Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01

This page is for open CFD discussions started in January 2023.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/01.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2023-01.
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:1 man with 2 women in Slovenia

I guess we can call this a "test balloon". This just strikes me as random over-categorization. I can't imagine a scenario where this category is actually useful to anyone. It is a random intersection of a certain combination of people and a geographic area. If the consensus is not to have this category, I believe there should be a broader discussion of the utility of all categories of this type. To me this category is just clutter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the purpose of these. Going up the three, we have them sorted by country (semi-useful I guess) with Category:Man and two women (nude) existing to break out Category:Groups of nude men and women for some reason. Going up further you have Category:1 man with women by quantity until you get to the parent Category:People by quantity and the entire thing looks ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Masterpiece of absurdism. 47 files were thoroughly categorized there. It's wonderful. Abstain Sneeuwschaap (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, not on the merits of this particular category, but instead on the admitted purpose of the CfD as a test balloon for the question of whether to retain (and why?) categories of this type. If the real purpose is to have that larger discussion, then we should just start that at the appropriate level. Picking one innocuous category within what is clearly an entire schema of categories ensures that only a very small number of people (even amongst those who regularly use this schema) will actually see the CfD notice and participate in the discussion. Also, a category like this will often appear more esoteric and less useful when presented in isolation than when the system of categorization it is a part of is discussed as a whole. Afterall, there will always be low-hanging fruit like this in any comprehensive categorization scheme. I would much prefer we just go ahead and have the broader discussion that Beeblebrox has called for, not around a corner case such as this category, but at the system level (Category:People by country by quantity?) Josh (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ricky81682.

Imho useless, unnecessary and impossible to maintain. It doesn't make any sense to extend this already dubious "number of people" with "number of people" category to the "by country" categories. Up to how many people? In how many countries? The community can not seriously expect contributors to classify their files in these categories, nor that other collaborators be willing to waist their time in maintaining them regulary. Regarding the by country categories in this branch : Delete them all.
I agree with Beeblebrox and Josh concerning a broader discussion that should take place at the upper level (Category:People by country by quantity.

Regards, --Bohème (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Ricky81682. Really, this whole "people by quantity" category structure in general is kind of useless over-categorization. This seems like a good place as any to prune the branches back a little if not further up the tree though. That said if it were me I'd probably nominate the whole thing for deletion, or at least most it. Maybe it's useful somewhere in some context, but I can't think of one. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gorges arms

Current name makes the category's intended purpose unclear: even prior to my recent edits, most contents were coats of arms with gurges, which made the category redundant to Category:Gorges in heraldry (which is also poorly named). If "Gorges arms" is intended to contain arms borne by people/places named "Gorges" (which don't necessarily depict whirlpools), "Arms of Gorges" might be a better name, a la Category:Arms of Nijmegen. (A name like "Arms of Gorges" would also prevent it from coming up when people type gorges... into Hotcat or the upload form's category-suggester in search of the category for gurges in coats of arms, which I suspect may be the cause of its contents, even prior to my recent edits, having been mostly gurges-depicting arms rather than arms borne by Gorges.) In turn, Category:Gorges in heraldry should be renamed to "Gurges in heraldry", as the spelling with -u- seems to be so much more common for the heraldic meaning that I've only found -o- in one book where it may be a misspelling. -sche (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History: Category:Gorges in heraldry was created under the name Category:Gorges, at which time it was intended for canyon gorges; it was moved in diff. Every file currently in the category depicts a gurges, though, and not a canyon gorge, so it seems clear that the currently-intended scope is heraldic whirlpools, not canyons. -sche (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Gorges arms is for coats of arms of the mediaeval English family named Gorges. It is one of almost 3,000 such named sub-categories in this format in Category:Coats of arms of families of England. They are w:canting arms, "gurges" being the Latin for "whirlpool". The heraldic word for a whirlpool is "gurges", so you are totally correct, it should be a member of Category:Gurges in heraldry not Category:Gorges in heraldry. I will correct that and remove any stray images from Category:Gorges in heraldry. It might also be helpful to add a note to the latter page "For whirlpools see Category:Gurges in heraldry". Hope that resolves the issue.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now placed Category:Gorges in heraldry in one category only, namely Category:Valleys in heraldry, and removed it from all the others relating to spirals/whirlpools. It could also go in Category:Gorges in art, which may be created if you wish.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Cosplay of Yogi Bear

Contained only empty subcategories when I found it (I didn't empty this category or the subcategories.) Trivialist (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem as are all the cosplay ones. We should keep track of the cosplays by characters but if they are empty, then it should be deleted under C2 for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted as empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Waterways of the Klondike Gold Rush

What exactly is this category supposed to mean? The only parent category is Category:Klondike Gold Rush. Is it supposed to be for one particular source work (I see that most of this is from one book)? or is it supposed to be images of any relevant waterways (rivers, the Inside Passage, etc.) during that Gold Rush? Or something else entirely? Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rallies in support of the victims of the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting in Australia

