Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08

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


Category:Historic views

[edit]

Ridiculous category. What on earth does this even mean? "Things that look old to me?" Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per the preceding "historical" discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment as the nominator, I shouldn't close this (especially shouldn't close it early), but this sure looks like a foregone conclusion to me. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a fairly old way of doing subcategories, even if the main category was created just recently. Depending on what people actually need it for, an alternative should be found. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions on this topic settled on the "Place by year/decade/century" format, and I'm inclined to agree. Media can also be subdivided in illustrations and black-and-white photography to set aside older works from modern photography. A category structure being old is not a good reason to keep it. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into the "historical images"-question (Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Move_"Historical_images_of"_to_"History_of"), I think it would be consistent with that to just move "Historic views of" to "history of". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Between "historic views" and "historical images"? yes indeed. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion: Wait another two weeks to see wether there are other opinions (in accordance with Closing a discussion) and then close this disucssion. JopkeB (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 KeepI can't see what is "ridiculous" about the term "historic". However, moving these categories in categories of the type "1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway" would be acceptable. Or then "Rigi railway vies of the steam days".--Gürbetaler (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is ridiculous is that the word is vacuous. My oldest picture a took that is here on Commons was taken in 1966. (I'm old.) Is it "historic"? Are all pictures of the Berlin Wall now "historic"? How about Kurt Cobain or Tupac Shakur? The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption in Port-au-Prince? At what point do images become "historic"? And, for any of these, how does this provide any information not provided by date categories? - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 3 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't really any different if we use "history of" instead. Enhancing999 (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re:

I can't see what is "ridiculous" about the term "historic". However, moving these categories in categories of the type "1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway" would be acceptable. Or then "Rigi railway vies [sic] of the steam days".

Nowadays I support categorizing old/historical images by year/decade/century. So the images of "1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway" can be categorized into "Rigi railway in the 19th century" and "Rigi railway in the 20th century". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. For a specific subject "20th century" doesn't say a lot. It is a fact that the Berlin wall isn't the same again since Wiedervereinigung. There IS a before and an after. And the Rigibahn saw important changes in 1907 and 1937 and it is useful to subdivide the categories by such important years. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler: I could be wrong, but I think you are missing Sbb1413's point. I don't think Sbb is saying Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway would be an invalid category, and that seems to be what you are responding to. But it isn't clear which of two things Sbb is saying. Sbb, are you saying, in effect, that if you have a Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway, its images should each also be categorized into Category:Rigi railway in the 19th century or Category:Rigi railway in the 20th century, or are you saying that Category:Rigi railway in the 19th century and Category:Rigi railway in the 20th century should both be parent categories of Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway, or are you actually saying something else entirely (including what Gürbetaler seems to have understood)? - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I had said that I prefer categorizing things by century/decade/year, but it does not really mean that we won't have categories for specific periods of history. 1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway might be a useful category, covering the railway system using steam locomotives. But it should have a better descriptive name instead of arbitrary years. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are "better descriptive names in your eyes? I'm sorry but sometimes I don't understand where you want to go to. Maybe examples can help. Gürbetaler (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what Sbb would prefer, but if that's the point I'd say something like Category:Rigi Railway in the steam locomotive era. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinon categories like "Rigi railway in the 20th century" are as useless (or even more useless) as "History of Rigi railway". Gürbetaler (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep For me Historic views of Bildergalerie Sanssouci, Potsdam is very helpfulOursana (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oursana: I don't think anyone has said we can't have categories like "historic views of [something]". The problem is the abstract "historic views". It's like having a Category:Former things. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems that hasn't been addressed as much is the whole "views" thing. It's ill defined at best, if not completely meaningless at worst. I just went through some of these categories for churches and most of them just contained random images. A few were taken recently, making them not "historical", and quit a lot weren't "views" either. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the word "view" is just a synonym for "image" in most cases. I don't necessarily have a problem with categorizing images by perspective or whatever, but I don't think there should be separate "view" categories that just contain normal images of the subjects. So the point is that there's multiple issues here beyond just the whole "historic" thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Views" is discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Views, so please add your comments there. JopkeB (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages of Bengal

[edit]

Although Bengali is the primary language of this region, categorizing Category:Bengali language directly in this category would violate COM:OVERCAT, as it is already categorized under Category:Languages of West Bengal, Category:Languages of Bangladesh, and Category:Languages of Tripura. So there's no utility of this region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic sites

[edit]

What comes under this category can be subjective. This category is similar to the now-deprecated Category:Historical images (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the images people add can be subjective or that actual subcategories? I don't think there is a link to "Historical images". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 People will categorize whatever they consider a "historic site" under this category, which can be files or subcats. This category should be replaced with Category:Archaeological sites, Category:Cultural heritage monuments or similar, which are indeed officially designated as "historical". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the images can be problematic, not the subcategories of this category as such. Thanks for the clarification. Yes. it happens that people have subjective interpretations of categories. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buses not in service

[edit]

What name format should subcategories use? Would it be all right to use format number 1 below?

Their names are structured in several different ways. See also Category:Trains not in service and Category:Trams not in service.

  1. [Vehicles] in [Location] not in service: I would assume "Buses in Austria not in service‎" aligns the best with the main category "Buses in Austria" and its other similarly named subcategories.
  2. [Location] [vehicles] not in service: I suppose Category:Lisbon trams not in service‎ is an acceptable format.
  3. [Vehicles] not in service of [Location]: I don't think e.g. Category:Buses not in service of Canada works very well.
  4. [Vehicles] not in service in [Location]

Sinigh (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Option 1 – It aligns best with the parent category and also the Universality Principle, especially "[i]dentical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a 4th possible format, from Category talk:Trams in Finland not in service. Sinigh (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human penises, erect length 25-50 mm

[edit]

Is this serious? For just one file? Delete both. 200.39.139.4 16:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly delete and upmerge the category. No comment on the file, which should not be a matter for CfD in any case. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow the category is consistent with others by size, so "upmerge" seems the wrong strategy. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose upmerging, because Category:Human penis size is identified as a diffusing cat, so images should be in subcats, such as by size-range (the consistent set Enhancing999 notes). However, the one file that was in it was deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Micropenis erect with ruler.jpg, so this category is currently empty and we should delete empty categories by default. However-however, I have disputed that close, so please defer action on this cat until that is resolved as my !vote depends on the outcome there. DMacks (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Status update: that image has now been un-deleted to allow more disussion about its fate. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep now that it has a file (RM has now been closed "keep"). DMacks (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old city maps of Munich (extended to any City maps of)

[edit]

This is like "Old country map of Germany" and "Old continental maps of Europe".
My suggestion is to rename to "Old maps of Munich", to be in harmony with the other "Old maps of <city in Germany>" Enyavar (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Special:Categories/City maps of should go in general. The ones that aren't about cities should redirect or be moved as Category:City maps. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly, we have Category:City maps of Périgueux and Category:Maps of Périgueux. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now that Category:Maps of Munich has a diagram to show which maps are supposed to go where (but either practice didn't always follow theory, or I don't understand it). It appears is if the "city maps" category might have been supposed for "whole city" maps of Munich, and the boroughs/districts were supposed to go into "old maps of boroughs in Munich", the latter being a mixture of "details of old maps of" and full maps of some districts. This seems to be a rather unique structure that is not observed for any other "maps of city" category I know of. --Enyavar (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting diagram. Too bad it isn't a svg and its creator isn't active any more. I guess ideally there was subcategory for the "entire city" even though these would generally not end up in subcategories.
I still favor upmerging "city maps of" to "maps of" if the category is for a specific city. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. But I'll bring it up with the WikiMuc team, let's see if they agree as well. --Enyavar (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak keep As far as I understand, "city maps" are detail maps of the entire city, as opposed to neighbourhood maps and locator maps. For example, Kolkata Street Map.svg is a city map of Kolkata, while Kolkata map.jpg is a locator map of the city. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, you would have Category:Country maps of India for the entire country, Category:State maps of India for one or more states/territories, and Category:Locator maps of India for the country within a region (Asia, South Asia etc.). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we do this here and not for any other topic? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few cases I know where such a category structure is in use, for example Category:Old maps of whole Wales (alone). This category name clearly dictates how large the map frame must be: Partial maps of Wales are not allowed, and neither are maps of England+Wales: Wales, whole and alone. Contrary here, "Old city maps of Munich" does not prescribe the content in the title, and the content was placed accordingly: partial maps, detail maps, cutouts are there besides the old maps of the whole Munich in its proper city walls. If "Munich, whole and alone" is a desired category, it should still be better named, for example "Old maps of Munich (entire city)" and it should be a sub-category of "Old maps of Munich". But as it stands now, all "old maps of..." are considered "old city maps" by default, as are the "old maps of boroughs". --Enyavar (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the use of "city" (or "country") to indicate that the subcategory applies to the entire city. Sample: Category:Politics of the United States and Category:County politics of the United States. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:State flag of Bahia and Category:flags of Bahia use "state" to make this difference (Also "National flag" and "flags of"). Contrary to the city maps above, this seems to work out though (plus "state flag" is an actual concept wheres even "city maps" of boroughs are "city maps"). Enhancing999 (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep IMHO, "city" does not primarily indicate that the map relates to an entire city, as opposed to neighbourhood, but that it is a specific type of a map. City maps (at least this is true for the German correspondent "Stadtplan") generally show streets, squares, built areas, green areas, waterbodies etc., sometimes also public buildings, churches, castles, museums etc. In this sense, thematical maps like this one are not city maps. City maps are thus a specific subtype of maps relating to a city, so that a Category:City maps of Munich, for example, is useful as a subcategory of the Category:Maps of Munich. --Bjs (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there seems to be a misunderstanding, please check Category:Old maps of Munich which is a redirect. As of right now, it is presumed that any "Old maps of Munich" are automatically "Old city maps of Munich". That is contrary to the opinion you offered above. --Enyavar (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been made by an IP some time ago and does not make sense. Truly, most of the Maps included there are city maps in the sense I indicated above, but there are also categories that imho ar no maps at all, but old views of Munich. Old maps of Munich should be an intermediate category between Old city maps of Munich and Maps of Munich. The category tree generally is a bit confuse, but if Maps of Munich is subdivided into categories by map type, a category for the map type "city map" should remain. (unsigned edit by Bjs)
Sorry to correct you, but Chumwa (who created the current structure and even made the diagram) is not an IP. On the subject matter: your proposal is an alternative to the "upmerging" proposed by Enhancing. I don't favor either of these practical solutions. --Enyavar (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stagecoach in Oxfordshire

