Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02

This page is for open CFD discussions started in February 2022.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/02.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2022-02.
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

Category:Rodnover art

No proof that any of those artists are Rodnovers if they just depicted some stuff from Slavic mythology. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

In this case, I agree. There is no evidence that these authors are Rodnovers, and their drawings express Rodnoverie, and not just their artistic vision. For example, on Andrey Shishkin's website, most of the drawings do not relate to the topic of paganism in general. Perhaps the only exception is Category:Viktor Kryzhanivskyi, whose drawings are placed in the temple of Silenko (see Category:Sylenkoism). Perhaps the category needs to be renamed into Category:Slavic folk religion in art and expanded with drawings by other authors. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Here the parent category is inaccurately named - supposedly the category is not for the phenomenon as a whole, but for individual representatives. I would suggest renaming this category to: Category:Slavic neopaganism in art. And the maternal category in: Category:Slavic neopaganism. See Category:Neopaganism, Category:Neopaganism in art. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Comment In my opinion it would be better to choose one name for modern religion(s) and use it as standard – now we have few categories which have used Slavic neopaganism, few with Rodnovery and few with Slavic Native Faith. Personally I suggest Slavic neopaganism as the most neutral of them – no one would be shocked by seeing Ynglism, Slavic Wicca, Slavic Esoteric Nazism and so on with Slavic polytheist reconstructionism together under this name, as long as we haven't accurate classification in reliable sources. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Rodnover art: The category "Rodnover art" implies that the art represents Rodnover themes but does not imply that the artist himself is Rodnover; that would be the category "Rodnover artists". In any case, the artists Aleksandr Borisovich Uglanov, Andrey Alekseyevich Shishkin, Andrey Guselnikov, Andrey Klimenko, Boris Olshansky, Igor Ozhiganov, Leo Khao, Maksim Kuleshov, Maksim Sukharev, Maximilian Presnyakov, Nella Genkina, Nikolay Speransky, Valery Semochkin, Viktor Korolkov, Vladimir Pingachov, and Vsevolod Ivanov, are listed as representatives of Rodnover art in: Gizbrekht, Andrey I. (2016). "Образы деятелей российской истории в дискурсе современного "Языческого искусства" (на материале изобразительного творчества)" [The images of public figures of Russian history in the discourse of modern "Pagan art" (based on fine arts material)]. Krasnodar National Institute of Culture. UDC: 298.9:7.044/.046. Another one is Konstantin Vasilyev, cited in: Aitamurto, Kaarina (2016). Paganism, Traditionalism, Nationalism: Narratives of Russian Rodnoverie. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781472460271. p. 26.
• Rodnovery = Slavic Neopaganism: It was decided through a long discussion in the Russian Wikipedia that "Rodnovery" and "Slavic Neopaganism" are synonyms, and while "Rodnovery" is the main term in English (Slavic Neopaganism is hardly ever used), славянское неоязычество prevails in Russian, at the moment, though родноверие is used to the same extent and possibly will prevail in the near future. In all the other Slavic languages, the equivalents of "Slavic Neopaganism" are not used, each language using the localised variation of "Rodnovery" (see the reflection of the Russian decision here on Commons: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Rodnovery). So, I am against changing the main categorisation here on Commons from "Rodnovery" to "Slavic Neopaganism" (which, anyway, is always written with uppercase "Neopaganism" in Englisn, so to distinguish modern systematically revived European and Middle Eastern religions from pre-Christian and pre-Islamic ancient "paganisms", written lowercase; such standard practice was decided time ago in the English Wikipedia). I think that the recent hasty move from "Rodnovery" to "Slavic Neopaganism" is an umpteenth attempt to split up the movement at the hands of some branches which would like to exclude others (namely, the self-proclaimed "true reconstructionists" aimed at excluding Ynglism or similar eclectic branches); there is no need to bring up "Slavic Wicca" or "Slavic Esoteric Nazism" to muddle the waters, as they are not Rodnovery/Slavic Neopaganism, as the former is a Slavicised branch of Wicca while the latter is Esoteric Nazism in Slavic countries.--Æo (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Renaming the category to "Category:Rodnovery in art" would be a good solution to the issue.--Æo (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:College athletic programs in the United States by team