There was one rally in Australia in Brisbane. And this currently reads as if the massacre of Charlie Hedbo happened in Australia in 2015. Which is very obviously wrong. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would support a simple move / rename. Maybe Category:Rallies in 2015 in Australia in support of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting

Was there content here? Where has it gone to? I do wish people wouldn't empty categories for discussion before they can be discussed! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The category contained one subcategory. I do wish people would be careful not to jump to conclusions before accusing others of emptying categories. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

accusing others of emptying categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Bonjour, content is the rallye in Brisbane. The category:Rallies in support [..] in Australia is compatible with it's parent and sister categories (most of the latter with only 1 sub-category...), regards, --Bohème (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of the category makes absolutely no sense. There were no Charlie Hedbo shootings that happened in Australia. I think it doesn’t make sense to have an Australian parent category with no items. Why does this category need to exist? Brisbane is obviously within Australia. If we went with the logic, then you’d also need a Queensland subcategory of the Australian category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then rename all affected members of Category:Rallies in support of the victims of the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting, i.e. Category:Rallies in support of the victims of the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting in Germany‎. Then go even further, if the problem is more widespread than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The root of this seems to be bulk by-country cat creations by one main editor who isn't a native English speaker, has the infamous "This user has advanced knowledge of English." userbox (which is never a good sign), and is sledgehammering a crude use of {{Countries of Europe}} onto everything (the template itself is fine and doesn't require this stilted phrasing). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m exiting this discussion, I appear to have caused more heat than light, for which I apologise. Not sure how to fix this, if the discussion needs to be closed please feel free. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1970 in Palestine

I'm suggesting this first just to try to avoid drama but there is already a Category:1970 in the State of Palestine which is the category that is in the countries of the Arab world and countries of Asia headers. The 1960s category is split but the 1970s one leans towards the State of Palestine naming convention. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Palestine is a geographical region which is (currently) occupied by the political entities Israel and State of Palestine. Thus the split between Palestine and State of Palestine is valid and should be maintained through the various trees:

Category:1970 in Palestine
- Direct contents limited to those that are common to the region (not specific to a state)
- Category:1970 in Israel for contents specific to that state
- Category:1970 in the State of Palestine for contents specific to that state

Of course this should apply to more than just 1970, but you get the point. Josh (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Israeli Intelligence Community

This category and Category:People of Israeli intelligence agencies should be merged becuase they deal with the same group of people DGtal (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hackerspaces by country of location

This is really a discussion for each of the subcategories and their organization. Currently, each hackerspaces category appears in each country under the "Culture of"/"Subcultures in" subcategory, the "Technology of" subcategory and as a main topic. For example, Category:Hackerspaces in Germany can be found in Category:Germany by topic, Category:Subcultures in Germany and Category:Technology in Germany. I support technology and the cultures one but calling this a main topic is unnecessary as the country by topic categories are getting quite big. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The categories seem to be mainly useful to find hackerspaces by countries, so I guess if we're in a country and we wish to go from there to hackerspaces in that country category, the more straightforward thing to search would be technology organization.

Now in Germany, you've the C-Base which is a little bit a subculture fer de lance.

So I think I share your opinion to keep Category:Subcultures in Germany and Category:Technology in Germany.

And indeed, the by topic is a bit too broad, and hackerspaces too specific to be there. --Dereckson (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second. --Albinfo (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being located in "by topic" index does not equal being a 'main topic'. In fact, 'main topics' should be directly under their country category. "By topic" is an index of all topics, main or otherwise. If we want an index of only main topics, then it should be "by main topic" to clarify that idea. Josh (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner As the same time, a category that is already in subcategories should not also be in the higher level topic category. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: As a general rule, sure, but not sure how that relates to this discussion, this is more about the scope of 'by topic', not an overcat question. That said, is there really anything to do here, or can we close this discussion? Josh (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner The question is whether to what categories does it belong in, including whether to remove it from the main topics discussion. This can be done either by the topic category or by the subcategory in question. Unlike the other two people here, I assume you support the current three categories for each hackerspaces subcategory but Germany has it in subcultures but Category:Hackerspaces in Luxembourg has it in the red-linked Category:Culture in Luxembourg (not a subculture) but that is probably a moot issue. Removing it from topics seems to be the majority opinion. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prefectures of Japan

i dont understand why all the "prefecture" appearing in "proper nouns" were not correctly capitalised as suggested by User:Miki59697270 on the talk page. you can search "prefecture" on https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/index.html (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications) and all the results correctly capitalise the word when it's part of proper nouns. it's the same as state, province, department, etc., in other countries. RZuo (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&ns14=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%2F.%2B+prefecture%2F+incategory%3A%22Prefectures+of+Japan%22

the subcats were created before 2005. someone tried to rectify two of these Category:Mie Prefecture Category:Nagano Prefecture in 2019 but it was unsuccessful.

there's no question they should be renamed. someone will have to do the job. RZuo (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jetro.go.jp/en/database/procurement/list/local.html see how they would capitalise prefecture or city.