[edit]

An unregistered user, 217.46.140.107, has emptied this category; moving every file to Category:Stagecoach West. This is anachronistic, as until 2021 Stagecoach in Oxfordshire was a separate operating company; the files that were in this category are a record of its history; and the Wikipedia article about Stagecoach in Oxfordshire still links here. I have reverted a few of the files, but it would be laborious to revert hundreds of them individually. Every file that 217.46.140.107 has moved to Category:Stagecoach West should be returned en bloc. Motacilla (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some like to re-write history. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Motacilla and Enhancing999: I can do that en bloc using Commons:Cat-a-lot. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Enhancing999. I have never used Cat-a-lot. I imagine I could learn how to use it. However, at present I am hard-pressed by matters outside Wikimedia Commons, so I am most grateful for your offer to do it!

The sub-category "Category:Stagecoach Gold (Stagecoach in Oxfordshire)" has also been emptied, and the entire sub-category "Category:Oxford Tube (bus route)" has been placed under Stagecoach West. The Oxford Tube should either be a sub-category of both "Category:Stagecoach in Oxfordshire" and "Category:Stagecoach West", or perhaps divided into two sub-categories: one each for images created before and after February 2021.

Thankyou for your help! Motacilla (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rail substitute bus transport

[edit]

The subcats are named either "rail substitute bus transport" or "rail replacement buses". The current category name is possibly for the parent category Category:Rail substitute transport. However, I think "rail replacement bus transport" is more common than "rail substitute bus transport", regardless of ENGVAR. So the Universality Principle applies. If not, we should wait until the discussion at Commons talk:Categories ends. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teenagers in Vietnam

[edit]

Category:Teenagers in Vietnam AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create the category, since "teenagers in Vietnam" may refer to teenagers located in Vietnam, regardless of nationality. Whereas Category:Teenagers of Vietnam is a general category for teenagers somehow associated with Vietnam (Vietnamese citizens, teenagers of other nationalities in Vietnam etc.). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnVuong1222004 (7) Why delete a valid redirect targetting to the correct name? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mukah Iskandirov

[edit]

Rename to "Mukash" Malik Nursultan B (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like many of the categories made on the MPs are not made by an actual Kazakh speaker. Some of the naming is a mess. I request that Category:Galimgyan Eleyov is also removed. Malik Nursultan B (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kersti Nebelsiek - Gerhard-Holten-Hütte, Osterbachtal, Tauberseck, Mühlbach, Untermühle in Knickhagen, Gänseberg, Krummbachtal (15. und 17. November 2022)

[edit]

This category was mentioned in [1]. I think the name of the subcategory shouldn't be a list of all to places depicted, even if it's a user category. A user gallery with the same name may be possible. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no reason to change the category name and I see abslutely no use for a gallery with this name. Such a gallery page would be too much work. Kersti (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos of debaters

[edit]

should this be kept given that it misses nearly all files? Prototyperspective (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I am not sure what you mean by "misses nearly all files". Do you mean "includes almost no files" or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that there are many videos of "debaters" on WMC but they aren't included there. It's unclear and may be unreasonable to refer to people as "debaters" and in any case a "Videos of debates" cat would make more sense. Either way it's not the case that there are nearly no files of this type on WMC, the category contains only an arbitrary one. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If RS calls them debaters is there really an issue? Trade (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I agree with what Omphalographer said below. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. There's a couple of intersecting issues here:
  1. A "debater" is not a well-defined category of person. Notable people who have engaged in debates can usually be described in some more specific way, e.g. "philosophers", "politicians", "YouTube personalities", etc.
  2. Videos and other media of debates (not "debaters") are better categorized based on their participants or content than their format, e.g. Category:Debates about religion, Category:Philosophical debates, Category:US presidential debates, etc.
  3. Most videos of podcast-style debates on YouTube have negligible educational value and should not be imported to Commons. (This is a separate issue from the category itself, but is worth keeping in mind.)
Omphalographer (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Floor of the Senado Federal do Brasil

[edit]

There are now some 65000 files in this category and its subcategories. Maybe some or all of ca. 4500 should be in Category:Ulysses Guimarães plenary chamber (of the Chamber of Deputies): [2]. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999 That category should not even exist, please see here. The stubbornness of a single editor in keeping that aberration as a name blocked its normal development, causing that situation. Of course it has not anything to do with "Floors", it's just a Plenary chamber. If someone manages to delete this nonsense, please kill it with fire so it can't come back. Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to Category:Floor of the Senado Federal do Brasil? I agree that the category name isn't ideal, but I'm not really sure which alternative to suggest. At least, I tried to add a description to define its scope. Maybe we can first agree on that and later determine the name? I think we should have separate categories for the interior of each plenary "room".
I wasn't aware of that discussion of 2020 (will try to read it in more detail later). Enhancing999 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 From what I recall it was supposed to be the main chamber, what is usually called the plenary chamber. Darwin Ahoy! 14:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tm: pinging. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pottery of Soudan

[edit]

Needs parent categories. Does this refer to present day Sudan, South Sudan, or Mali? Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PNG special or fictional flags

[edit]

Special or fictional" no es un buen modo de categorizar. 186.172.32.233 01:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discutir abajo en la mayor categoria por favor. 186.172.32.233 01:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't generally categorize files based on their format outside of SVGs. Merge up to Category:Special or fictional flags, and merge the child categories to their likewise format-agnostic counterparts. The parent category is a bit of a messy catch-all in its own right, but at least it contains the mess to one category. Omphalographer (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Special or fictional flags

[edit]

"Special or fictional" no es un buen modo de categorizar. 186.172.32.233 01:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Santo Domingo de Guzmán, Dominican Republic

[edit]

User:RZuo remarked elswhere that "de Guzmán" here may be strictly historical, not the present name, in which case this should be renamed. Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Heyden family (Westphalia)

[edit]

Bitte wieder löschen, es gibt schon eine Kategorie: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_the_House_of_Heiden GerritR (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unexpected twist

[edit]

I don't understand what this category is intended for. (Possibly things held upside down, judging by the categories it's in, but contradicted by the images that's in it.) I asked its creator on July 28 (Category talk:Unexpected twist), but no response so far. Suggest delete. Sinigh (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google translates the Japanese description as "reverse hand", possibly referring to the reverse grip being used on an object in each photo - but this seems like a weirdly specific detail to categorize on. Omphalographer (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to rename this category.
Why did I named in 2017, like this category-name...It's probably mistranslation. Sorry.
What I'd like to say is "Reverse grip",
from the concept of Horizontal bar (png) --Benzoyl (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see! "Reverse grip" is used similarly in weight training as well. But doesn't that refer to objects that remain oriented the same way? It doesn't seem like the objects in this category and the images below are "gripped" in that sense, since both the "grip" and the orientation of the object itself change with the orientation of the hand, whereas horizontal bars and weight-lifting equipment need to be "regripped" for the grip to change. Sinigh (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Nomal grip
    (1) Nomal grip
  • (2) Reverse grip
    (2) Reverse grip
  • (3) about 90°
    (3) about 90°
I think "(2) Reverse grip" is rare case. = Contrastingly Mostly (3). Therefore this category have a necessity.
Exempli gratia "How to Hold the Steering Wheel" (jpg - "Boss Grip?") --Benzoyl (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But a steering wheel is attached to the car. You don't "grip" a microphone in that sense; instead, the microphone itself is oriented differently depending on how you happen to move your hand. That's not what happens with horizontal bars and steering wheels. Sinigh (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holztafelbild

[edit]

I do not understand the scope of this category, should go together with Paintings on wood Oursana (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Paintings on wood does not fit with the wikidata about "painting made on an easel or other portable support”. I suggest to create a wikidata “Paintings on wood” and move the content of Category:Holztafelbild to the category “Paintings on wood”. Wouter (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgian buildings out of Georgia

[edit]

Delete We not not categorise things by what they are not. Where would it stop? "Georgian buildings not in the moon"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — We generally don't create categories based on Boolean logic. But we have categories like Category:American culture abroad, which is similar to the nominated category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any other "Xian buildings out of X" category in Commons? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1891 maps of Vietnam

[edit]

Why is this category being deleted? It was used for dozens of maps and these are now in a much less specific category. Why? Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The speedy justification of "Incorrect name" makes no sense, the vast majority of images moved to the 1890's category were in this category. If someone is specifically looking for 1891 maps of Viet-Nam then a specific category is much better for searching something than a vague "1890's" category, especially since administrative boundaries change frequently and searching by specific year is much better than by decade, especially since there are annual maps that could be found on Gallica, it makes very little sense to move maps from easily searchable categories on much more broadly-defined less specific categories. I don't think that re-users will appreciate having to go through more files to look for what they want. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe ping or notify whoever is involved. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pte A. J. Davis Memorial, Appleford

[edit]

Why has a category been created for one unremarkable brass plaque? This is over-categorisation. Motacilla (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cinema events

[edit]

What's the difference between this category and its subcategory Category:Film events? For example, why do Category:Film premieres, Category:Film festivals, Category:Film awards belong here and not in Category:Film events?