Proposing move to Category:College sports teams in the United States by name, to match other subcategories of Category:College sports teams in the United States IagoQnsi (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a logical move. Waz8 (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Neretvanski kanal

Delete - it's a duplicate of the Category:Neretva channel Santasa99 (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - i didn't notice the older category that's a good reason. Explanation. When I formed this category I did not notice the older category, because the older category was not in the corresponding category: Category:Straits of Croatia --Vhorvat (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Depends, is it better to leave an English translation: Neretva channel, or later renamed after the Croatian name of this sea channel: Neretvanski kanal. --Vhorvat (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Tamresari Temple

Is this a typo (missing w) or an alternative spelling? Enyavar (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Weird. The wp article is at en:Tamreswari Temple but the articles consistently uses "Tamresari" -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Dominator (roller coaster)

Problematic requested move:
Nominator's (user:Astros4477) rational: this category to be moved to Category:Dominator (Kings Dominion), because: "Not the only roller coaster under this name". Date: 2 February 2022

The request seems logical, but the subcat is Category:Dominator (Geauga Lake). One roller coaster in two locations? The third (probably unrelated) is Category:Dominator (Dorney Park) Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That is correct. It is the same roller coaster that was relocated from Geauga Lake to Kings Dominion. --Astros4477 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Vaiz kürsüsü

Isn't a just a minbar in Turkish? 129.242.129.238 15:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:No.1 Torpedo

This category treats a certain korean projectile as if its the prototype of all torpedos. A better name should be found, and the conspiratorial tone of the descriptions be changed. Enyavar (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Move to Category:ROKS Cheonan sinking torpedo? I'm not sure I understand what this is about, but I agree No. 1 Torpedo sounds like the first or best torpedo in the world. =) -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

And the subcategories are strange as well; I think but am not absolute certain that this category and its subs are intended to hold "evidence photos" for the Original Research of the uploader. I have no idea if we have a user portal for naval matters where we can ask if some of the photos are Commons:out of scope anyway? We could keep some, delete all the subcategories, and rename this parent category. --Enyavar (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, please move and upmerge the subcategories. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Erie Basin

There is something weird here... I googled "Erie Basin". This page seems to say it is a store, in Red Hook neighbourhood of Brooklyn, founded in 2008. [1] So, why does this category contain so many photos that clearly predate 2008? Did someone redirect Category:Red Hook to a category about a store? That does not seem like a good idea. Geo Swan (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, another google hit [2] says that, as the original sandspit, of Red Hook, eroded, a new one formed, was extended with land-fill, and this was known as "Erie Basin". Then this category is in DESPERATE NEED of a hatnote. Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm, a considerable mess has somehow built up. Google Search has for unknown reasons given first place to a neighborhood jewelry store that named itself after the 19th-century marine terminal that was built to serve ocean traffic on its way to and especially from the Erie Canal. In the 20th century the Basin was the site of a ship repair business with dry dock, and now is the site of the Erie Basin Park and an Ikea store. So, far as I see, Forgotten NY has it right, and ought even be used as a principle source for an ENWP article. I see no reason for either WP or Commons to notice the jewelry store, which is only interesting for its success in Search Engine Optimization. Perhaps when Springtime returns I'll bicycle there and snap some more photos and, umm, maybe this time get one of the jewelry shop. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It looks like the category has had some cleanup, should this CfD be closed as done? @Geo Swan: @Jim.henderson: Abzeronow (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Operation manuals

redundant, See also categories: User guides, User's manuals, Owner's manuals, Instruction manuals, Operation manuals and Operation instructions.

Mateus2019 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Mateus2019: . If you think these are redundant, please ignore the See also category advice, and please use the category what you think it is right. Each category has a different role, in my opinion. --Clusternote (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Comment To the contrary in my humble opinion, each one is a synonym.