https://www.pref.kyoto.jp/en/ Kyoto Prefecture

https://web.pref.hyogo.lg.jp/fl/english/index.html Hyogo Prefecture

https://www.pref.aichi.jp/global/en/ Aichi Prefecture RZuo (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming all but I suggest you tag the individual prefecture categories to get more eyes on this discussion. I don't image there will be a lot of people watching the parent category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demonstrations against extradition bill in Hong Kong, 2021

I think this category and its subcats should be renamed. The extradition bill was already withdrawn in October 2019, and the so-called "protests" are related to the COVID-19 pandemic, national security law, national anthem law, police brutality, etc. Category talk:Demonstration against extradition bill, 24 May 2020 can be an example, or others have any ideas on the rename? A1Cafel (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political leaders of Nazi Germany

Should be moved to Category:Politicians of Nazi Germany to be in line with the other German categories by era. Specific political functions would go under Category:Politicians of Nazi Germany by political office to replace the somewhat vague meaning of "leader". Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Perhaps we indeed need a new category Category:Politicians of Nazi Germany, but I would like to keep this category as well, to differentiate between the leaders and the henchmen/hangers-on/followers. Then we only need a clear definition of "Political leaders of Nazi Germany", perhaps: Hitler and his ministers, plus the ones in charge in the occupied countries, the "Reichskommissars"? JopkeB (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As most political offices include some kind of political leadership, the leadership category will turn out to offer merely a subset of the office category with most functions ending up in both categories (with difficulties in cases like Category: Members of the German Reichstag (1933-1945) - all of them have a political office, but are they leaders or just followers?). I could see sense in a category like Category:Leaders of Nazi Germany (without "political") that combines high ranking political, military, entrepreneurial, judicial and media personalities. This still had the problem of definition but at least it would not be redundant to the standard "Occupation by office" and "Occupation by county" structure. Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire tree Category:Political leaders should just redirect to Category:politicians.

are there political leaders not politicians? no.

what's the definition of Political leaders? very ambiguous and subjective. is the head of the branch of a party in a village a leader? i'd say yes, even if they only lead a few people. so the category is useless. RoyZuo (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But are there politicians who are not political leaders? Yes we do, that is the point. So we have to differentiate, to find the leaders more easily.

A political leader may be the official representative of a political party, the leader of a political party. So not the head of the branch of a party in a village. In case of "Political leaders of Nazi Germany" I would also add the inner circle of Hitler who had an important role in World War II. JopkeB (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations of Ludwig Wittgenstein

This is basically a category of trivia. Every place he went is a ridiculous category. He went and taught at the University of Cambridge but putting Category:University of Cambridge as locations of every famous person who went there (separate from their actual staff categories) would be a ridiculous categorization. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to "Former residence of Ludwig Wittgenstein", if that's what all those houses are. (ofc minus the grave.) RoyZuo (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films starring Perla Haney-Jardine

This seems like an unnecessary categorization for a sake of categorization. It does not category any media but just is categories for current categories. We can get into arguments about which films star her versus which don't but as of now it doesn't make sense to have this category for one film when this is better for the Wikipedias and/or WikiData (if it wants to become an IMDb of actor roles). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ted Kennedy at funerals

This seems like an odd categorization. We categorize funerals by funerals of the person, not funerals by attendance. It seems like something that depicts at WikiData is better for handling than Commons. For example, File:ARC200454.gif belongs under Category:State funeral of John F. Kennedy and is here but no one has created Category:Robert F. Kennedy at funerals or Category:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis at funerals. I would also guess the JFK state funeral category itself could be a category of this rather than the individual images but that category would become an absurdity of categorization by attendees. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If we have media of an individual attending more than one funeral, I suppose this works. I would agree though that categorizing each funeral event under each person who attended it would be madness. However, as long as each of these images actually has Ted in the image, I am okay with this. Josh (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine and its subcategories

Created as an analog of Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but there is no such thing as "2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine". The author did not even notice that the articles which he linked on one page do not exist. Total separation of 2022 and 2023 events isn't logical, useful or convenient, it is the single invasion. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a singular event, even if it has now spanned beyond 2022. It is normal for wars to have just the start year in their nomenclature, so I would retain Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as the main category title, even if a 'by year' breakdown is done (which does make sense, even if some of the names come across a bit odd at first glance):

Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by year
  - Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022
  - Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2023 (this is what the nominated category should be renamed if it indeed just covers 2023)

Josh (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For chronology, we already have Category:Russo-Ukrainian War by month and Category:Russo-Ukrainian War by day. Categories by year can, of course, also be created, if needed. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

though only for Category:Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014‎

maybe also have
Category:Russo-Ukrainian War in 2015

to

Category:Russo-Ukrainian War in 20123

DMBFFF (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should refer to those initial battles around feb/mar 2022.

for the whole war we should just use Category:Russo-Ukrainian War in 2023, Category:Russo-Ukrainian War in 2024...

