Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/07

This page is for open CFD discussions started in July 2023.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/07.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2023-07.
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:Gambling games

It's not really clear what the difference between this category Category:Games of chance is. Except maybe this category is specifically for the type of gambling game. Whereas the other category is for "games of chance" as a concept. But if that's the case then this category should probably be renamed to something like either "Gambling games by type", "games of chance by type" or something else entirely. Either way, it seems like this category and Category:Games of chance should be merged since it's not really clear what the difference is. I'm just not sure which is the better category name of the two or how exactly to go about it. Adamant1 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traditional hair and makeup of by country

Hair and makeup have nothing in common. I wonder who were the primary school teachers of people that make this kind of categorizacion... 186.172.155.116 22:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't discuss this because you don't give a damn to IPs, right? You should at least remove the "of" not to be ridiculous... 181.203.90.84 16:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|07}}--~~~~
On the log, add:
{{Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/07}}

Category:June 2006 in Grand Est

Region Grand Est created in 2016 (template modified, example Template:Month by year in Alsace before 2016). Gzen92 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories :

@Gzen92: What are you even requesting be done here? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these categories should be removed thanks. Gzen92 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gzen92: I assume you mean deleted. The question is why do you want them to be deleted? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One year ago, I found a discussion with @Birdie: User_talk:Birdie#Grand_Est, what is your opinion ? Gzen92 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HHhmmm, I think the general idea of the question and issue makes sense. You obviously wouldn't want categories having to do with Grand Est from before 2006, but it existed in 2015 right? So I don't really see what's inherently wrong with "December 2015 in Grand Est." Although it's possible I'm just not understanding the issue or otherwise missing the point here. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, never mind. You said 2016, not 2006. I guess it makes sense to delete these categories then. Most of them seem to be empty to begin with anyway. If you want to give me a couple of hours I'll probably nominate them for speedy deletion and close this if no one takes issue with it in the mean time. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for empty categories. Gzen92 (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concentrated solar power South Africa

Not related to the parent category Shoba98 (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a better parent category? --rimshot^talk 21:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Touristic trains

The name "touristic train" sounds nonstandard to my ear because the adjective "touristic" is "rare in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, common in Mainland Europe, Latin America" as per Wiktionary. Therefore, it should be renamed to tourist trains with the common attributive use of the word "tourist", like "tourist attractions". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

had a glance into some of the subcats.

i think people are mixing two concepts into one here. one is trains that (often) carry tourists, e.g. a train thru some popular tourist destinations (imagine a train thru switzerland). this is in contrast against trains that usually carry commuters/goods, which are not tourists.

another is trains that are touristic attractions by themselves, e.g. a steam locomotive that still runs.

some trains can be both. the difference between the two concepts is not easily defined. RZuo (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see even more concepts. Apart from the two you mention, I find the trackless tourist "trains". But then we also have the trains, that may be interesting for tourists, but also carry commuters etc. Shouldn't we separate the concepts in own categories? Gürbetaler (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called trackless tourist "trains" may be Tour buses or something similar. And I don't think we need a separate category for "trains, that may be interesting for tourists, but also carry commuters etc". Such trains can be categorised to both Tourist trains and Commuter trains. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category is thought for "touristische Züge" but not for "Touristenzüge". I leave the final decision to those with deeper linguistic knowledge. Gürbetaler (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom

i think https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Vehicle_registration_plates_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=429976160 is bullshit.

https://www.gov.uk/displaying-number-plates "Number plates (also known as licence plates)..."

a couple more of this nonsense in Category:License plates by country. RZuo (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: Move to Category:License plates of the United Kingdom per the Universality Principle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2023-07-02 Führung zu Tombs und Epitahs

Kategorie bitte löschen, Fehler im Titel, ist ersetzt durch eine korrekte Kategorie und die Fotos sind dorthin verschoben Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 15:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loanwords of Dutch origin

i dont think commons cat trees should be used to record etymological info.

besides, these titles are bad in themselves. any word is loaned from one language from another. just saying the origin would put "tycoon" (an english word) and "文明" (a chinese word), both loaned from japanese, into the same category.

this is the first cat of this format https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=incategory%3A%22Loanwords%22&ns14=1 . RZuo (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the whole category tree to be gone, you'd better start this discussion in Category:Loanwords. JopkeB (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magnolia (brand)

i think this can redirect to cat:Magnolia (Philippine company). any objection? RZuo (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brands and companies are different things, even though in this case they have the same name. They have separate wikipedia articles and Wikidata items for a reason. I you look closely, the company Magniloa owns several more brands other than this one. Category:Star Margarine in one of them. El Grafo (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archbishops of Canterbury (Roman Catholic)

