be renamed to Kruunusillat. —Nelg (talk, contribs) 18:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Helsinki uses that translation though. And by going through this category you'll see that most bridges are indeed translated in English instead of called -silta. "Huokausten silta" in Lappeenranta for instance is translated into Bridge of Sighs. --Coen (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3 five rays in heraldry

[edit]

The correct heraldic term in English, which should be followed (as elsewhere on commons), is "mullet", which has five points. Categories also needed for "mullets of 6 points" and other variants. Five-ray is not an heraldic term. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral leaning toward  Oppose. @Lobsterthermidor: is it? It need citations and this is not really what en:Star (heraldry) says. And even if it was, "five rays" is still a common term in heraldry and easy to understand ; should we really favour precision over understandability? Plus, why nominating only this category and not all the 93 categories with "five rays" in the title? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Porzellanmanufaktur Meißen

[edit]

Bonjour. Les noms de catégories ne doivent-ils plus obligatoirement être en langue anglaise ? Finoskov (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Finoskov if there is well-established English name for this German company/manufacturer, we should translate. Google gives many hits to Category:Meissen Porcelain Manufactory Estopedist1 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heart logos

[edit]

Category should be moved to "Hearts in logos" to match similar categories. Astros4477 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking that we should actually split this into subcategories under Category:Hearts in logos. There are some logos that have a heart as a component of the logo:

and others (e.g., File:BritneyJean.png, File:Brasão de Posse-Go.png, File:IURD dove.svg, File:Shinkon Logo.png, and File:Wendy's Supa Sundaes.jpg), where the logo itself is inside a heart, or where the logo is in the shape of a heart.

There are more than enough of these to support a category tree of separate categories along these lines. BD2412 T 23:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural maps by region

[edit]
Later note: Enyavar started this CFD by adapting the first message below from User talk:Enyavar#Category:Maps of the United States by theme. It is not an exact copy, but it is good enough. I noted that Enyavar's native language is German. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My native language is English. In English we wouldn't normally prefer Category:Cultural maps of the United States over Category:Maps of the United States by theme. So I used Cat-a-lot to move the maps there. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you emptied the more specific category and put all the content into its broader parent category, leaving an empty node in the category tree? I didn't invent the structure, I merely put it in place as the thematical maps of the US were mostly not sorted at all. "Category for Discussion" exists for a reason, so I am starting this one in your name. English is the defining language of the Category tree, so following your argument, there shouldn't be any "Cultural maps of <places>" for anthropocentric thematical maps, and each one needs to be emptied into the parent category, preferably "Maps of <places> by theme".
I bow to your superior knowledge of English and will not argue for the non-existent concept of "cultural maps", but there may be other ideas by other users on how to treat this category and all of its subs. Enyavar (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of why calling thematic categories "cultural" can be a problem: None of the categories and subcategories inside this overall "cultural" category seem right to me:
Category:Cultural maps of the Americas --Timeshifter (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:License plates of Wales

[edit]

Merge to UK category. Wales (and Scotland) does not have distinctive licence plates, nor distinctive numbering systems. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also restore to "Registration plates" (recent undiscussed move) and certainly avoid the misspelling as "license". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created Category:License plates of Wales, because Category:License plates of Scotland‎ and Category:License plates of England‎ already existed. As far as I know, you are correct. England, Wales and Scotland (Great Britain) uses the same numbering system, while Northern Ireland uses a separate system. There is a Category:License plates of Northern Ireland category as well, also a subcategory of Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom. In order to be consistent, perhaps the Scotland, England and Wales categories could be merged into a Great Britain category, similar to the Northern Ireland category. Otherwise that category seems redundant as well, as Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom could actually encompass all UK plates.

I don't know what you refer to when you say restore to "registration plates". The Scotland, England and Northern Ireland category already used "License plates of ..." which is why I also created the Wales category with that same terminology. I however also created "Category:Vehicle registration plates of Wales" by mistake, and redirected that to the other one.