@Sneeuwschaap@Joshbaumgartner@DMBFFF do you agree with this rename format? RoyZuo (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The war phase which lasts from 24.02.2022 till now is a sufficiently separate and single entity to deserve a separate category. It corresponds to the scope of the article en:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Categories by year would be not useful, they would divide a single event. For chronology, we already have categories by month and day, that's enough. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sneeuwschaap I agree that the existing Category:Russo-Ukrainian War by month and day categories are fine versus having additional day/month diffusion specifically for the 2022-present phase. They can be grouped by year in the usual way. However, the contents of Category:Russo-Ukrainian War by month are malformed: they should be renamed in the standard format "Russo-Ukrainian War in January 2022", etc.

Essentially, I think we can start by renaming this category to Category:Russo-Ukrainian War in 2023 and work from there. Josh (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museums related deletion requests

I'm not sure how "Museum related" is a useful category. Other than Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum, the rest are just uploads by individuals that claim the various museums has authorship. The Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum discussion differs because of the Wikimedian in Residence working at the museum but the consensus was basically "no, we analyze this the same as normal." The second was more important for the issue of design copyrights than the museum itself. Deletion requests related to museums seems categories for the sake of categorizing. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as creator, if not really usefull I 'm not opposed to its deletion. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health care

Should this be Category:Health care or Category:Healthcare? The subs are split between the two, I would by default go with the parent name of "health care" through the tree, unless there is a countervailing opinion to switch to "healthcare". Josh (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about this awhile back having to do with "healthcare" companies. What I remember from that the difference has to do with the healthcare system versus actions done to improves a persons health. So it would be fine to put say an image of someone brushing their teeth in Category:Health care but then something like an insurance company should be in a subcategory of Category:Healthcare since it is a part of the healthcare industry. Although who's to say how useful the distinction actually is. Regardless, it's weird to have a category for a medical facility or similar in the same category structure as images of someone at home flossing their teeth. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/healthcare "healthcare noun (also health care) [uncountable] the service of providing medical care".

i prefer "healthcare". RZuo (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are two basic concepts here: the general activity, and the industry/economic activity. I do not think a simple space is sufficient to delineate the two as that seems 1) a bit manufactured and 2) to not be broadly known as carrying that importance. Thus I think that we should just go with one word for healthcare and continue to keep the industrial side in its own tree:

Category:Healthcare: The general activity of preventing disease and promoting wellness - there is a case for using "health care" instead for this one, but it seems 6 one way, half dozen the other, so might as well be consistent with sub-cats
Category:Healthcare industry: The economic service of providing the above (and as such a sub-category of the above) - this seems almost never styled as "health care industry", thus going with "healthcare" here pretty solidly

@RZuo and Adamant1: : Any comment on the above? Can we go forward with this? Josh (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't neccesarily have an issue with that. Although "industry" has it's own problems since really your talking about healthcare companies and products. But whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see a clear distinction between the two. isnt a nurse tending to a patient both an act of caring for the health and a part of the healthcare industry? why is there a need to separate the two? even a person applying bandages to himself is still an aspect of the "healthcare industry": self-care, https://www.who.int/health-topics/self-care , self-medication... RZuo (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner, Adamant1, and RZuo: I think we should move forward with this proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I agree. This is really just about whether there should be a space or not in healthcare/health care. Whether or not an 'industry' sub-category of the topic is appropriate is really a different discussion. It sounds like there is no opposition to simply going without the space for the main topic, and for subs to comply with the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plain color rocket icons

Deletion request: Files have been recategorised and this is a non-standard, redundant name. Category:Plain-color icons is not categorised by subject. Amousey (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand the reasoning, but I disagree with the way the files have been recategorized. In many cases, this has resulted in loss of information.
For example, in File:Maki2-rocket-18.svg, this edit replaced existing categories with two non-existing ones without explanation (especially the grey→gray change), and the next one simply deleted one of the non-existing categories, leaving the other (which I have now created as a redirect). The fact that most of the files of this category were in its subcategory Plain black rocket icons does alleviate the issue, but these changes have left files that previously were grouped together in this category (the one above, this one, this one, and others) are now left mixed up with the more complex images in Category:SVG rocket icons, Category:Rocket icons, Category:U+1F680‎, etc.
I am happy to agree with the deletion of this category, but only after the equivalents of Category:Plain black rocket icons for other colors are created and the files that were previously at Category:Plain color rocket icons are added to them. --Waldyrious (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Run Lola Run (locations)

As Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog explains, film locations are not a defining characteristic of a location. Even if kept, the title of this category should be better anyways. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film locations in London

As discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog, a film location is not a defining characteristic of a location. It also isn't clear why it needs to be used for "two or more different productions" to make it into this category. With a broad enough definition of what productions qualify (student films?) every location in the city could be a film location. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Pride Flag