Let's compare the google hits

"Operation manual" About 8.430.000 results

"User guide" About 135.000.000 results (ranking 1st)

"User's manual" About 14.800.000 results

"Owner's manual" About 26.300.000 results

"Operation instruction" About 565.000 results

or maybe Category:handbooks? About 5.940.000.000 google hits If they are synonymous, only one should remain. Greez, Mateus2019 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the differences are like this:

• Operation instructions are merely the instructions, and not imply the manual.
  • Operation manuals are the manuals for the owners, users, and possibly others.
• Owner's manuals are the documents (manuals) about the item that consumers can purchase, and does not correspond to the software or services that have a license agreement.
  • User's manuals are for the software or services that have a license agreement.
    • User's guides are often the supplemental documents to the user's manuals.

--Clusternote (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – For our purposes, these terms are synonyms. (A lexicographer or librarian may find the nuance of interest, but Commons needn't be hyper-specific. Why? Because a person browsing for a reference booklet on how to use, operate, or maintain a product, vehicle, software, or process will not know which subcategory to peruse. There is general agreement that this is so. Senator2029 22:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Even if you don't need these category, putting everything in one category might be useless temporary complacency. This discussion seems that for the people needing these sub-categorization  or  the umbrella term category (for the sub-categories mentioned above).--Clusternote (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC) [edit] --Clusternote (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Pítko pod pergolou (Marta Taberyová)

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Juandev) rational: this category to be moved to category:Pítko pod pergolou, because: "No need to have disambiguation". Date: 2022-01-23

The request seems rational, but eg Category:Fountains in Stodůlky has also the creators name. For the sake of clarity, the disambiguator clarifier seems OK Estopedist1 (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Since it literally means "Drinking fountain under the pergola" I don't see a problem with disambiguating with the artist's name... -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Pítko pod pergolou" is very unspecific description. There are many drinking fountains under pergolas around the world. --ŠJů (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Populated places in Ukraine by municipality

Is Category:Populated places in Ukraine by municipality redundant with Category:Populated places in Ukraine by hromada? Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:New Orleans Arena

I am proposing merging the contents of Category:New Orleans Arena into Category:Smoothie King Center, with New Orleans Arena serving as a redirect into Smoothie King Center. A conversation has took place here about the proposed merging. The merge is being requested due to a precedent somewhat being set, and continued on here, here, here, here, here, and here. If a broader discussion needs to occur whether this is the correct method of organizing these articles, that would be fine. But in this instance, there is a method and precedent that has been set on Commons that should be followed for consistency. Astros4477 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Pinging @Waz8, EurekaLott, Missvain, SecretName101 as Users with some work in this area. Astros4477 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you, Astros4477, for providing what you consider other precedents; as in our earlier discussion you'd provided only one. Broader discussion involving other cases may or may not be useful, but at present categorization of this particular building is the subject of this discussion. Let us focus on this particular case. Quite simply, "Smoothie King Center" did not exist until 2014. As I understand it, "New Orleans Arena" is the permanent name of the structure. On or about February 2014 Smoothie King company arranged a marketing deal to have the Arena branded as "Smoothie King Center" for 10 years - going forward, not retroactive. I do not object to having media from during this time in a category with the advertising name. I do object to having media predating this agreement categorized with a name that did not exist at the time of the photos. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would say an important matter in this conversation is if venues have "permanent names". Take, for example, en:Footprint Center. This arena lost its sponsorship in 2020. Instead of reverting back to some sort of "permanent, non sponsorship" name, the arena had two names (PHX Arena and Phenix Suns Arena) in subsequent seasons, implying this arena has no "permanent, non sponsorship" name. Thus, if Smoothie King Center lost its sponsorship, there is no guarantee they would revert back to New Orleans Arena.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know that I can take credit -- or blame -- for setting the precedent, as I was just following what others had done with related venues. Anyway, I do believe that images of a venue should all be in a single category regardless of whether or not the name applied to each of its years of existence. While this is not technically correct, from a reader's point of view, it's more convenient to have one category. They are probably more interested in finding all of the media rather than only that which used a certain name at a given time. Therefore, in this case where a "permanent name" has not been established (as was the case for SkyDome), I support the single category Smoothie King Center with New Orleans Arena redirecting to it. I will let someone else have the soapbox now. Waz8 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• I would say that, unless major renovation or tenant changes differentiate the eras that used the different names, there is not much reason for a different category. Only arena I have separated by different eras it had different names was Seattle’s (and only for interior shots), because its interior has been vastly redone over the different eras. SecretName101 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• The Wikipedias have Smoothie King Center as the name, but as User:Infrogmation notes most photographs in the category pre-date 2014. So should Smoothie King Center be a subcat or should we do the catmove and have New Orleans Arena as a redirect? Abzeronow (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't feel it's particularly necessary, I would have no objection to "Smoothie King Center" being a subcat for media from 2014 - present. I would however object to earlier media being categorized under that name, since no such entity existed before 2014. Some observations and thoughts: I understand the branding rights have been renewed (I don't know for how long) - if that hadn't happened, the Arena would be having another name about now. Understand that this is branding, ADVERTISING - the Smoothie King company is paying the venue and media broadcasting from there to use their name. While some newer stadiums might not have original and inherent non-advertising names, such is not the case with the New Orleans Arena. As Wikimedia is not a partner being compensated, Wikimedia is under no obligation to give them free advertising. In any case, the marketing brand agreement is for set amounts of time going forward - not going backwards in time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• It should be noted (atleast, to my knowledge), that this is the only main category across sports venues that does not follow the current name of the venue. While I respect User:Infrogmation's perspective, as the concept of corporate sponsorship on sporting venues is a great topic for an online (opinion) forum, the vast majority of respondents, and precendents linked above provide overwhelming support of this category being renamed.—Astros4477 (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