Not a useful split between Anglican and Roman Catholic. Not relevant to images. Extra complication Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I created the category Category:Pre-Reformation archbishops of Canterbury without noticing that Category:Archbishops of Canterbury (Roman Catholic) already existed. Since there is no practical difference between the two, they should be merged. My preference is that the target should be Category:Pre-Reformation archbishops of Canterbury. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archbishops of Canterbury (Anglican)

Not a useful split between Anglican and Roman Catholic. Not relevant to images. Extra complication. Necessitates a searcher knowing the religion before selecting the appropriate category. The office of Archbishop of Canterbury remained unchanged after the Reformation. The office itself did not split into two factions. There was a seamless continuation. No aspect of images changed, so why is the cat split? For example there was no change in the heraldry. No change in the monuments. No change in the portraits. How does it help a user to know the religion? Or does the split rather hinder a user, because he is forced to know the religion before proceeding with a search? Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a useful navigational aid. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aurora in Fairbanks, Alaska

By virtue of having separate hierarchies for adjoining census-designated places and the surrounding Fairbanks North Star Borough, we say that "Fairbanks, Alaska" refers to the city of Fairbanks, which has clearly delineated boundaries (see here). Nothing about this category pertains to the city of Fairbanks. This is consistent with the attitude of many editors that communities can be arbitrarily defined, which doesn't work with Commons content as that content more often than not depicts geographically fixed locations. Most of the photos with identifiable locations in the category are of Chena Hot Springs Resort, which has its own gallery page and category, the latter located in the appropriate place in the hierarchy. The need for a category of this sort specific to the city of Fairbanks is unlikely, as light pollution drives tourists seeking aurora views out of the city. RadioKAOS (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Aurora in Anchorage, Alaska and Category:Aurora in Nome, Alaska, created by the same editor around the same time. Evidently, their enthusiasm for the topic of auroras has overtaken their need to be appropriately clued in to the geographies involved. The Anchorage category contains only one photo with coordinates traced to Anchorage. The aurora depicted therein is quite unspectacular and doesn't warrant a separate category. The other files contain coordinates traced to Hatcher Pass, which is not within Anchorage's corporate limits and about 60 road miles from central Anchorage. Two of the three photos in the Nome category are of Nome Creek, which is located about 70–80 road miles northeast of Fairbanks on the Steese Highway, nowhere near Nome. The parent Category:Aurora in Alaska is not overburdened.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia models

Son bibliotecarias? 186.175.31.170 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please rephrase the question? Google Translate considers it to be Galician and translates it as “Are they librarians?” Well there are at least two Wikipedias if you mean that by “librarian”. To understand the purpose of this hidden category: Google translate does a very good Job translating from German to English: #1 #2

But I have to admit it was rather a drag during the last years. Due to Covid, temporary self-doubt and the Big War in Ukraine. Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cueca

Cueca es chilena. "Cueca chilena" no es necesaria. Unir (merge) estás dos categorías. Además la Category:Chilena no tiene nada que ver con estás categorías. Por Dios!!! 186.174.243.114 13:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's enjoyed in Bolivia and Argentina as well. We could subcategorize those, perhaps, if Chile is the primary location? -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cueca chilena

Unir (merge) con Category:Cueca. 186.174.243.114 14:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars

I don't see for which reason images are sorted into this category. Was this a title of a specific work (book, exhibition)? This seems to be a redundant category with Category:French invasion of Russia Enyavar (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

should merge. Rathfelder (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:29 Karmelicka Street in Kraków

duplicate of Category:29 Karmelicka street in Kraków Archiwald (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swans in Dorset

Consider renaming to "Cygnus olor of/in Dorset" for harmony with other categories listed at "Category:Cygnus olor of England" ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote yes, and same for all other categories 'Swans of/in' (@ITookSomePhotos: ; for living things, we use scientific names at Commons as standard, not unreliable vernacular names - MPF (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ysogo

Usuarios pueden subir un par de fotos personales. (No sé porqué.) Qué pasa con los usuarios como este caballero que convierten a Commons en su álbum personal de fotos personales? 186.174.159.158 19:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMIT member, nothing to complain about here. --Achim55 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The basics of photo art/Humanist photography

There is also Category:Humanistic photography 191.125.178.135 01:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of the photo works in this category. What's wrong? — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:East West MRT line