Delete this and move the content to the larger Category:Progress Pride flags Amousey (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amousey: ok. Sahaib (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Category:New Pride Flag is for the design by Julia Feliz, and Category:Progress Pride flags is for the design by Daniel Quasar. They’re separate designs, and AFAIK they’re not even directly related (the New Pride Flag website doesn’t mention the “Progress” design). I see no reason to merge the categories. (Although you could create a supercategory of “progressive” pride flags, or under some other name, which could contain Julia Feliz’ New Pride Flag, Daniel Quasar’s Progress pride flag, and also the several other designs derived from Quasar’s which are currently squashed into Category:Progress Pride flags as well.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Progress Pride Flags (aka Pride Flags) are different than "New Pride Flag." Progress Pride Flags are CC-BY-NC-SA, used widely, and Wikimedia Commons indicates they consider the image public domain. The "New Pride Flag" image is intellectual property of "New Pride Flag, Inc", a 501c3 charity, and has a license use agreement. Please do not conflate the two. Koziarke (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These are 2 different flags, albeit broadly similar in design. A supercategory of "adaptations of the Pride flag" or something might make sense, but they are not the same flag. — OwenBlacker (talk; please ping me in replies) 18:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The two designs are quite obviously different. Brainy J (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asaf Bartov wearing neckties

Overcategorisation. There are only two images here, which can easily be in both of the parent categories, without needing this specific category. Mike Peel (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't see an overcat violation here. I agree that it seems a bit unnecessary, but then again someone presumably found it useful at some point. It seems accurate, and we do have other "name wearing neckties" categories. It does not violate any COM:CAT policies as far as I can tell, so I don't see the particular harm in this one's existence. Josh (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first image is so distant I wouldn't care but the second is fine upmerging to the Category:Men wearing neckties parent (down into the country ones) (or merge both). From looking at the ways we categorize men wearing neckties, other than by country, it's a very few people and looking at Category:Asaf Bartov it's a really oddball category of him. The fact that an anonymous created Asaf Bartov wearing neckties in 2016 is not a reason to keep it. It didn't fit the larger structure at all then and even if moved into place, it stands out as unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too specific. RoyZuo (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spoken Wikipedia

Subcategories should be renamed to standard spoken English format: Example: Rename Category:Spoken Wikipedia - English to Category:Spoken English Wikipedia . Applies to subs and their children in accordance with the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In principle you are right, but isn´t editing 10,000+ pages just out of principle a bit inefficient? In itself the category tree is quite tidy and consistent, so the effort will not lead to real advantages. Rudolph Buch (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several bots and tools to help with large moves, so I don't think that is a problem. In any case, I am only proposing renaming categories, not files. I didn't do an exact count, but there are about 60 languages represented and only a handful have a few sub-categories, so at most this a rename of less than 100 categories. I've done a lot larger migrations and they are pretty straightforward actually. Even if it was on the large side though, I would hate to get to the point where problems are 'too big to fix'. Josh (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner and Rudolph Buch: I think we should rename the categories. We can recategorize those tens of thousands of files using COM:Cat-a-lot. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southeast Asian & Caribbean Images (KITLV), Leiden University Library

I think this category is really its parent category. According to Category:Photographs from KITLV, the parent category is for images from Leiden University Library in conjunction with the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies. This subcategory is not Southeast Asian and Caribbean Images from that category as it includes Egypt and Iran but basically a duplicate category of itself with some sorting by country. It could instead be Category:Photographs from KITLV by country so that the parent could have a sister category of Category:Photographs from KITLV by photographer which would then sort everything from the parent into two main categories and then the remaining images would be the unsorted ones. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to start removing the obviously redundant cat "Collections of Leiden University Library (uncategorized)" from these files. But I will wait with that untill this discussion is comes to a conclusion, and till the cats are more refined and adequate.

At this time with 141.471 images in this cat it is obvious that there is a lot to do. For example to sort it to the existing subcats by country. I don't really have an opinion to your proposal, since i did not notice a problem while focussing on Indonesia. I don't know how cats for Egyptian, Iran & India images ended up in this cat, and agree that this looks odd. The whole cat seemes a temporary intermediatate until all is sorted by country, because the cat name is far too broad to be specific enough for single files. Maybe just something like "KITLV images" or "Images from KITLV" could be added as a possibly hidden cat? I agree to refining in any possible way. For Indonesia we generally have deeper subcats like Java (21.494 KITLV items available in total). One of the issues is that the parent cats were not removed at time of placing the items in deeper cats. A lot still looks poorly or uncategorized, in fact being overcategorized; already being deeper geographically categorized by location, topic and or album. I find the typography of the descriptions hard to read at a glance. And containing (too many) redundant and vaguely incorrect phrases: "Language: No linguistic content - Country: No place, unknown, or undetermined." Also we would need to acknowledge that not every image is a photograph here. Quote. "The KITLV image collection holds photographs, prints and drawings ..." Peli (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelikana For removing the uncategorized cat, I think we can make a Commons:Bots/Work requests as it is fairly mindless and I think it will drop that significantly. Again, I think the title of this category is a duplication of the parent category. KITLV is en:Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies and I think someone dumped the Southeast Asian & Caribbean name into this one thinking the images would be focused on that but they aren't. Category:Photographs from KITLV has a bunch of subcategories that are organized by photographer, 4 for individual collections, one Category:Photographs from the 1907 Tumuk Humak expedition - Collection KITLV A873 for a specific trip in Suriname and this pile. You have to keep going up the tree to Category:KITLV Collection to find the artwork. It needs a complete overhaul from the top down at the KITLV Collection category but this category sticks out as a problem. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand your point. You mean that "Southeast Asian & Caribbean" was a phrase derived from the english translation of KITLV and not really a cat by location, but in fact a cat by institution. Correct? Therefore to a very large extend a fairly useless and confusing duplicate of things that could be directly in subcats of KITV. I agree to getting this solved and applying changes that make things more clear, more exact and easier to handle. I also agree that the Cat with "Uncategorized" in its name should be systematically removed by a bot once we made sure everything stays under both KITV (if approriate) and Leiden University Library. A problem is that many of the non-KITLV Library images in the University collection are still not properly reviewed or categorized, but some are. It could boil down to either having to check each file individually or applying a general institution tag to replace all instances of "Uncategorized ..".