So what do you suggest we do with media depicting the Arena before there was any such thing as "Smoothie King Center"? Subcategory? Hatnotes? Alternatives? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We should follow the precedents that have been set with other venues that have been renamed. In each of these scenarios, the former name is redirected to a category featuring the current name (examples: here, here, here, here, here, and here). All media is moved to the current name. If you would like to propose a discussion on whether this is best practice, I would be happy to weigh in in a separate discussion. However, in this instance, New Orleans should fall in line with every other category.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I will go with consensus, but with a note of protest that it seems to me rather dishonest to categorize media with the name of an entity that did not even exist until years lager. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Uci Turtusi

Tohawi Romli Lionelsowz2021 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Lionelsowz2021, apa yang ingin anda diskusikan? --Achim55 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Record producers

"Record producer"? Isn't this a confusing and non-obvious category name, now that putting audio on vinyl records is a fringe activity? Category:Music producers currently redirects here. Shouldn't it be category name? Geo Swan (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Good question. I think it's still pretty firmly "record producer" in industry parlance, and the English-language article is at en:Record producer without even mentioning "music producer" as a synonym. I have a lot of musician and critic friends (and even a few producers). In context, they usually just say "producer", but out of context that is way too ambiguous. I actually can't remember ever hearing "music producer". - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for not taking my questions as a criticism. I have some correspondents who think categorization is obvious. I think it is anything but obvious.

One school of thought is for the category name to reflect what insiders call the thing. And another approach, often at odds with that, is for the name to be one that makes sense to outsiders.

Here are some examplesː

• There are some related technologies that replace ordinary canal locks. Here in Ontario, Canada, we have two lift-locks - my preferred name. Up until I started working on the wikipedia I thought everyone called them this. However, in the UK, this technology is called a boat-lift. In China, their name for this technology is translated as a ship-lift. They finally completed the largest one in the World at the Three Gorges Dam. And, of course, they have about a dozen of them in Germany, where they use a German name. I always thought naming the technology either a boat-lift or a ship-lift was a bad idea because both terms ALSO refer to a completely different technology - large dockside cranes that lift vessels out of the water for maintenance.
• Vehicles I have always thought of as streetcars all fall under the highlevel Category:Trams. Another synonym - trolley.
• Category:Bridges (nautical). Some people have argued this room should be called a pilothouse, or even cockpit.
• Modern charcoal is made by baking wood in a permanent, re-usable, brick kiln. Traditionally, charcoal was made by digging a shallow hole; building a big pile of wood in that shallow hole; then cover the pile of wood with the dirt from the hole, and light it on fire. The dirt makes sure there is incomplete combustion, that leaves the charcoal behind. The volatile elements in the wood are either burned off, or drip to the bottom of the hole. I found some pictures of the charcoal piles, and tried to add them to a category for charcoal piles, only to find that redirected to a Category:Charcoal clamps. I was told that charcoal clamp was a technical term, where-as charcoal pile was just a term I made up. I pointed out that early in the history of atomic energy the term "atomic pile" was used for stacks of Uranium bricks packed close enough that neutrons shed durng atomic decay was captured by nearby atoms, turning them into Plutonium. I am sure Szilard and Fermi picked the term "pile" because there were analogies between their atomic pile and primitive charcoal piles.