Shouldn't "Cinema events" and "Film events" be merged, because how could the former not include the latter?

Sinigh (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is not strictly included: films/movies can be documentary/scientific/educative or for training people to some skills, or video records of musical, theater, music, and other live cultural performance, or historic/sportive/political/social/religious/news events. Cinema is narrative, but also includes animations, which are not strictly films/movies, with a creative mounting and normally fiction (even if they are inspired by real facts, they are usually not intended to give a truth but leave place for imagination or fabricated and recreated/simulated scenes and to what authors, producers, directors, actors, artists and various other skilled workers wanted to perform and show. Film events and cinema events are however frequently mixed in festivals showing multiple genres). The first cinema movies were in fact news report for demonstrating new technologies and real catastrophes, rapidly they were used for political propaganda, with invented or voluntarily biased narrations with fictive characters or in fictive time or fictive and decorated places. verdy_p (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought perhaps you were making a distinction between cinema and video in general at first, but then it became a little difficult to follow. For example, who says that only the concept of cinema, and not film, includes animation? And what does "Cinema is narrative, but also includes animations" mean, that animation isn't narrative? I doubt you will find broad consensus for such distinctions, and more importantly, I don't see how they are useful here. Sinigh (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film

[edit]

This category currently has the description "Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form (cinema), and the motion picture industry", but it also has Category:Films and is itself in Category:Cinema rather than encompassing it.

Wouldn't one category be enough and make more sense? For example, enwiki only has Category:Film, with Category:Cinema redirecting there.

See also Category talk:Film.

Sinigh (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps

[edit]

A while back we looked into the larger coordinates category and noticed that we could avoid using categories for their usecases.[3]
Do we still need this? Is there are particular usecase that couldn't be handled with Category:Pages with coordinates? That category should soon include all these as well [4]. Once this is true, I'd deleted this one. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: It's useful to know which categories and galleries have coordinates that are being added separately from the Infobox, since ideally all coordinates on categories and galleries should just be on Wikidata now. I think we still need the separation of categories for that purpose. In particular, Category:Pages with coordinates should *not* include coordinates added by the Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think MediaWiki can differentiate between {{Wikidata Infobox}} and {{Object location}} when adding Category:Pages with coordinates. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your thinking is based on which facts? Andres Ollino (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the fact that I don't know which parameter it would be. Maybe you have some knowledge that contradicts this? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: I was wondering if your usecase was this (categories with coordinates and infobox, but not in "Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps"). I excepted this to find {{Object location}} but no coordinates in the infobox. Oddly it finds Category:Castle Ellis Bridge which has coordinates in the infobox, but no category. Seems someone made some manipulation with the infobox parameters.Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there are currently about 350 such categories: [5]. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of it, but there's also the case of pages without the infobox at all, but there are coordinates. The odd one is because trackingcats has been set, so the infobox doesn't add tracking categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "pages without the infobox at all, but there are coordinates" are a usecase for "Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps". Can you list those you actually need so we can check if the category is still needed. Per phab:T362494#9869450/phab:T343131, I think we shouldn't have large categories in cases where these can be handled by other means and, as for any maintenance category, there should be a clear usecase. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Category:Pages with maps is the one I was looking for, since that currently catches cases where maps are added but not by the infobox. Those should probably have Wikidata items created for them, where they don't already exist and are just unlinked to Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pages with maps in process of being renamed to Category:Pages with coordinates.
Do we still need Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps or can we delete it? If it's needed, can we edit the category description to explain its use cases? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's a shame. It was useful to have separate categories for uses of templates like {{Location}} and those of {{Wikidata Infobox}}. I guess this search will do the job (slightly modified from yours above), but I think that requires both Category:Pages with coordinates and Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: Have revised Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps accordingly, is that sufficient to justify keeping this category? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the usecase "For categories with coordinates that do not yet have Wikidata items", the following should be sufficient: "Special:Search/Category: hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates" -hastemplate:"Wikidata Infobox"
The usecase: "has Wikidata items, but no coordinates at Wikidata" seems the only one that needs this category. It has problems with cases like "Castle Ellis Bridge" mentioned above. Maybe there is a better solution for that, but until it's found, I'd keep this category. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Kriegelstein von Sternfeld family

[edit]

Sollte gelöscht werden, ersetzt durch https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Kriegelstein_Edle_von_Sternfeld_family; siehe dazu auch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegelstein_von_Sternfeld; es gibt zwei Familien ähnlichen Namens GerritR (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Skim (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wolayita people

[edit]

Duplicate , This category is duplicate of Category:Welayta people. Discuss on merger of the two categories. Malaalaa (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may merge it. Don't worry about it. Sintegrity (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People performing sexual activity

[edit]

I don't think this topic requires the normal diffusion by age/gender that is used in most topics, since as far as I am aware, any images of children here would violate legal limitations. Of course, since we don't have those images, it is not controversial to not have the children categories, but I bring it up here because it seems to also obviate the need for the adult categories as there is no need to diffuse by child/adult here. There are two ways to do this so I'm wondering which of the two (or something else) is a better implementation of the Hierarchic Principle and Universality Principle:

A B
Eliminate diffusion by child/adult via upmerge to non-diffused parent Eliminate diffusion by child/adult via deletion of parent categories
resulting in: resulting in:
A B

This would of course percolate down through subs and apply to other genders as well.

I would propose (B) for starters as its seems more compliant with the Simplicity Principle and makes it more obvious that images should be limited to adults. Josh (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B this is clearly more sensible and the W:WP:COMMONNAME of the subject, but it should just be People performing sexual activity also per simplicity principle. If you think uploading images of children performing sexual activity is acceptable in the first place then I think that’s covered by the “wtf is wrong with you” principle. Dronebogus (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner:  Support per Dronebogus. Currently most people categories have children, men, women as subcats. Since child sex is a crime in almost all countries of the world (AFAIK), men and women can be used for "male humans" and "female humans" respectively. So I support the following option:
C
Result
C
This still follows the Hierarchic Principle, as men and women are subtypes of people. The Universality Principle may not hold since "men" and "male humans" are treated as synonyms for this category structure. However, the global criminalization of child sex is a valid reason for the contrary, and follows the spirit of meta:IAR, which is applicable for all Wikimedia wikis, not just Wikipedia. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Sbb1413's proposal C. Describing people as "humans" sounds markedly unnatural ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?"); if we can avoid doing so, we should. Omphalographer (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Describing people as "humans" sounds markedly unnatural ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?"); if we can avoid doing so, we should.

That's a different matter altogether. My proposal is not to replace "humans" with "people" but to eliminate the adult/child distinction in the subcats of Category:People performing sexual activity. The elimination is necessary, since we don't have Category:Children performing sexual activity due to the worldwide criminalization of child sex. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right - I mean that your proposal differs from proposals A and B above in that it avoids the stilted "[adjective] humans" phrasing for all three categories. Omphalographer (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omphalographer, there is a discussion underway to change 'humans' to 'people'. If that is adopted, these categories will be renamed as a result. This proposal is really about the structure of these categories, not whether they should use 'humans' or 'people'. Josh (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Option C, as it is disjointed, in that it mixes age-specific and non-age-specific categorization. "People" is not diffused by age, but "Men" and "Women" are. If the argument is that 'adults' is too specific and 'people' will do, then it would stand to reason that 'men' and 'women' are too specific and simply 'male' and 'female' are sufficient to diffuse by gender. If on the other hand, we want to be clear that only adult contents are permitted, and thus use 'men' and 'women', then the parent should likewise be 'adults'. Mixing the two leads to a disjointed hierarchy and doing so just because this or that category name might sound more 'natural' is not a strong argument. If a particular category's name is a problem, let's discuss an improvement, but breaking the logical hierarchy to avoid using a category with a name you don't like isn't a good answer. Josh (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I generalize my proposal to all activities limited to specific age groups, the generalized proposal will be as follows:
  • If the activity is restricted to children, the main category should be called "children <activity>" with boys and girls as subcats.
  • If the activity is restricted to adults, the main category should be called "people <activity>" with men and women as subcats.
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I no longer support my proposal. Instead, I support Joshbaumgartner's options 1 and 2. See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Male humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I put the cart before the horse by proposing outcomes, and it is best to first answer the basic question that prompted me to create this CfD in the first place:

When dealing with a topic for which no contents of children are expected/permitted, should we:

  • A: Simply use the basic 'people' categories without diffusion by adult/child, which is the best implementation of the Simplicity Principle, but may give the false impression that depictions of children are permitted.
  • B: Specifically use 'adult' categories, despite the lack of analogous 'child' categories, which is the best implementation of the Selectivity Principle, in that it is clear that depictions of children are not permitted.