(Q. Do we want/need to give the official donations by the institute (2016) a different cat than the uploads by other Commons users (2019)? I don't see much urgence for that really. And it seems to have those tags already, concerning the 'official' uploads.) A thing that can also cause confusion is that cat "KIT Collection" (formerly in Tropen Institute) is now also in Leiden. Quote: "The heritage collection of KIT has been transferred to Leiden University Library in Dec. 2013." How can this be merged or correctly separated? Or is it ok like this? I was not fully aware of the differences between KIT and KITLV and their separate histories until very recently. Odd that this cat has just 2 files. and just one parent. Peli (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelikana A bot is slowly attacking and doing some of the uncategorized cleanup. KIT and KITLV look like different institutions entirely. Yes, I am saying that I think that this category is a misunderstanding/dump for the parent but this is just my guess. I informed the creator. I wonder if the better categorization for the parent is (a) by photographer and (b) by country with this being very partially sorted into countries. I still don't know how we got from an initial 5574 donated images to almost 140k images without any explanation further but better to have the images than not have them so I don't know if this is from the original donation by both Leiden and KITLV or this is from KITLV on its own so I don't know whether it should matter anyways. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film sets of Paddington

My understanding is that film sets as opposed to film locations are the physical sets. The only item here is Category:Primrose Hill which is a district. Does that category belong at Category:Film locations of Paddington so this is a empty category? I'm trying to figure out if there is a need to clean out the film sets categories or do I not understand the difference? Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Yes, to my understanding, "sets" would be specifically locations as set up for a performance. The same location when not set up for a performance would not be a set. Thus the contents here should only be images depicting locations actually set up for filming, not the places in general. Josh (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quills

This category is a mess. Although four of the five categories it is a member of... Category:Writing tools Category:Scribe tools Category:Pens Category:Dip pens -- refer to writing, a significant portion of the images it contains are simply quills, with no connection to writing.

What should happen is that Category:Quill pens should be created, and all the images of quill pens should be put there. Meanwhile, the images that are of quills, with no association with writing should be kept here, but those four categories removed. Maybe Category:Bird anatomy, or reasonable equivalent, should be added here. Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural depictions of Vlade Divac

I understand the purpose of this category on the encyclopedias but this seems like categorization for the sake of categorization. It does not relate to any media and it just creates a structure that just goes on for no reason. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uniforms of the Spanish Navy

I suggest merging Category:Uniforms of the Spanish Navy and Category:Spanish Navy uniforms. Category:Naval uniforms by country contains a third convention, which would be "Naval uniforms of Spain". There's also Category:Military rank insignia of the Spanish Navy vs. Category:Military rank insignia of the Navy of Spain‎. TilmannR (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Category:Naval uniforms by country is in Category:Navy uniforms by country. I have no idea what the difference between a navy uniform and a naval uniform is (if there is any). TilmannR (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navy = Simply, color name = a kind of Dark blue.

Naval = Coastal military "navy". Thanks and sorry. --Benzoyl (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "orange uniforms by country" makes a lot more sense now.

I removed the naval category from the navy category. TilmannR (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical trams in Lyon

Cette catégorie devrait être fusionnée avec Category:Ancien tramway de Lyon , qui a le même objet avec des contenus distincts. Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Société des transports en commun lyonnais

Cette catégorie est mal nommée : elle contient des photos historiques datant de l'OTL, et seulement des funiculaires. Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commons User template with namespace

category introduced by special:diff/353040598. i dont see its utility. neither does the problem it tracks seem to cause serious problems, nor is someone actively removing the additional namespace. so i suggest removing it from the template and deleting this cat. RZuo (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians with association football balls