What would he call a guy like Scooter Braun? Okay, looked him up... Category:Scooter Braun ...his current categories say nothing of his role in the music industry.

...I added Category:Talent agents, which is what wikidata says he is... Still not satisfied though. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Politician travel maps of the world

Please help finding the best name for the category. I named it because it needs to be a child/sub of Category:Travel maps of the world; however I found it also needs to be a child/sub of Category:State visits. So... Category:State visit maps of the world? There might be more maps sitting around in other relevant categories that would need to be considered. Enyavar (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Today I found Category:Maps of countries visited. --Enyavar (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Today I moved the few files/categories from the countries-visited-category to the Ptmotw-category and created sub-cats. --Enyavar (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Enyavar whatever solution there will be, the country name has to be in nominative case not genitive case (e.g. not French, but France). Then we can also add the template: {{Countries of Europe}} Estopedist1 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, please do so. My suggestion is a scheme like this: Category:Maps of countries visited by politicians of Uruguay, but I'm open for other ideas of course. --Enyavar (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Tinplate toys

Shoule be merged with Category:Tin toys; but which name should persist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Tinplate toys is much the more common term. Also "made of tin" (infobox on tin toys) is just wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed QI candidates

Per discussion at Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates it seems that this maintenance category is not needed since no action is expected to take place after passing through the QI process without getting an assesment. As such, it should probably be deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• I created the category back in 2006, I think at someone else's suggestion, with text "This category contains images which have been nominated for inclusion in Commons:Quality Images but have not received assessments to either promote or decline after 15 days or more at Commons:Quality images candidates." It might have been of use in the early days of Commons, but I have no objection to deletion now. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• AFAIK QICBot adds images to this category. If you just delete it, the category might be added in red to unassessed QIs unless QICBot is changed. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  True. Pinging the bot operator, @Dschwen: to make sure they're aware of this discussion. Also see the suggestion at Commons talk:Quality images candidates that the bot changes to relisting the nominations rather than moving them to this category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  I am not happy with the suggestion of automated relisting. It is unlikely that many of these images get promoted. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Robert Flogaus-Faust: I find it sad that so many images have been nominated and have gone through this process without any response. I'd much prefer if they were declined if they aren't meeting QI status. Others think differently though. However, this discussion is whether this maintenance category should be deleted, which it sounds like you'd support? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think I'd favor deletion, too, as I agree with User:Smial in the linked thread that nominators can make up their own minds about whether to renominate them or not. I think the reason why most of the photos in this category are never rated is probably that no-one can decide whether to promote them or decline them. I know I've sometimes bowed out of rating a photo because I couldn't make up my mind. They could be moved to CR, but it's possible there will be cases in which no-one votes on them there, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• +1 --Smial (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I kind of disagree. I think it is still useful, if there is a way to look up which QI candidates went completely unassessed. I however think a category might not be the optimal solution for this. As I see it, this would be a good use for structured data. The wikidata:Property:P6731 with the value wikidata:Q63348069 is added, when an image is determined as QI. In case of unassessed QI candidates, we could add this as a new value and automatically add it to the unassessed ones.