IMHO when deciding what to do with the Wales category, the Scotland and England (and perhaps NI) categories should also be considered. Megyeye (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley and Megyeye:

Merge the license plate categories of England, Scotland, Wales to Category:License plates of Great Britain. Please avoid "vehicle registration plates" since almost all countries are using "license plates". The UK category is an outlier and is under discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose Category:License plates of Great Britain, in favour of Category:Licence plates of Great Britain or (preferred) Category:Vehicle registration plates of Great Britain or Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom. There is no Mediawiki limitation that requires us to mis-spell titles for a false consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apache OpenOffice

[edit]

We need merge this category with its sub-category Category:OpenOffice.org DustDFG (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move it under Category:OpenOffice.org - 82.71.1.109 18:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's different. --Darrelljon (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candelaria Central School & SPED Work Center, Zambales

[edit]

Ŕedundant to Category:Candelaria Central Elementary School. Also, "SPED Review Center" is no longer existing; a Google Street View image shows "Math Garden" instead. Category invites COM:WEBHOSTing content. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exterior, park and fences of the Diocesan Shrine of Saint Michael the Archangel in Bulacan, 2022

[edit]

This subcategory must be  Delete as redundant and superfluous to Category:Exterior of Saint Michael the Archangel Parish Church (San Miguel, Bulacan), which already depicts the same subject: the exterior of the church. COM:REDUNDANT and invites COM:WEBHOSTing content. All files have been moved there (with those showing nondescript fences to Category:Saint Michael the Archangel Parish Church in San Miguel, Bulacan. Unless the creator of this category wants to emulate Judgefloro (talk · contribs) habit of dumping zillions of near-duplicates, that is, treating Commons as another Facebook or Instagram (!!!). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are three categories here:
It would be possible that these splits would be justified if the grounds of the church were extensive and justified separate coverage. That's possible, but not from the content which we have at present.
The 2022 qualifier certainly seems excessive. If there was some event in the grounds that was time-specific, then that would be justified. But not for photos of buildings that are largely timeless.
So merge all three. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Category:Exterior of Saint Michael the Archangel Parish Church (San Miguel, Bulacan) was actually the result of my move action. I moved it from its previous title, "Category:Exterior and fences of the Saint Michael the Archangel Parish Church in San Miguel Bulacan," so that it will only focus the exteriors of the building itself. The auxiliary images that are usually of little use have been moved by me to the parent category, Category:Saint Michael the Archangel Parish Church in San Miguel, Bulacan, so that the "Exterior" category will only show relevant and highly usable images of the church's exteriors, not the adjoining unnotable and unfamous elements of the property like the nondescript statue at its front and the fences. And yes, I totally agree that the church is virtually the same from 2014 and from 2022 — if there were renovations those are too negligible that do not change the look of its façade. The scenes these images depict do not show major national or province-wide events, thus classifying them by year or time is an overkill. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I fully agree that this subject subcategory must be  Delete; initially, I would have created a better [Category:Brick fences of San Miguel Church, Bulacan] (as I could put in there all photos); See my terse discussion here before I end this piece, allow me to say Hello to you (as you said "Pretty much retired from scanning now. Fed up with the attitude at Wikipedia.", and I am very honored by your presence, for with millions of photos, still you opted to gracefully visit my photos and your 413,335 edits will remain a legacy); I never desire to edit Wikipedia due to edit wars and my edit will be burried by tons of over writing edits like Manny Pacquiao: Revision history; here in Commons, each and every photo I upload Here is the Sacred Rule: "You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki."; ergo, like Wikipedia stub, my created category, for me are start stubs which can be reviewed and made better by veteran editors, best of luck and sincerelyFBenjr123 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Panavia Tornado by type of operator

[edit]