Looking at the categories in Category:Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) lines, apparently only the East West Line and North South Line categories have the format "XXX MRT line", while the rest have a format of "Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) XXX line". I just blundered & created a Thomson East-Coast Line duplicate category because of this discrepancy (see above CFD). Thus I wish to discuss as to whether we move the EWL and NSL categories to follow the general trend, or we move the other categories (not including JB-Singapore RTS) to follow the format of EWL and NSL for the sake of simplicity. S5A-0043^Talk 12:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging a few editors on the SG MRT for their opinion: @ZKang123 @Seloloving @Brachy0008 S5A-0043^Talk 12:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest that I've never questioned the format differences cos I thought it was "normal". But I'm glad this is finally raised.
Personally I would follow the name as stated on Wikipedia articles (e.g. North East MRT line, Circle MRT line) rather than using the complicated Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) XXX line, cos that's more complicated and makes no sense to me. ZKang123 (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and would prefer them to be named as per the wiki articles - DCvibes529 ^talk 04:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realized it has been more than 1 year since the last response and I have gone ahead to rename the categories - DCvibes529 ^talk 10:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dourado transparencia

also nominating Category:Dourado

Category contained only File:Dourado transparencia.png, so I assume the creator mistook that as a scientific fish name, while in reality it is simply the Brazilian-Portuguese common name dourado (i.e. Cat:Salminus brasiliensis), together with transparencia referring to the transparent background of said file. Also applies to the "genus" created subsequently: Category:Dourado. HyperGaruda (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Photo Archives created the category. They may have an opinion. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did the Cat based on the name on the top of the photo plate Bovichtus variegatus The other images in the Cat appear to be the same. The Bovichtus variegatus Cat has 8 images?

Category:Largos

Does Category:Largos have a purpose beyond "Things (at least partially) called Largo" ? It seems to rather be Category:Urban squares and I agree with keeping "Largo" attached to individual categories, but we don't have Category:Piazzas or the equivalent in other languages. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harrier Jump Jet aircraft family

Category:Harrier Jump Jet aircraft family	Move to/Rename as	Category:Harrier (aircraft family)
"Jump Jet" is not an official name, it is only one of many colloquial nicknames for this aircraft family. It is unnecessary at any rate as "Harrier (aircraft family)" is distinctive enough.
Josh (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-31

Category:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-31	Move to/Rename as	Category:Mikoyan MiG-31
Mikoyan-Gurevich was renamed to just Mikoyan in 1978. The MiG-31 had barely first flown by this time, and didn't become operational until 1981, thus Mikoyan is appropriate as the manufacturer name here.
Josh (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thoroughfares (Gibraltar)

The category basically contains items which depict streets and stairs. Streets should be in Category:Streets in Gibraltar, and stairs should be in category:Stairs in Gibraltar (ans also in the streets category if they have house numbers, like category:Castle Steps (Gibraltar). There is no Throughfares category for any other city or country. I see that it leads to confusion, and there are duplicating categories like Category:Main Street (Gibraltar) and Category:Main Street, Gibraltar (this particular one I will fix now). Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that it was created in April 2023 by an IP, so it is a newish category, but let it go through the discussion anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thames Clippers

Not sure what to do with this. "Thames Clippers" (river transport on the Thames in London) has been rebranded "Uber Boat" (in full, apparently "Uber Boat by Thames Clippers", though the prominent branding on the side of the new boats is just "Uber Boat"). Presently we have Category:Thames Clippers with subcategory Category:Uber Boat, the former containing many pictures of vessels without "Uber Boat" branding, and the latter containing some photos of vessels with "Uber Boat" branding. Should photos prior to the "Uber" rebranding go in a different category from the rebranded photos, or should they all be put together under one category, e.g. "Thames Clippers / Uber Boat"? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the TOC on this page appears within a pale blue box headed "This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive." Something has gone wrong here: the TOC should be outside the box. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that has gone wrong. I have made a couple of edits to this post, but these are not showing up at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/07. When I go into edit mode they show up, but not otherwise. I hope this isn't another instance of the ridiculous "purge cache" nonsense. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put Category:Thames Clippers as a subcategory within Category:Uber Boat. Any more recent Uber-branded photos go in the Uber category, and the old TC-branded photos stay where they are. Make sense? Cnbrb (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that "Thames Clippers" has a larger scope than "Uber Boat", the latter being just one of several brandings over time of the former. Does it make sense to make the larger-scope brand a subcategory of the smaller-scope one? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fire-starting