This way I could use a SPARQL query to search for my unassessed QI candidates, if I wanted to. FlocciNivis (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep I think it serves as a handy tool for nominators. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Are you browsing a category with 23k images in it to look for renomination candidates? Are you somehow sorting new ones from old? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

    No, but it's much better than manually digging through the QI archive to tell if the nomination was rejected, withdrawn or unassessed. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, I use PetScan, like so. It's useful to me to have it. grendel|khan 16:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Forgot about this thread.
  In terms of the quality of a candidate, being unassessed is the same as being declined in the vast majority of cases. We have a lot more people who only ever promote, comment, or abstain, than people willing to decline. Being unassessed usually means a few people looked at it, and none of them thought it should be QI.
  There are some exceptions, though. For example, if a nominator responds to someone's criticism, because of the way QIC is structured the person who provided criticism doesn't get a ping. It has happened to me multiple times that I've addressed a problem but nobody noticed before time ran out. Upon renominating, they typically pass.
  Of course, none of this has anything to do with the category. I agree with those who have said they don't see the purpose. In terms of the QIC rules, there's no difference between something that has never been nominated and something that's renominated after being unassessed. You can nominate them just the same. So I guess I'm in the  Delete camp. That said, I certainly don't object to using structured data for this. I think we should be doing that more. Using structured data would mean more easily being able to say, for example, "show me unassessed candidates with more than one version" to find those where someone may have fixed a problem, or "show me unassessed candidates sorted by when they were nominated" or something. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• And I don't really care much about this category, even though it can be useful and give you a hint whether a previously nominated image got declined or whether it was an unassessed candidate, only by looking at the entry of the file, without a tedious search in the respective QI candidate archive. Nevertheless, this category may be deleted if it annoys anyone as soon as QICBot stops adding imagex to it (after which it would be useless anyway). Before that happens, I am strongly in the  Keep camp. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Trains in Tallinn

Some of the images in this category are not trains. Parent category is Category:Transport in Tallinn and I suggest this category should be renamed Category:Rail transport in Tallinn Geo Swan (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Geo Swan if current category will get proper content, it will be OK. Some countries have parent, eg Category:Trains in France by city‎, and Estonia can also have this "by city" category tree Estopedist1 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Superfluous images

The images are not superfluous and shouldn't be removed from the normal category tree Multichill (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Same here: keep them in the category tree, delete "Category:Superfluous images". Taylor 49 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I had been trying to tag unused & poor files that are now completely superfluous, and in future should not be used because of their very low quality.

I did not request their deletion - others may decide whether they are worth to be kept or not.

When you like them, do whatever you want! I won't care anymore about. -- sarang♥사랑 10:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If they are removed from the normal category tree, they are difficult to find. If they are superfluous, then they are either not in scope or {{Superseded}}. What is the point of the category? –LPfi (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@LPfi: As told in the category a user had been very busy two years ago in generating a flood of poor PNG images; may be that he intended to use them somewhere, but currently almost all are unused; the few usages are now replaced by SVG.

The told user categorized his images mostly into Icons or other main categories, instead of selecting a more differing one.

I thought that keepeng them there, or in better differing categories (instead of "icon" e.g. Eye icons) bears the danger that somebody finds and uses them. Images so poor IMHO should not be used; when needed a much better SVG can be generated swiftly.

Unfortunately another user was upset by that and started an edit war re-categorizing these images; therefore I stopped caring about.

The images are not all out_of_scope, and not all have a superseding image. Their common property is their superfluousness. -- sarang♥사랑 10:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is no better image for some in-scope use, then they are not superfluous and they should be in a category where they can be found. If their quality is so bad that they are useless even in that case, then they should be deleted. –LPfi (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

it seems to me that the "Superfluous images" refer to png that are originally svg. is that correct, User:Sarang?

for these images, i raised a discussion: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/01#Uploaded_PNG_previews_of_SVG_files:_delete_or?. my opinion is that they should all be deleted.

it's so freaking annoying that new users just keep uploading these crap. another perennial example: youtube logo, like File:Youtube Simgesi.png. (i did nothing about this file because i knew of sysops' reluctance to delete and clean up these crap.) RZuo (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with speedy mass deletion of PNG images converted from existing SVG images. But not with random moving into less useful or useless categories. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Glacial streams

Seems redundant to Category:Supraglacial streams. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb Glacial streams sub-categories seem to be about streams whose waters originate from a Glacier. This category is not redundant. You could rename perhaps to "Glacier fed streams" or "Glacial fed streams." "Supraglacial streams" are streams on the glacier itself. When this supraglacial water emerges below the glacier's terminus, it becomes a glacier fed stream or glacial stream. The same idea with a "subglacial steam" upon emergence below the terminus. Ooligan (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Panoramic views of Lake Como