Since there are only military aircraft of this type, I think we don't need any distinction for "type of operator" and a subcategory "in military service". All Panavia Tornados are in military service unless they have been phased out and are now in a museum. When Tornado warbirds come up, i.e. preserved and airworthy aircraft owned by private individuals or organisations, we might reactivate this category, but until then I think it should be deleted. De728631 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete and upmerge.
Same for Category:Panavia Tornado in military service too. It's implicit, thus pointless.
Also redirect Category:Panavia Tornado of the Royal Air Force to Category:Panavia Tornado in United Kingdom service to match the German / Italian / Saudi cats. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Support for the deletion of this redundant category. The only inhabitant (RAF) is included in Category:Panavia Tornado by country of service. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paleobiota of the McKay Formation

[edit]

Few, if any, of the files and categories in here seem to directly relate to the topic. They're either incredibly broad (Canidae, Felidae etc.) or photos of live animals (clearly not "paleo"-anything). Boylarva99 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boylarva99  procedural oppose: if I see the parent category's (ie Category:Paleobiota by geologic formation of the United States) subcategories, there are the same problem. Massive changes to be done there Estopedist1 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a systematic problem for most subcategories of Category:Paleobiota by geologic formation. These categories appear to be created by one user (Hornstrandir1) who didn't check if all (or even any) category members actually depict fossils/specimens from particular geologic formation. Such categorization may be plausible for a few extinct taxons that are associated to one formation, e.g. Category:Anzu (dinosaur). But for others, e.g. Category:Vitis, this is grossly misleading. 2001:7D0:81E6:EF80:A97B:60BC:A98C:9572 07:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Boylarva99: - agree, most of the subcategories and photos need to be removed. The categories should only contain fossils from the named formations - MPF (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a systemic issue with the mass category creations/moves that @Hornstrandir1: has been doing, and something that has been a problem since this user joined.--Kevmin § 23:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Calderdale Way

[edit]

User:Schlosser67 suggested to move this category to Category:Calderdale Way (footpath). Enwiki article is under en:Calderdale Way. If the street (Category:Calderdale Way, Elland) is inferior, there is no need for two-entry DAB Estopedist1 (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though I created the category a decade ago, I can't claim to know which is the more important, I'd have created the category because of the number of relevant images to categorise, not because of any knowledge of its real world importance. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know at all how one could compare a footpath/hiking trail and a section of a road in terms of importance. What's more, the hiking trail touches Elland as well, making a clear distinction between the two even more necessary. Who's got an idea? --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Netflix television program logos

[edit]

Proposed move to Category:Netflix original program logos to match Category:Netflix original programming. Astros4477 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i think Category:Netflix original programming should be Netflix original programs.
this cat should be "logos of Netflix original programs". RZuo (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Diego Sails

[edit]

Should be renamed to San Diego Conquistadors. The team was only known as the Sails for their final few months of existence. IagoQnsi (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, but i cant move the page.--RZuo (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; matches enwiki. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nantucket County, Massachusetts

[edit]