Category:Fire-starting and Category:Making fire seem to be duplicating each other, they are even linked to the same Wikidata item (firelighting (Q1192478)). El Grafo (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you wait to merge them? 186.173.251.75 18:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not waiting, I forgot about it ;-) But we should probably discuss which name is better:

El Grafo (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Making fire/Fire making is a broader term than Fire-starting. Fire making is also about gathering wood, place it properly so that the fire might burn better, and then start the fire. So I think Category:Fire-starting should be a subcategory of Category:Making fire, give them both good descriptions and move the files and subcategories to the correct category. JopkeB (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I'm a bit on the fence as to whether we should/need/want to distinguish between those two when neither Wikipedia nor Wikidata do so. We have a lot of media about the lighting part. But it doesn't seem like we have a lot of media about fire making in the broader sense and a bunch of the media that is not bout the act of lighting are part of a series that would be ripped apart ...

As for naming, however, I'd prefer:

Category:Fire making over Category:Making fire for the simple reason that it's much easier to find if you don't already know the category name
Category:Firelighting over Category:Fire-starting as that seems to make your point clearer (plus is doesn't have a weird dash)

El Grafo (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is not yet, may come later, and I see three files about making a fire without the lighting part, that is enough for me to keep this category and not merge it.

I agree: Category:Fire making should be the name, that is were I was searching for this morning, not for Making fire.
Category:Fire-starting is more clear for me. Firelighting can also be about a fire that is burning already still some time (though this may be not propper English; I am not a native English speaker and I would be confused). So I prefer Fire-starting.

JopkeB (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's keep them separated then. Just thinking: Category:Fire craft (compare en:Fire making might be even better for a general term. I think some input from native speakers might help here ... El Grafo (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clothed babies

Category:Babies needs regular diffusion and has many sub categories to help. However this Category helps little as 99% of the 1000s of images in Category:Babies and its subcategories are of clothed babies. So potentially 1000s of images qualify for Category:Clothed babies and so to be any help the diffusion to sub categories would have to start all over again. By the way Category:Clothed babies is empty and so is its one and only sub Category. So I suggest it is deleted. Headlock0225 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: delete. Empty and not useful. JopkeB (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But on second thought: maybe we should wait a while, the categories are rather new, perhaps the intention is to make a structure like Category:Clothed children. --JopkeB (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's potential here, although this has existed for over a month now. Joshbaumgartner has been doing a lot of work about what clothing people are shown wearing, and maybe just hasn't gotten back to this one. If it's like similar categories, this one might eventually contain categories about specific things babies are shown wearing, what colors they are shown wearing, etc. It might take the place of Category:Babies by clothing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~As it is empty and I frankly don't have the time at this moment to give it proper attention, I don't mind it being deleted.~~ (it is populated now) I agree that there can be good cause for it, and disagree with the logic that if most pictures of babies are clothed, there shouldn't be a category for clothed babies, but the category can always be re-created if and when the attention can be given to it and actual items are sorted there. Josh (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can make categories for naked children, male and female, for the ease of many pedophiles that frecuent Commons...

Can't you not leave our innocent children out of your nudism stupidities, for God's sake?! 186.173.92.39 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is populated now. Josh (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you populated it with a large selection of files from Category:Babies which is hardy in keeping with the instruction "Please do not make major changes to this category" Headlock0225 (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Stripping out files or emptying a category is certainly a problem, but not populating it. If a category is empty, populating it is a valid solution to the problem. If there are other reasons to delete a category, populating it doesn't affect that discussion. Thus, there really is no problem with adding valid content to a category while it is under discussion. Josh (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/07

Contents

Category:Gambling games

Category:Traditional hair and makeup of by country

Category:June 2006 in Grand Est

Category:Concentrated solar power South Africa

Category:Touristic trains

Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom

Category:2023-07-02 Führung zu Tombs und Epitahs

Category:Loanwords of Dutch origin

Category:Magnolia (brand)

Category:Archbishops of Canterbury (Roman Catholic)

Category:Archbishops of Canterbury (Anglican)

Category:Aurora in Fairbanks, Alaska

Category:Wikipedia models

Category:Cueca

Category:Cueca chilena

Category:Russian campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars

Category:29 Karmelicka Street in Kraków

Category:Swans in Dorset

Category:Ysogo

Category:The basics of photo art/Humanist photography

Category:East West MRT line

Category:Dourado transparencia

Category:Largos

Category:Harrier Jump Jet aircraft family

Category:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-31

Category:Thoroughfares (Gibraltar)

Category:Thames Clippers

Category:Fire-starting

Category:Clothed babies

Navigation menu

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/07

Navigation menu

Search