@Sbb1413 and Omphalographer: perhaps we can start with answering this and circle back to the detail level once we have a clear overall picture? Josh (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Option B seems to be a good choice considering pedophilia is a crime worldwide. But we shouldn't be the authority to determine if pedophilic media are allowed or not. If we have such media, we can recreate Category:People performing sexual activity to categorize them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 If by we you mean CfD participants, I agree. My proposal was not made to create such a prohibition, but instead to create an appropriate structure for topics within which such a prohibition is already policy. "We" as the Commons community certainly do need to have a clear policy on this. WMF is a US-based organization and must comply with US law regarding content, and content which violates US law is automatically out of scope and in fact uploading such files is a basic terms of use violation. Since the project is international in scope, we should be clear about those few areas where US law may force us to prohibit content which may otherwise not have violated our policies, especially since US and international law and custom often diverge. Of course, you are correct that if it is deemed permissible, then of course the normal people structure including adult/child diffusion can be implemented, though in this specific case, I would not lend a hand to curating such content. Josh (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African Women Theologians

[edit]

I believe that a more standard name for this would be Category:Female theologians from Africa. Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious! Delete the uncalled for discussion and move the category. 186.172.31.142 01:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sons (offspring)

[edit]

Needless disambiguator, Category:Sons redirects to this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an explanation at Category_talk:Sons_(offspring). Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why Category:Sons redirect to this category? It should be a dab page, according to the discussions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, no others have files? It assures that "sons" isn't used for "sounds". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Andeloseko museoa

[edit]

I see no currency for this name. I propose a move to the English-language Category:Andelos Archaeological Museum, or at least the Euskara (Basque) or possibly Category:Andeloseko Museo Arkeologikoa, using a name that has some currency. Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name in English should be "Archaeological Museum of Andelos", because Andelos is the name of the ancient roman period city, not the name of the museum. We may change Andeloseko museoa into "Archaeological Museum of Andelos" and Yacimiento de Andelos‎ into "Archaeological Site of Andelos" Suna no onna (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Suna no onna: Sorry, I see I didn't put in a specific English-language name when I wrote this. [Later: well, I did, somehow the comment was messed up. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)] I meant to propose Category:Andelos Archaeological Museum per https://www.spain.info/en/places-of-interest/andelos-archaeological-museum/ and https://whichmuseum.com/museum/andelos-archaeological-museum-mendigorria-35830, though Category:Archaeological Museum of Andelos would be acceptable, used at https://visitnavarra.info/visitnavarra/en/ruinas-romanas-de-andelos/, https://www.turismoruralnavarra.com/en/listado/ciudad-romana-de-andelos-2/. - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the official tourism website of the Government of Navarre, you can see "Andelosko Museo Arkeologikoa" Suna no onna (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that is the Euskara name, I gave that above. I would favor an English-language name here. Are you saying you favor Euskara and, if so, why? - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bohdan Melnychuk

[edit]

Considering Category:Bohdan Melnychuk (writer and local historian), I feel like this should get a disambiguation as well. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Residential buildings

[edit]

There was a discussion on this category 12 years ago at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/07/Category:Residential buildings. The nominator Ghouston closed the discussion without any consensus. There are still problems with categories like Category:Residential buildings and Category:Housing, and their relations with Category:Accommodation buildings and Category:Accommodations respectively. I had created Category:Residences in line with the Category:Accommodation buildings/Category:Accommodations distinction. Old and new users should discuss on this matter. Pinging @Skeezix1000: as they were the only other participant in the old discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is your question? Or do you have a proposal? How would you like to have the category structure? JopkeB (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kindergarten in England

[edit]

none of them are called kindergartens. They are called nurseries. Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep the name as it is, per the Universality Principle. You can add a description using {{En-gb}} to mention that the items listed in this category are called "nurseries" in England, although they function as kindergartens. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several definitions of the term wikt:nursery, some of which are also mentioned at Category:Nurseries. The use of the term "nursery" to mean kindergarten is specific to the UK, so there's no need to rename this category to "nurseries in England". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: After looking through the subcats of Category:Early childhood education, I have found four types of early childhood education institutions:
These categories should be fixed in order to determine whether we can rename the nominated category to "nusery schools". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the UK these are much the same thing. They arent different types, at least not these days. So they probably need to be merged as far as the UK is concerned. The regime is largely defined by Ofsted. I guess things will be different in other countries, and we may need to have different parent categories for different countries if we think the regimes are significantly different. Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: these categories need good descriptions, mentioning their differences, anyway:
  1. what is the goal of the term (for example: just childcare during the parents' working hours, or teaching little children something, like being sociable, learning the language better, prepare for primary school);
  2. for what age are the terms: babies, toddlers, age 4-6, or whatever.
Though there might be a lot of differences around the world, perhaps we can create a category structures that will fit to a lot of countries. JopkeB (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Preschools. Can we merge both? --JopkeB (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the UK there are really no differences corresponding to these categories. The names are just branding. These days they are all usually called nurseries for official purposes- though that is really rather too ambiguous to be used as a category. As far as I know they generally take children from birth to 4 or 5. There is structured play, but not teaching. So any of these terms could be used, but I think we should use the same term for all of them. I dont know what happens in other countries, because these things have to relate to the schools. Rathfelder (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nursery school categories There are assertions made above with no evidence and no obvious basis in truth. I was invited here after restoring Category:Nursery schools in the United Kingdom to an article about the under-5 part of a bona fide; educational establishment; a nursery school. It is not a "Child day care centre". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy for all the UK articles to be under Nursery schools. What I dont want is numerous categories for what is essentially the same sort of establishments. Rathfelder (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "essentially the same". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of that? In UK they are all regulated by Ofsted to the same criteria, and subsidised by the government. They all have to provide childcare during working hours, and teach little children being sociable, learning the language better, and prepare for primary school Different titles are just branding. They all run from birth to 5. Maybe that is not true in other countries, so we may need to do different countries differently. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Constructions

[edit]

What's the difference between Category:Construction and Category:Constructions? I think Category:Construction is for the subfield of civil engineering, while Category:Constructions is for individual instances of construction. If so, their parent categories should be rectified. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know:
  • Construction (without the s) is for the proces of building a structure.
  • Constructions (with a s) is for how a structure, or part of it, is (exactly) put together.
But I am not a civil engineer. JopkeB (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Although I'm an engineering student, I don't study civil engineering. There are two Wikidata items on construction (construction (Q385378) and construction (Q3875186)). The first one is the "economic activity that consists of the building or assembling of a building or infrastructure", and the second one is the "process of the building or assembling of a building or infrastructure". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess there are at least two meanings of the word "Construction" (without the s):
JopkeB (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude women with masks

[edit]

Should nude people wearing masks be considered partially nude? If so, this category should be renamed to Category:Partially nude women with masks. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Joshbaumgartner since he has worked on nudity-related categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude people with hats

[edit]

Should nude people wearing hats be considered partially nude? If so, then merge Category:Nude people with hats and Category:Nude or partially nude people with hats to Category:Partially nude people with hats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Joshbaumgartner since he has worked on nudity-related categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 This is a fair question, and I think this is part of the broader discussion currently happening at Commons:Nudity. Our exact definition of what is a depiction of nudity is ill-defined currently, and that discussion aims to refine that definition. I think this particular CfD will be answered by that conclusion, so I would hope that conversation can remain focused there for now. We can of course revisit this specific instance if that is not the case. I do think the question of whether things such as hats, gloves, shoes, etc. are clothing in so far as determining nudity state is an important detail that I will look to include in the results of the current discussion. Josh (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Structure of the Earth

[edit]

Shouldn't this be moved to Internal structure of Earth? It is linked to that Wikidata item / Wikipedia article. Alternatively, a new subcategory could be created and then the Wikidata item be linked from there. Moreover, the categories also need checking – for example not all of these are "Tectonics diagrams" so this cat would need to be moved to some subcategory. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Letterboxes in Ipswich

[edit]

Should be called Postboxes Rathfelder (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, after looking up the difference between letterboxes and postboxes. --rimshottalk 20:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam - Interior

[edit]

What is the difference between this cat and its subcat Oursana (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Merge. JopkeB (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a deliberate choice [6] by @Warburg1866 Enhancing999 (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most files I merged into Rijksmuseum Amsterdam - Interior - Historic, the rest 20 files > to this cat.
So this is solvedOursana (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sculpturing

[edit]

Isn't the word "Sculpting"? Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep — Both words are attested in Dictionary.com (sculpt and sculpture (verb)), with similar definitions. Same for Wiktionary (wikt:sculpting and wikt:sculpturing). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows 216,000,000 hits for "sculpting" vs. 1,620,000 for "sculpturing". That is more than a 100-to-1 ratio. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: So we have to rename the main category as well as the 37 "by country" subcats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so.
Probably a different admin (not me) should make a final determination here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
37?! Gosh, you only have to erase two letters. 186.174.179.47 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you have to delete the two letters from all 37 categories under Category:Sculpturing by country. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's difficult. We don't have a mass rename tool for categories, but it can probably get done in 15 minutes or so. The only reason I am not closing it myself is that Sbb1413 seems at least slightly skeptical on whether this is desirable, and as the person who nominated it for the move I am literally the last admin who should make a determination here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intangible cultural heritage in Finland

[edit]

Changed name - obsolete - ready to be removed Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drinking fountains for horses in England