This seems like a trivial intersection category. There is no need for further breakdowns of people with association football balls by jobs and this seems like an odd politician by setting. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as the creator): we have also similar Category:Politicians with bicycles & Category:Politicians with animals. Politicians tend to present themselves to the public with certain activities widely considered positive to address their voters. So kicking a football is part of the job understanding. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Herzi Pinki appears to have a reasonable basis for this category. Are you okay with closing the CfD at this point, or is there more to add? Josh (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki I looked at Category:Politicians by setting before this. The eating one I could see but maybe there should be broader like churches and disaster sites are to sports-related ones? It seems odd to be specific to association football balls like we have for animals and bicycles as the objects. This is the only job-related breakdown of Category:People with association football balls which is why I find it strange. There is an American tradition of presidents and baseballs (1, 2) that doesn't fit because it is association football-specific and it would seem silly to have Category:Politicians with baseballs and basketballs and every sports object. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: like Category:Asanas with politicians‎? Quite specific. I doubt that Category:Politicians with baseballs is silly, I would create it in your place. Lot more to come. In general the subcategories in Category:Politicians by setting are all a bit just collecting containers by association. In my opinion it is too early to create a stable set of sound subcategories for Category:Politicians by setting. So what is your proposal for a non-trivial intersection category? for association football and baseball? How to resolve the prominence of Putin and Medvedev? Where is the right balance between too general and too specific? I don't know and in general I have no strong opinion on how subcategories are cut. A category should help to find images. In general I find it more important to categorize all that uncategorized stuff around (or categorized as Category:Unidentified xxx). Feel free to overrule my arguments. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki I think delete them all. They all seem trivial. The Putin stuff is beyond bizarre with Putin by day but that doesn't mean we should have more trivial stuff to keep it going. Category:Musicians by setting is by locations while Category:Sportspeople by setting is an odd mix but some are with objects. Forget the politicians part. Does it make sense to have Category:Musicians with baseballs, Category:Actors with baseballs, other jobs with baseballs/food/bicycles/animals (sportspeople with baseballs would be dumb) and then break down individual people because someone went nutty with Putin and Medvedev? What is trivial to you? Is there anything that isn't? Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: What is the core meaning of all these photos? It is politicians doing something in front of cameras they usually don't do at home without cameras. What about abstracting all subcategories to Category:Politicians doing populistic pondering? (my English is not sufficient to coin such a term - feel free to improve). This will also create a frame for Putin. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki I don't get the point of any of this. Why politicians specifically doing something that "you" don't think politicians do? I'm sure politicians have kids and play sports. They definitely eat. Celebrities do all sorts of meet and greets with association football balls, especially sportspeople. The only advantage we have is that their photographs are government works and thus we can post them to Commons so the volume of available images is higher. Otherwise I would expect a lot more people would care about various celebrities playing sports to pander than a picture of Kamala Harris with a dog. These feel like trivial ways to split up the photographs. We have Category:Vladimir Putin on June 22 so we need a Joe Biden on June 22 to amuse ourselves? Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: please allow me some general remarks:

all the categories that intersect two aspects are kind of trivial. We have these categories as there is no feature allowing the intersection of multiple category trees at runtime.
category merging is easy and splitting is tough (in many cases you have to look at each image individually)
there is a difference when people do something for the camera or do it unobserved. In the case of handshaking, it is obvious that shaking hands for the camera is not shaking hands and having eye contact. Not having eye contact when shaking hands at least I do consider quite impolite. Politicians often do things for the camera. Most images of politicians are somehow staged.

I agree with you, that it is easier due to copyright to have images of politicians doing sports than have images of non-notable people doing sports. Nevertheless I think that politicians playing football, or musicians playing baseball are not the best images you can get to illustrate the sports. But we do have a lot of images of professionals doing sports.

My proposal above was to resolve all the subcategories of Category:Politicians by setting (following your I think delete them all) and subcategories thereof to a single flat category Category:Politicians doing populistic pondering without subcategories by setting nor by politician. No Category:Vladimir Putin on June 22 or Category:Vladimir Putin in a church. However, this needs a much broader discussion. A last general remark: It looks to me that you are trying to convince me. As I stated above, feel free to overrule my arguments. The few images in the category in discussion are not worth the effort. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki This is not a debate about any and all categories of images for politicians and I have not argued for every politician by setting category to be deleted or else I would have suggested just that. If your proposal is that this specific concept of politicians of association football balls be deleted and replaced with a vague "politicians doing populistic pondering" I disagree with it as it just seems like trouble but feel to propose such a grand reorganization. I am asking you for a boundary position of what is trivial and what is not and it seems to you anything that isn't "normal politics work" (I don't know what that is) is fine to separate which includes a politician with an association football ball, and it seems like politician shaking hands without eye contact. The point of Commons categories isn't to criticize or make comments about whether Politician A's antics are "staged" or aren't. If the point of this category is because we want to showcase that politicians stage things with association football balls, that seems like a odd rationale but fine. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: sorry, got you wrong (your I think delete them all). ok, another try. Instead of having Category:Politicians with association football balls your proposal is either to move all the images therein to Category:People with association football balls (without subcategories by type of people) or merge to a more abstract Category:Politicians in sports context (or similar) without subcategories for individual sports. I'm not sure whether Asana is sport or lifestyle / spirituality and whether cycling is transport or sport. I would prefer to keep the politician context, which is Category:Politicians in sports context (or similar), as the individual sport is exchangeable by country and culture. Would this be ok for you? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki Sticking to this category, yes, I would like the six images upmerged to the people parent. This isn't a big category so I don't get it. I don't know what is gained by "in sports context" as that is too broad to make sense to me but maybe other people find that helpful. There are politicians who were athletes so it gets blurry there. I would probably think the same of other categories but they aren't here now so let's not make this discussion more complicated than it already is. Again, I don't see why people need to keep track of politicians specifically doing things as if it is a uniquely politician thing to do. We separate it in the "by year" organization simply so that they can be found separately from every person that year but there isn't something uniquely special about the way a politician is seen with an association football ball that makes me think it should be categorized separately. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just one remark to any by year category: It leads to something like Category:Angela Merkel, where someone looking for an image of her has to look into 26 subcategories Category:Angela Merkel by year‎. Which is user unfriendly. IMHO by year categories always need parallel categorization without year context.