Meaningless category name (what is 'panoramic' in this case, when most photos are wide views but not panoramas?). Suggest upmerging to Category:Lake Como, and then recategorising in other subcategories. Mike Peel (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a definition/description of "panoramic views"? I think at least Category:Panoramics should have a clear definition and point out what should be in this category and its subcategories and what should be out. After we have consent about this definition we can compare it to the photos in Category:Panoramic views of Lake Como and judge about this category. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Panoramics and Category talk:Panoramics. --JopkeB (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@RoyZuo: @Jmabel: @Infrogmation: thoughts? Abzeronow (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Under recent decisions, this at least should be Category:Panoramas of Lake Como (if kept) but most of these images are not panoramic and should be upmerged, as the subcats should be. Generally "panoramas" should meet at least one of two criteria: aspect ratio beyond 2:1 or very wide angle. An example of the latter would be something like File:Snoqualmie Falls pano 2.jpg; compare to File:Mountains to Sound Greenway - I-91 - Misty View of Snoqualmie Falls - NARA - 7720475.jpg which is itself quite a wide-angle view from roughly the same viewpoint. (I wouldn't scream if someone called that latter one "panoramic", but little in these categories approaches that wide an angle.) - Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

1. A handful of these do seem to be panoramas?
2. i've handled quite a lot of "panaram..." cats. in the process it's always a problem seeing users dumping whatever into the cat trees "panoramas / panoramic..." i decided i wont take that as my responsibility to discern what is and what is not and the resultant recategorisation effort.
3. i'm also not sure what the definition of panorama should be. here're some dicts:
   1. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/panorama_1 "a view of a wide area of land"
   2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/panorama "a view of a wide area"; "a photograph in which the image is shown in a wide view"
4. imo there're 2 most common genres:
   1. the kind of photo that's produced by a scanning mechanism, which gives an appearance of a U shape.
   2. the kind of photo that looks like multiple photos stitched together, so they dont give a U shape but still feature more details than usual.
5. imo if a photo doesnt have a wide angle, and it shows only a small part of landscape, then it's definitely not a panorama. (many members of this cat are.)
6. there're probably some linguistic problems here, because my impression is that more often it's the italian and spanish speakers who tend to use this word for all kinds of photos? i dont know coz i dont speak these languages.

RoyZuo (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

in terms of photographic technique/equipment, i think several things are often mixed together in these cats:

1. wide angle lens
2. fish eye lens
3. camera that rotates horizontally to sweep through a wide area, often used to produce super long group photos of humans, like graduation photos
4. phone camera that lets users turn horizontally and produces a "panorama"
5. normal photos taken side by side and then stitched together to form a super long photo
6. bird's view, just a normal photo but shot from high above showing a large part of landscape

RoyZuo (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The four examples in the gallery above are certainly panoramic.

Yes, there are several technical means to create a panorama. The "panorama" categories are not about the technique, they are about the result.

"Birds-eye" views are typically not "panoramas." - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

did i say the categories are about techniques?

When @Mike Peel said "most photos are wide views but not panoramas", I guess what he meant is, a wide-angle shot is not considered a panorama by him, but only probably the #3 #4 #5 I listed are. So it seems the method, by which an image is made, is for some users a factor in deciding whether an image is a panorama, even if fisheye lens, wide angle lens, 360 panoramic camera, mobile phone, etc., might produce some visually similar images. RoyZuo (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

An end user looking for a "panorama" does not generally care whether it was made with a very wide lens, a moving camera/phone, or by stitching, as long as there are not a bunch of artifacts. But if you look in these categories, there are a lot of photos that simply are not panoramas in any sense other than that they are taken from far enough away from their subject that they cover a fair amount of terrain, and would not fit any of the criteria you listed. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In particular, it is ridiculous that Category:Views of Lake Como from Varenna is a subcat of Category:Panoramic views of Lake Como. Where you are standing and what direction you are looking does not make a panorama. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: makes a lot of sense here. Panoramas are a particular type of photography, and should be at least twice as wide as it is tall, if not more. You might be confusing them with vistas. Renaming and trimming back to actual panoramas might work well, although I'm still not convinced that this category is worth keeping. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)