[edit]

should merge with Category:Horse troughs in England Rathfelder (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drinking fountains for horses in the United Kingdom

[edit]

should merge with Category:Horse troughs in the United Kingdom Rathfelder (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hands just placing

[edit]

What is the purpose of this category? See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Unexpected twist. Sinigh (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, The situation of these hands "not too tense". --Benzoyl (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so hands lightly touching things? Perhaps more specific categories would be more useful? Like "hands resting on objects". Sinigh (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You guys continue making "just placing" type of categorization and I can foresee the penis and "nude or partially nude" crew of Commons adding more and more "unimaginable" new ones to their already existing wealthy collection of so-called erotic categories. p.e: Category:Male human penis just placing... Oh Lord! 186.174.179.47 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Đường Kách Mệnh

[edit]

How does this differ from Category:The Revolutionary Road? Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preschools

[edit]

Currently, we have four types of educational institutions that provide education to early children:

These are categorized separately under Category:Early childhood education without an umbrella term covering all four. These four types of educational institutions need proper definitions for proper categorization. I propose the following (I love making a tabular proposal like Joshbaumgartner):

Category Definition
Category:Preschools All types of educational institutions providing early childhood education before the commencement of school education.
Category:Kindergarten‎ Subtype of preschools providing playing-based education. The name should be plural.
Category:Pre-kindergartens Subtype of preschools arranging education programs for children before kindergarten.
Category:Nursery schools The British (and Commonwealth) term for preschools, which should be merged to Category:Preschools.

Feel free to share opinions on my proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: I agree with the problem and you made a good start. I would like to add:
  • to make the overview more complete: Category:Child day care centers - for the care of young children (babies and toddlers) during daytime, when their parents are working or studying; perhaps this category also needs another parent, like Category:Child welfare facilities (the same as Preschools);
  • ages or indications of ages, like
    • preschool: usually up to ± 6 years
    • Kindergartens: usually for children from 4-6 years
    • Pre-kindergartens: usually for toddlers (2-3 years)
JopkeB (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support @JopkeB, @Sbb1413 I agree with that outline (yes, I do find a nice tabular format can make it easy to digest). I am not an expert at early childhood education, but the categories seem okay. You are right that kindergartens should be plural. As far as day care centers, I think these are a different thing. Preschools are educational institutions, but strictly speaking, day care centers are not (though good ones should have educational themes in their activities and such), so I think the idea of using Category:Child welfare facilities as a parent for all of these is a good plan. Josh (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Kindergarten in England. Can we merge both? --JopkeB (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously merge it to here. It is basically an extension of the former. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB and Joshbaumgartner: I found a category discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/07/Category:Kindergarten, and there are two arguments against pluralizing the category Category:Kindergarten, which I'm debunking here:

  • Argument: Auntof6 said, "Kindergarten in English can be either a countable or noncountable noun, as well as an adjective, just like the word school, so it doesn't necessarily need to be plural."
    Counterargument: The category Category:Schools is in plural, and if you compare "kindergarten" with "school", the former should be in plural as well, no matter whether the term is countable or not.
  • Argument: Evil Sith Lord said, "Category:Kindergarten should definitely not be moved to Category:Kindergartens because it contains media for many different topics related to kindergarten, not just pictures of schools that contain only kindergarten."
    Counterargument: If there need to make a distinction between kindergarten topics and individual kindergartens, you can have both Category:Kindergarten and Category:Kindergartens coexisting. This is similar to the categories Category:Homo sapiens and Category:People, the fomer for human topics and the latter for individual humans.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aliran Penghayat Kepercayaan terhadap Tuhan Yang Maha Esa

[edit]

Qué dice? 186.173.183.246 12:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

all files are also in Category:Paguyuban Ngolah Rasa Tri Soka. I guess this can be deleted as redundant.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CW Television Network logos

[edit]

Category created because of Cut-paste-move John123521 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elderly

[edit]

What's the difference between this category and Category:Old people? Split it between Category:Old people and Category:Human old age. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Category:Human old age to cover the general concept of "old age" in human life, so that Category:Old people can be used specifically for old individuals. I think Category:Elderly is already covering what Category:Human old age is supposed to cover, but with a misleading name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Johnny Cash Music

[edit]

What is the scope of this category? Why is "Music" capitalized (is "Johnny Cash Music" a proper noun)? Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kechoveli street,

[edit]

Требуется удаление, категория не актуальна Well-read MountainMan (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{bad name|Kechoveli street}}
Ideally, I would also add the locality to Category:Kechoveli street: Category:Kechoveli street, Gyumri or Category:Kechoveli street (Gyumri) Enhancing999 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coins of UN member states

[edit]

Upmerge to Category:Coins by country of origin, since most countries are UN members. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centuries by country

[edit]

Is "by country" here referring to current countries, the countries of that time, or both? This question is similar to the one raised on the CFD of Category:United States in the 16th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both, but only if applicable.
Going by examples: Category:Poland in the 16th century BC clearly refers to the current extent: such categories are all about archeological artifacts etc. As Poland did not exist back then, our modern arbitrary borders are mostly to distinguish one prehistoric region from the other.
On the contrary, Category:Strasbourg in the 16th century is currently only part of Category:France in the 16th century. I would argue that Strasbourg (as a main German book publishing center and large Free Imperial City of the HRE) should also belong to Category:Germany in the 16th century as well. Similar cases apply to Wroclaw, Istanbul, Lviv, Los Angeles, Valletta...
Another case is Category:United Kingdom in the 10th century, which looks at first like a clear case of the first example. As the UK did not exist back then, I would prefer to use that category as the container for the contemporary countries: Category:England in the 10th century, Wales etc. I would also argue that if we go back even further, we should rather apply Category:Roman Britain in the 3rd century etc.
As a result I'd favor to categorize into both: Contemporary (if applicable) AND current countries, although like UK+England, cont. and curr. may be child-nodes of each other instead of sibling-nodes like France+Germany. In many other cases the contemporary countries are extinct and may not even have a category: I see no need to slavishly reproduce "centuries by <historic country>", unless there is enough content and need: that is what I mean with "if applicable". --Enyavar (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Enyavar that it is both, if they are applicable. Josh (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar and Joshbaumgartner: Category:1871 in Pakistan redirects to Category:1871 in India, since Pakistan didn't exist back then and the area was part of India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were just one case, I would suggest just changing it without much ado, but looking at Category:Pakistan in the 1860s up to the 1940s, this appears to be purposefully created by that IP. --Enyavar (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC) (PS: If my opinion was asked here, I'd disagree with the reasoning, because the country of India also didn't exist back then: the British Raj did.)[reply]

Category:Milad Zare

[edit]

Who (?) ... 186.174.147.166 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rahila Hajibababeyova

[edit]

For the reason that the same Category:Rəhilə Hacıbababəyova exists. Yousiphh (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main category should be in English one as the common language of Commons is English and we can redirect from Azeri version. Interfase (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do Azerbaijani people have English names? Interesting... Make it a redirect. 200.39.139.16 16:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an English name. It is Azeri name with English transliteration because Commons is in English, not in Azerbaijani. When the language of Wikimedia Commons become Azerbaijani then we can have redirect from Rahila Hajibababeyova to Rəhilə Hacıbababəyova. For example category about Ilham Aliyev is Ilham Aliyev not İlham Əliyev. Interfase (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Application software

[edit]

عنةنوخزخىعىع DrhK10 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrhK10: What is the problem? What is your proposal to solve the problem?
مەسىلە نېمە؟ مەسىلىنى ھەل قىلىش تەكلىۋىڭىز نېمە؟ JopkeB (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Payroll

[edit]

What is the difference between Category:Payroll and Category:Paychecks? If no objection, I'd like to categorize the latter to the former (Paychecks as the subcategory of Payroll).--125.230.82.211 22:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government institutions

[edit]

redirect to speedy deleted category Category:Institutions of government should be either deleted or redirected to appropriated existing category Robby (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby: What happened to Category:Institutions of government? Why it was deleted outright? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no additional information to this line from the deletion logs:
2024-06-30T12:09:03 Yann talk contribs deleted page Category:Institutions of government (per COM:SPEEDY)
best regards Robby (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robby: I understand the reason. The category is redundant to Category:Government organizations. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now redirected this category to Category:Government organizations and this discussion can be closed. Robby (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veterinary hospitals

[edit]

Should merge into Category:Veterinary clinics. No significant difference between the terms. Rathfelder (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verterinary hospitals can do more than other veterinary facilities. They can do more-complex surgeries, whereas some clinics can't. It's like the difference between a doctor's office and a hospital for humans. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a place on Earth

[edit]