Nantucket is an island, a town, a county, and a census-designated place (CDP). However, the island, town, and county are all essentially the same exact thing; they have the same population, same area, same government, same everything (the CDP, however, is a smaller village within the island/town/county). I propose we follow English Wikipedia's lead, and combine Nantucket County and Nantucket into one. This means redirecting Category:Nantucket County, Massachusetts to Category:Nantucket, and renaming all other categories with "Nantucket County, Massachusetts" in their name to a name with just "Nantucket". Nantucket (and all Nantucket subcategories) would then need to be categorized as a town/city, a county, and an island, as necessary. –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well, you certainly have a point. While the proposer also has a point, he does take it slightly too far as he himself admited. Namely:
The Town of Nantucket and the County of Nantucket are, in fact, one and the same thing, the county containing but a single town, however:
- while the vast bulk of the town/county consists of Nantucket Island, the separate but nearby islands of Tuckernuck (Category:Tuckernuck Island) and Muskeget (Category:Muskeget Island) are also part of the town/country. It is therefore wrong to say that the island and the town/county are the same thing.
- and as he, himself, admits the CDP is a small subsection of the island, and not the entire island, nevermind the entire town/county. There are two other CDPs on the island.
therefore: While ideas of merging categories for town and country are justified, any consideration of merging cats relating to the island or CDP are not. Also, a quick review of the existing pages he proposes merging strongly suggest the merge should run the other way, namely Nantucket -> Nantucket County, as the County is a superset and parent category for potential subcategories, namely for the individual islands and the CDP.
Generally, I'm not in favor of working in one-off exceptions to existing templates and scripts when a simpler solution is readily available (namely merge the other way).
A few interesting things I picked up looking into this:
- Muskeget Island is closer to Martha's Vineyard and was part of Dukes County, not Nantucket, until 1887. While there were several structures and even an airstrip on the island at one time, heavy erosion has taken out large parts of the island and it is now under conservation restrictions.
- Tuckernuck is larger and still has a number of houses kept by summer residents. The former Adams Island was once part of Tuckernuck, but broke off and nearly became part of Muskeget before disappearing entirely.
- Abnecotants Island is a tiny island within Nantucket Island.
In light of this, it seems like the category structure should roughly be:
  • Nantucket County (which can be used and piped as Nantucket County|Nantucket when used in town contexts)
  • Nantucket Island
  • CDPs and villages on the island
  • Tuckernuck Island (existing cats should be searched for potential pics of this island which are misclassified under the larger one)
  • Muskeget Island (also should be a subcat of Dukes Country per the above)
  • Adams Island (even if only an {{Emptycat}} for now. Any pics of this vanished island are all PD at this time and should be collected.)
I also have to note that in light of the current map and geography of the island, and global climate change, it's highly likely that additional islands may break off a la Adams in the foreseeable future. All the more reason to stay away from the "the Island and the Town are the same thing" fallacy. While this is all I can contribute for now, I do look forward to coming back to this sometime in the future.
MetricHistory (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo-European gods

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01/Category:Indo-European goddesses.

There was no such culture like "Indo-European"; "Proto-Indo-European" were, but this category isn't about it. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo-European goddesses

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01/Category:Indo-European gods.

There was no such culture like "Indo-European"; "Proto-Indo-European" were, but this category isn't about it. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mosque shooter sentencing

[edit]

Problematic requested move:
Nominator's (user:Astros4477) rational: this category to be moved to category:Sentencing of Brenton Tarrant, because: "Rebranded location". Date: January 2022

The parent category is Category:Aftermath of the Christchurch mosque shootings‎. Hence, the proposed name may not be in the line with the parent category Estopedist1 (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:Christchurch mosque shooting sentencing. We do need to be specific (I'd have no problem with anyone adding the year here). I have no wish to memorialise the shooter's name. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andy Dingley's suggestion. I also would not like to see the shooter’s name being used. Schwede66 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just of note here, I did not nominate this category to be moved. Perhaps I was intended to be tagged on any discussion?--Astros4477 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@廣九直通車: , who was the nominator. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it could be renamed with the case number CRI-2019-009-2468. then everything about the case could be put inside the same cat, not just the sentencing. RZuo (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations along highways in Canada by province or territory

[edit]

Given that this category tree a) has no "locations" parent, and b) only contains populated places, could we rename to Category:Populated places along highways in Canada by province or territory, and place it in Category:Populated places in Canada by province or territory? -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I followed the naming conventions similar to Category:Locations along the Interstate Highway System or Category:Locations along the United States Numbered Highway System (minus linking to ..Roads, instead linking to ..Highways). I have linked to other major geographic features such as ferries, passes, and major lakes. Are there other examples of the "Populated Places" naming convention for highways/roads?--MuzikMachine (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with MuzikMachine, while populated places may be the most common subcategories, the geographic features will also be very common (and in the case of some highways) the only subcategories. An Errant Knight (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me - I just didn't see anything but populated places. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/01&oldid=985769887"