with association football balls is too narrow, in sports context is too broad. What is the right abstraction? Maybe Category:Politicians playing sports (which contains more association football stuff) is the right category target. This is existing category and near to my proposed Category:Politicians in sports context except there is this difference between playing sports and pretending to play sports. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: ? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682 and Herzi Pinki: The problem here is not over-categorization, or overly narrow categorization, but instead under-categorization. We have multiple images of politicians with soccer balls, so having a category for that is not a problem. The problem is that people are putting pictures of politicians in this category and removing them from other politician categories, meaning that you will only see them if you specifically navigate to that exact category, and if I do not care if they have a soccer ball or not, I will never see that image. That is a problem. Politicians are sub-catted by many different criteria:

Activity
Country
Date
Ethnicity
Gender
Location
Name
Office
Party
Political orientation
Setting

Now let's say some kind soul has uploaded a great picture of Maria, a socialist Italian politician of Kurdish descent and member of the Vote-For-Us Party shaking hands at a football match in Rome in 2015 while serving as Minister of Fun. They put the image in Category:Politicians, no problem there. If we then want to sub-categorize it, it should be done in all of the relevant criteria above and placed into:

Category:Politicians shaking hands (activity)
Category:Politicians of Italy (country)
Category:Politicians in 2015 (date)
Category:Kurdish politicians (ethnicity)
Category:Female politicians (gender)
Category:Politicians in Rome (location)
Category:Maria (politician) (name)
Category:Ministers of Fun (office)
Category:Members of the Vote-For-Us Party (party)
Category:Socialists (party)
Category:Politicians with association football balls (setting)

The main category Category:Politicians is too big to have a single category for all images, so users will have to drill down a little bit to get to actual imagery, but this image should be there no matter which of the above paths they take. However, that is unfortunately rarely what happens. Much more often we will have a well-meaning editor, often trying to respond to the Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion tag, find this image, spot the football in her hand, and move it into this last category. Job well done, the main category crowding is alleviated, and the new category is perfectly accurate. But now, if I look at politicians in Rome, where she was, I won't find it. If I want to see female politicians, I won't find it. If I look at her own category, I won't find it.

The problem is not having categories such as Category:Politicians with association football balls. While such a specific category may seem easy low-hanging fruit in this struggle, it in no way alleviates the problem, as even a simple category like Politicians in 2015 has the exact same issue. Being able to find images of a topic for a specific time frame is very valuable for many users, but not useful for others. Removing the category would be a great disservice for those for whom it is useful, while requiring selection by year to get at images at all is a great disservice to those for whom the year is unimportant. As for Politicians with association football balls, the number of users who find it useful may be far less than Politicians in 2015, but it is no more appropriate to dismiss this group of users, especially when the effort does not address the actual underlying issue.

I strongly support keeping categories like this one, and instead actually categorize the images that are there correctly by all relevant criteria (date, country, party, etc.). Josh (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

good point @Joshbaumgartner: . And so true. But does it apply to the images in Category:Politicians with association football balls? All politicians and all locations are also identified by categories, besides the ... by year junk, IMHO this is enough as there is the central person category. The dynamic aspect, creating a honey pot for images to be dumped deep inside the category tree, is true, but I have no idea on how to get the good willing categorizers to do it right. One add. ironic remark: Shouldn't all this stuff be fixed by SD on commons (at least what they promised us and now bots bother us with SD extracted from Exif-data like exposure time (P6757), f-number (P6790), focal length (P2151) or ISO speed (P6789))? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki: I didn't do much of a look at the exact images in this particular category, as this problem is one I see across hundreds of topics, especially those with a large number of different sorting criteria in use. Too often images are not comprehensively categorized across all relevant criteria. I can't see a way to force categorizers to do it right either, and even if a categorizer is on board with doing so, they may not feel they have the expertise to cover everything (eg, they are a specialist in identifying locations, but have no idea about political identities, etc.). SD would indeed hold the promise of a solution, and at least some categories set as queries instead of manually assigned collections. We aren't there yet, from the technical side, but a category such as this, if simply automatically populated with all files which depict both a politician and a football, would be actually an improvement, both for those seeking that combo (it would actually better capture all such files) and those who don't want politician images sequestered here (since manual sort-down would be obviated). Lots of issues to solve before we get there, though. Josh (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tldr.

politicians playing or posing with footballs (or any sport) is a pretty common photo op theme, so i think the cat tree can be kept as long as enough files exist for the subcats. RoyZuo (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]