The name is quite strange, IMO "Milky Way Galaxy by country" is better, and put the rest of the image to the parent category (or if necessary, create another category with a better name) A1Cafel (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The category is named that way because these images are specifically about showing some place and the Milky Way instead of e.g. only the Milky Way or the Milky Way and a negligible part of some place. If renaming it, the proper name would be Milky Way Galaxy and a place on Earth by country. By the way, I think it would be much more sense to organize these by subject like Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a body of water on Earth, Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a city/buildings/..., etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is not as if the the current categories are overcrowded. But if anyone wants to create further subcategories, they can figure out what subcategories would be useful (i.e. have more than a couple of images in them). Krok6kola (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why keeping this cat, but the name is really strange, why not we change it to "Milky Way Galaxy seen from the Earth" or something else? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is really tricky to come up with a good name for this category since almost all of the photos are "seen from Earth", even the ones that shows only the Milky Way and no earthly subject. Perhaps we should try to figure out a name for a category that shows only the Milky Way instead/too(?), like "Milky Way Galaxy (celestial only)". Originally thought of "(stars only)" here, but then someone would surely object that there are other celestial bodies in the Milky Way even if we can't see them.
When I created the category, I thought of many names that would sound more scholar-like, but I settled for this since it was uncomplicated. We could rename it "Milky Way Galaxy and Earth-based locations" or "Landscapes and objects with the Milky Way Galaxy", or something like this. Perhaps "Landscapes and objects with the Milky Way Galaxy, by country" could be a good compromise. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's better than the current one. I would also accept this one. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea, we could take this one step further and make a new cat tree to incorporate another idea mentioned above by Prototyperspective. Like this:

 Comment A1Cafel, at the time, it was just a way to create some sort of order for all the Milky Way photos that were just thrown into one big pile in the main category, regardless of where they were taken or if they showed a bit of Earth or just sky. Later, the categories 'by country' were created and with that a new and better name would now be in order. As with all big cleanups, you got to start somewhere. ;-) Now we can fine-tune this. Best, --Cart (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose "Milky Way Galaxy by country" seems to imply there are different parts of the Galaxy, in each country. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: If you look at the actual category names, e.g. Category:Milky Way Galaxy over Russia, Category:Milky Way Galaxy over Indonesia etc. there is no implication that "there are different parts of the Galaxy" in each country. Krok6kola (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed rename above isn't for the subcategories, but the parent. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by subject

[edit]

People have been using this category despite the redirect, and I kind of understand why. Is Category:Photographs by topic really the intuitive terminology here? Isn't subject the appropriate term for what's in a photo?

Despite its name, Category:Photography by subject seems to be the category where photographs are actually organized by topic, if you ask me.

Inviting MB-one and Blackcat, who created and redirected this category, respectively. Sinigh (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One should rather fix the subcategories added by templates (or the templates). Everything else gets moved on automatically. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinigh: it's not the category that's wrong, is a problem the user that categorizes erroneusly in conscious matter. -- Blackcat 18:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS and possibly avoid using crappy templates like DMC, there's Metacat which does excellently the job.
@Sinigh I'd argue, that topic and subject are not exactly the same when it comes to photographs. Thus both categories (including subcategories) should be separated. MB-one (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MB-one: I think so too. Category:Animal photography refers to a topic, while Category:Photographs of animals refers to subjects, right? Sinigh (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinigh Yes, that's what I meant. MB-one (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 15 photographs in Category:Animal photography could easily be in Category:Photographs of animals or just Category:animals. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, they don't belong at this end of the category tree. Sinigh (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Partially nude chained male humans

[edit]

Do we really need this? We have Category:Partially nude chained men. Are we going to have a Category:Partially nude chained boys? Otherwise, this (currently parentless) category is completely redundant. Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Hold for now. I need to look at whether "men" or "male humans" should be the main category for male humans. Same for "women" and "female humans". Also, the term "humans" should be replaced with "people", for which I'm opening a new CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: are you willing to take responsibility for doing something reasonably soon with this (currently parentless) category? - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hillview Park & Cafe

[edit]

Clearly Category:Hillview Park & Cafe and Category:Hillview Park And Cafe are the same thing and should be merged. I believe that by Commons' usual conventions, the correct name would be Category:Hillview Park and Cafe (note the lowercase 'a' in "and"). Jmabel ! talk 05:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male humans

[edit]

Currently, we have only three category trees using "humans": Category:Adult humans, Category:Female humans, and Category:Male humans. This is inconsistent with our usage of the term "people" throughout Commons. Not only that, there has been attempts to treat people as adults by default (like using Category:Men for all male people and Category:Women for all female people). So I'm making multiple proposals in a tabular format (like Joshbaumgartner). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humans vs. people

[edit]
Current name Proposed name
Category:Adult humans Category:Adult people, or simply Category:Adults
Category:Female humans Category:Female people
Category:Male humans Category:Male people

--Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is a response to Omphalographer's comment in Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:People performing sexual activity, "Describing people as "humans" sounds markedly unnatural ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?"); if we can avoid doing so, we should." I myself find expressions like "female person" and "male person" more natural than "female humans" and "male humans" respectively. "People" is basically the collective plural of "person". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: I wish I hadn't created these redundant categories. Should Category:Male humans be merged back into Category:Men? Jarble (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble Male humans includes both Men and Boys, so a merge into Men would not work. Eliminating Male humans and simply categorizing both Boys and Men was something that was considered, but since many files are not clear as to whether the person is a child or adult, but are clearly male, this step was kept for that reason. Josh (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Jarble says that we should merge Category:Male humans to Category:Men, and all subcats (including Category:Boys) would be categorized under Category:Men. But most dictionaries (Cambridge, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster) define "man" as an "adult male human/person", so that's not a good approach and not something I would support. Although the Bengali term "পুরুষ" is often glossed as "man" in the context of people, the term is actually used for all male people, regardless of the state of development. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Thank you for raising this question. When these terms were adopted, they were to disambiguate the previous Adults, Females, and Males categories, which are terms not specific to humans. While it was agreed that a disambiguation term was warranted, there doesn't seem to have been much consideration, however, of whether 'humans' was really the best one, or if 'people' or something else would have been better. So it is a good question to actually consider.
I am not a huge fan of the 'humans' term being used here as it is indeed not something we would normally use in everyday speech. I am not sure that 'people' is all that much more 'natural' however, and changing category names just to align with what might seem a bit more 'natural' to a few users doesn't seem like it has a great rationale. Honestly, the question ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?") posed earlier doesn't sound any more natural as "Hello, how are you, fellow people?". Also, no, Adults cannot be the answer, as there are Adult animals as well, just as we have Female animals and Male animals. That all said, I do think there is one strong argument in favor of changing from 'humans' to 'people':
The parent category for members of the Category:Homo sapiens species is Category:People, so according to the Universality Principle, "people" is the term that should be used for them at all levels throughout Commons. Josh (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no, Adults cannot be the answer, as there are Adult animals as well, just as we have Female animals and Male animals.

I was unaware about it when I started this proposal. So I'm striking the category name.

The parent category for members of the Category:Homo sapiens species is Category:People, so according to the Universality Principle, "people" is the term that should be used for them at all levels throughout Commons.

This is one of the actual reasons of this proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support @Sbb1413 I support renaming from 'humans' to 'people' in accordance with the Universality Principle. It is true that there are a lot of affected categories, but there are also still several 'females' and 'males' category that have yet to be moved to 'female humans' and 'male humans' yet, so maybe it is best to go forward with the change now so that when those are renamed, they can just go directly to 'female people' and 'male people' in one step. Josh (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about shemales? I read somewhere that frogs are hermaphrodites. 186.173.138.246 02:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People with no children

[edit]
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Category:People Category:People Category:Adults Category:Adult people

Most categories follow option 2 for people categories that have no corresponding children categories. However, since it may cause problems with automatic categorization templates and also violates the Universality Principle, I prefer options 1 and 3. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 This section is already the subject of discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:People performing sexual activity, so we should not be having two separate discussions about the same thing. Let's leave this CfD to the humans vs. people discussion above and leave the people with no children discussion to the one linked where the discussion is already well-developed. Josh (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: The local outcome may not be applicable globally. But waiting for that discussion to close is a good idea, and I have no objections to it. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vote for option 1, alternatively drop categorization by sex altogother. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Keep as is for now. Babies shortly before or after birth and sometimes even years after birth are not considered people but are within the scope of this category. There is a related discussion on Wikidata. --Prototyperspective (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: Really? I have to disagree. At least when it comes to babies that have been born. "Personhood" is a social construct based on existence in the social world and all the things that come along with it. I. E. legal documents, birth certificates, objects, names, Etc. Etc. associated with the person and their individual identity within the social hierarchy. All of which babies have. Although you could argue they don't have fully formed identities, but so what? We still treat babies as individuals separate from their mothers after birth. It would to say a toddler isn't human. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personhood is relevant., e.g. Capacities or attributes common to definitions of personhood can include human nature, agency, self-awareness. I added subclass of: human to Wikidata:Person (d:Q215627) which currently only has subclass of: person or organization (it's not mainly that which in its item is defined as a "class of agents" e.g. in the economy), individual person or organism (It's not mainly that because that also refers to various nonhuman animals), legal person (also not mainly about that because the concept of people/person is about a thing in principle not legal things) but that was undone for now and I think the main thing is now missing. You are right but I still think it could be misleading to use that terminology then rather than "humans", see for example the philosophical debate that may make it somewhat ambiguous or the rare use of the word person or people when referring to specifically babies. I phrased it a bit exaggeratedly and should have written/meant something like "are often implicitly not considered or associated with the term people but humans more broadly". Here it says The Supreme Court held that personhood could not be granted to a fetus before “viability”—the point around 24 weeks of pregnancy when a fetus can survive outside the womb[…]Now, laws that establish fetal personhood—meaning they extend the legal rights of people to a fetus or embryo before viability. Maybe one could strike the oppose but I'm still quit unsure whether it's a good idea to move the cat title. Some input on the Wikidata item change would be good. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Men/women instead of male/female humans

[edit]

 Comment I had initially thought of eliminating Category:Male humans and Category:Female humans altogether in favour of Category:Men and Category:Women, which is consistent with Jarble's current belief. There were many reasons for this thought (male outside parentheses, female inside):

  • The distinction between males and men (females and women) is superfluous in many cases, where adults are more prevalent over children. In fact, men (women) have more occupations than boys (girls). So making boys (girls) a subset of men (women) is not a bad idea.
  • Individual male humans are usually categorized under "men of <country>" ("women of <country>") instead of "male humans of <country>" ("female humans of <country>"). This is how biographies are categorized in Wikipedia.
  • Since Commons is a multilingual project, we should consider other languages when deciding category structures. The distinction between "men" and "male humans" ("women" and "female humans") is absent in many languages. I had said in my earlier comment that although the Bengali word "পুরুষ" ("নারী" or "মহিলা") is used to translate the English word "man" ("woman"), in reality the term refers to all male humans (female humans).

The only reason for abandoning this thought is that virtually all English dictionaries define "man" ("woman") as a "male adult human" ("female adult human"), meaning the term does not include boys (girls). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual male humans are usually categorized under "men of <country>" ("women of <country>") instead of "male humans of <country>" ("female humans of <country>"). This is how biographies are categorized in Wikipedia.

Although Category:Greta Thunberg is now a young adult, if she were a teenager (like in the late 2010s and the early 2020s), and if we consider teenagers as children and define "women" as any female humans, then we would categorize her under Category:Children of Sweden and Category:Women of Sweden, until we had the dedicated Category:Girls of Sweden. However, as virtually all English dictionaries restrict the terms "woman" to adult females, we would categorize her under Category:Children of Sweden and Category:Female humans of Sweden instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mixed education

[edit]

Not a useful category. Vast majority of schools are mixed. Those which arent are in Category:Single-gender schools Rathfelder (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the French (here), English (here) and Dutch (here) Wiki there is also a category dedicated to it!? Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 13:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the topic, and illustration of it, is not a problem. But do we want to categorise many thousands of pictures of individual schools here? Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also thousands of streets, people, canals, churches, buildings, etc.! Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 17:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but is it not sufficient to categorise only the single gender schools in that way? Rathfelder (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Single gender schools are exceptional and have a good reason to be categorized under category schools. This one is probably not necessary and confusing. 200.39.139.20 16:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment You could just not use the category when it's not useful (e.g. England in 2025) ? Enhancing999 (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Delete useless "Category:Mixed education". Taylor 49 (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider it useless?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Equally sane as for example "Category:Rabbits with two eyes". Taylor 49 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't know they used to have three eyes.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not funny, but ridiculous. 200.39.139.20 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norfolk, England by century

[edit]

I don't think this works grammatically. "Towns in Norfolk, England by century" reads like two disjointed half sentences. This is "Norfolk by century", but Norfolk is disambiguated with ", England". So it should be "Norfolk, England, by century", and "Norfolk, England, in the 20th century" etc. Like with brackets, after the disambiguation term is over, there should be a second comma. The second comma is probably missing to satisfy the templates that are only programmed to have the first comma.

  • First solution: What if the templates are reconfigured to also allow for the second comma?
  • Second solution: What if we disamibguate with brackets, given how brackets always come in pairs? Enyavar (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support the first solution in this case. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The second solution is a standard one. The problem with the first solution is that it wouldn't just concern this category or a template you may have in mind. I think way too many categories and other would need to be changed. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohyamato-jinja

[edit]

Should be called Oyamato-jinja Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from WLM 2024 India with watermarks

[edit]

This source category is unlikely to be used A1Cafel (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, this maintenance category is going to be used during Wiki Loves Monuments 2024, like last years. See, this category from last year. Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why "unlikely"? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coffee shops in Wales

[edit]

Are these distinct from Category:Cafés in Wales? Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Yes, see Category:Cafés:
Place here files relating to establishments serving coffee and other drinks and food for consumption.
  • For files relating to shops selling coffee beans or ground coffee where coffee is not normally consumed on the premises, see "Category:Coffee shops".
--Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mobile medicine

[edit]

shouldn't Category:Mobile health units be in that category? is this category named properly as it has no WP article? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linking

[edit]

the category contains mostly files that aren't about hyperlinks, does not include many hyperlink files like File:Hyperlink example.svg and yet it's only category is Category:HTML. What should be done here? I was thinking of redirecting Category:Hyperlinks to it but maybe that should become a subcategory and the HTML cat be moved to it? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concert in Togo

[edit]

This category appears to be about one particular concert, and should be renamed accordingly; also needs parent categories. Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fabrication du charbon écologique

[edit]

I've ventured to place this under Category:Charcoal, which I think is what I see here, but (1) presumably the category name should be in English, given that it is not a proper noun or something specific to French and (2) "Ecologique" here seems more of a value judgement than an objective statement. Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous peoples

[edit]

The terms "Category:Indigenous peoples" and "Category:Tribes" have no universal definitions, and their corresponding Wikipedia articles make it clear ("Indigenous peoples" mentions the lack of a universal definition in the first sentence, while "tribe" does so in the third sentence). Any attempts to distinguish the two concepts are futile. In fact, the terms "indigenous" and "tribal" are treated synonymously in countries like Canada, India, and the US. So I prefer merging the two categories into one. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Not all tribal societies are indigenous peoples and not all indigenous peoples have tribal structures. Maybe something should be done like renaming the category/ies but e.g. the WP article you linked has The convention also covers "tribal peoples" who are distinguished from Indigenous peoples and described as "tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: This is just one of the myriads of international definitions of "Indigenous peoples" and "tribe". Different definitions make contradictory distinctions between the two terms. At best, these terms convey primitive-like societies, as opposed to modern societies. I'm not saying such concepts are invalid. I'm saying that one category tree is enough to cover social groups that follow primitive-like societies.. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sci-fi films from Archive.org

[edit]

Does it really make sense to organize these videos by genre by website from where they were imported from? They rather should be organized by genre in Category:Science fiction films videos which makes this cat redudant (see also DR below). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it matches a planned import, why not. We do have "women" from "CH-NB". Enhancing999 (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question because it is not useful, a flawed way to categorize things, in general can result in films being categorized there and then removed from the category above per COM:OVERCAT and missing in more reasonable cats, causes unnecessary workload, and is misleading/a problem by not including many films that match the category title/scope. Don't understand your second sentence. Categories should make sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just means that OVERCAT is applied in a flawed way.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This ignores all the other points and picks one. Considering the overcat issue: that is applying that guidelines exactly as it's specified...that's not flawed and the only cases where files are not missing in the cat above is when people didn't implement that guideline so far in that cat. It doesn't make sense to organize films by source where the files have been imported from by genre and only causes issues like the ones mentioned such as sidestepping a proper scifi films videos cat or burying files by the irrelevant criteria of the uploader's source location of the file. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that it wasn't set as a source category, but as a topical category, generating the problems you mention in the topical tree. Source categories should be ignored when building the topical tree.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source categories are not subcategorized by genre or are they? If they are it doesn't seem reasonable and doesn't change how this very incomplete cat is shown and found in Category:Science fiction films. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comedy films from Archive.org

[edit]

Does it really make sense to organize these videos by genre by website from where they were imported from? They rather should be organized by genre in Category:Comedy films videos which makes this cat redudant (see also DR above). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veterinary medicine in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Template gives the wrong categories Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hitchhiking

[edit]

Although the Wikipedia's article explains that hitchhikers extends their arm towards the road with the thumb of the closed hand pointing upward; not everyone does. Some hitchhikers may hold their signs to catch a ride on the roadside. As far as I know, some hitchhikers don't know about "hitchhiking", their hand gestures like flagging down a bus or taxi. That is to say, they are raise hand high and waving, or extends their arm towards the road then palms down and waving, but there is currently no such photo on the Commons Wikipedia. Based on above, it appears they are not necessarily limited to a specific hand gesture.

Regardless of the hand gesture, hitchhikers are indeed "beckoning" to passing vehicles on the road. It's just that I saw User:Infrogmation reverted my edits (see: 1, 2), without providing an explanation in the edit summary, it may become increasingly difficult for editors to improve the Commons Wikipedia. I don't wish to have any dispute, so I bring it here for discussion as this should be resolved rather than turned into an edit war. If there is a dispute about whether "Hitchhiking" should be included in the "Beckoning" category, feel free to discuss here.--125.230.72.36 11:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO "Category:Beckoning" doesn't belong on Category:Hitchhiking since it is not an essential part of Hitchhiking. The essential part is getting a ride. Yes I'm familiar that the thumb gesture is not universally used (at least it wasn't in the parts of Mexico and Central America of my youth decades ago), and some people simply wave to passing vehicles. However other manners of getting rides don't involve beckoning - for example simply verbally asking for rides, for example at cross roads, petrol stations, or other places where vehicles stop. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly should not have parent category "beckoning". Speaking here as someone who hitchhiked across the U.S. enough times that I lost count, plenty of times, you get rides just by talking with people at truck stops or rest stops; also, prior to the spate of people begging at freeway entrances, one of the most common ways to hitchhike was just to stand at a freeway entrance with a sign indicating your destination. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical region by country

[edit]


Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical regions

[edit]


Category:Overviews

[edit]

Shouldn't this be merged to Category:Views from above‎ (or a related cat/subcat)? And if not isn't "Overviews" the wrong term for it? If it's not the right term, I think it should get brackets added that this is about the physical vantage point and the current title redirect to the new Category:Overview. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In every subcategory it seems to mean something slightly different. Maybe similar things will end up in the new Category:Overview. I'd delete both or make them into a disambiguation. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, a disambiguation page seems needed and then the two pages would need to be moved to so far unclear new titles. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 3rd alternative, could be to make "overviews" a parent to the other choices of views. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science and technology timelines

[edit]

Split it into Category:Science timelines and Category:Technology timelines, per the CFD at Category talk:Science and technology. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Some files may be located in both of these when the science that is the subject of the timeline is about or culminates in technology. Medicine is often/usually also considered technology so one would have to think about how to categorize e.g. File:Development of lipid-lowering drugs.svg. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terminalia catappa - Flowers

[edit]

Redirect category with no inbound links —  Junglenut | talk  08:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know there are no inbound links? Even if there aren't, I don't see the harm in keeping this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terminalia catappa flowers

[edit]

Redirect category with no inbound links —  Junglenut | talk  08:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know there are no inbound links? Even if there aren't, I don't see the harm in keeping this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JSEG

[edit]

Empty bot category, no clear purpose (User talk:DrTrigonBot#Category:JSEG) Nutshinou Talk! 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Duplicates by AnankeBot

[edit]

Empty bot category, made for issue that seems to have been fixed (User talk:Nemo bis#Duplicates) Nutshinou Talk! 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet Archive (90 degree rotation needed)

[edit]

Misleading empty bot category (see explanation here), its counterpart Category:Internet Archive (270 degree rotation needed) was speedily deleted nearly a year ago for being unmaintained for years Nutshinou Talk! 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep there are 400,000 in the parent category. So an occasional rotation doesn't seem unlikely. Not sure what's misleading about it. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's misleading because it's expected that a bot would rotate the files, which was useful because it worked in conjunction with Category:Internet Archive (uncrop needed), but this hasn't been the case for 3 years now, so a few days ago I had to manually (with RotateLink) request a 90° rotation of the files (some of which were in the category for years). Keeping this category will only contribute to further confusion. Nutshinou Talk! 14:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it still does if you add {{Rotate}} (which generally works, but not always, there can be a significant delay). Enhancing999 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is what I've done, and what users should be doing instead of adding files to the category. If this category is kept, it then becomes another category that must be manually checked for no reason since another user will eventually have to request a rotation and then remove the category from the files, which is obviously not optimal (in this case this "other user" was me and "eventually" was 3 years) Nutshinou Talk! 20:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia Republican Party

[edit]

moved to Category:Republican Party of Georgia (U.S. state) Mjrmtg (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. I see where you're coming from, but the organization's official name is Georgia Republican Party [7], which is also the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page, Georgia Republican Party. It also creates confusion with the English name for a political party in the nation of Georgia, the Republican Party of Georgia. If you want a clarifier in the name, have it be Georgia Republican Party (United States). -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? This seems already resolved, why your CdD? Anyway: needs disambiguation with Category:Republican Party of Georgia. --Enyavar (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old category should be deleted or redirected. Mjrmtg (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of Mykola Lysenko

[edit]

Seems unnecessary, why don't we put them into the main cat? A1Cafel (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should definitely be in the main category. "Photographs of" categories are usually reserved for groupings of photographs by some criteria, such as black and white photographs, etc. It might help to diffuse some of the things currently in the main category, for example "Mykola Lysenko in art". -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ysgyryd Fach

[edit]

The same as Category:Skirrid Rathfelder (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to w:en:Skirrid Fawr they are not the same:
  • Skirrid Fawr is 486 metres (1,594 feet) high.
  • " The smaller hill of Ysgyryd Fach or "Little Skirrid" (270 metres or 890 feet) lies about 2 1⁄2 miles (4 kilometres) south."
So these two categories can not be merged. I propose to add clear descriptions to both categories, showing the difference between the two, and make sure that the Wikidata are correct. JopkeB (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kosturčanki;

[edit]

Is the semicolon really part of the category name? Also, this needs parent categories. Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this @Jmabel. It's my mistake. I apologize. The semicolon should be removed. Thank you Forbidden History (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Forbidden History: good, but Category:Kosturčanki still needs parent categories. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added few, hope it is ok. Forbidden History (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making up a new parentless category Category:Macedonian Folklore as a parent doesn't really help matters at all. The idea is to give this category existing categories as ancestors, either directly or indirectly. Offhand, that category doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You say these people were Macedonian musicians and Macedonian revolutionaries. That is presumably what we need parent categories to express. Also, a quibble: as a category name, if we were to create on like that, it should certainly be Category:Macedonian folklore (lower-case "f"), not Category:Macedonian Folklore. - Jmabel ! talk 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:God Calculation

[edit]

Out-of-scope quasi-hoax, quasi-BS. Should be deleted, in my opinion. Sole file in category already nominated for deletion. Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete. Now empty (per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Julie Dee Bell and other deletions); no conceivable in-scope use. Omphalographer (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vienna in 1925

[edit]

Speedy merge suggestion to Category:1925 in Vienna Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree JopkeB (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sinister houses

[edit]

This seems highly subjective. Descriptive categories such as Category:Derelict buildings, Category:Abandoned buildings, Category:Ruins of houses are more appropriate and already in use for most of the categorized images.

Similar cases:

Delete Category:Sinister houses
Delete Category:Gloomy forests
Delete Category:Gloomy interiors

Sinigh (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all per nom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Global city

[edit]

There are myriads of definitions of global cities, so not suitable as a category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as is for now. Your argument is one for disambiguation or subcategorization, not deletion. The lead of the linked WP articles states A global city, also known as a power city, world city, alpha city, or world center, is a city that serves as a primary node in the global economic network. The concept originates from geography and urban studies, based on the thesis that globalization has created a hierarchy of strategic geographic locations with varying degrees of influence over finance, trade, and culture worldwide. The global city represents the most complex and significant hub within the international system, characterized by links binding it to other cities that have direct, tangible effects on global socioeconomic affairs. The criteria of a global city vary depending on the source.. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep--Elekes Andor (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings

[edit]

Many "buildings in city" (or similar) categories have been used to categorize the photos that should belong to other dedicated categories (Category:Aerial photographs, Category:Skylines, or Category:Cityscapes), probably because they depict multiple buildings. I think cityscapes depicting multiple buildings should not belong to "buildings in city" categories, which should be reserved for individual buildings only. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that Category:Cityscapes is already placed under Category:Many buildings. I've also placed Category:Skylines under that category, since skylines are generally groups of multiple buildings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Strong oppose I disagree. Two or three buildings are obviously neither a "Cityscape" nor a "Skyline". Cityscape is defined as the equivalent to landscape which requires that multiple square kilometers of an area are visible. Additionally, there are not only cities as place of buildings but also towns or villages. Cityscape or Skyline doesn't fit well with towns or villages. Fl.schmitt (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the proposal here? Delete ? Merge ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: My proposal is to avoid cluttering the building categories with skylines and other cityscapes, which cover a lot of buildings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. But how? By deleting this category? By merging it? By splitting it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: By redefining the scope of this category, so that it is clear that this category is for individual buildings, and not for skylines and other cityscapes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the plan to deal with all those skylines that are currently in the category that should no longer be in it once the scope is redefined? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is necessarily a problem. Eventually photos get put into categories for individual buildings if and when they exist. Depending on the place, this is just more or less developed.
I don't see how or why one should exclude images featuring several objects from categories for such objects. There is Category:Buildings by quantity that attempts to count them.
Some categories for individual buildings have a notice that they should only include cityscapes with the building, but not photographs of only the building.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lumberjacks

[edit]

How is this category (and the corresponding subcategories) different from Category:Loggers? To me, "lumberjacks" is just a more archaic term for the same profession. Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The en-WP article is en:Lumberjack, whereas en:Logger is a disambiguation page. There was a proposal to rename the article, which failed. —holly {chat} 07:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Holly Cheng: That seems neither here nor there, since we already have a Category:Loggers with exactly the same apparent meaning as Category:Lumberjacks (not a disambiguation). - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we soft redirect Loggers into Lumberjacks. It doesn't make sense to have the en-WP article at a significantly different title than the Commons category. (To be clear, I don't have a particular preference for which title is chosen; I just would like them to be consistent.) —holly {chat} 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The trees of Great Britain and Ireland (1906)

[edit]

can be deleted; empty / removed to other cats Dick Bos (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd redirect it. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Nothing links here. --Dick Bos (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to ascertain that nothing links to category page.
Some people incorrectly use the first year a multi-volume work was published as disambiguator. The redirect ensures that they end up at the right place.
Besides, this is a a fairly old category name at Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from the Tropenmuseum

[edit]

The correct name is Category:Images from the Wereldmuseum Amsterdam. See also the website of the museum

The museum changed its name in 2023. All categories have been renamed, but this category has been reverted to its outdated name. So now an inconsistency exists within the Category:Wereldmuseum Amsterdam. The reason given for the revert is that the name change would be controversial and it should be discussed here.

I cannot find any source stating that the name change is controversial. There is a lot of controversy now regarding museums with colonial art. However the name change was done to get a consistent name for four museums: Wereldmuseum Amsterdam, Wereldmuseum Rotterdam, Wereldmuseum Leiden and Wereldmuseum Berg en Dal. A67-A67 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agrree with A67-A67. Could Multichill please explain us, in what this rename is controversial? Gürbetaler (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see at the top of Category:Images from the Tropenmuseum, this category tracks files which have {{KIT-license}}. That release only covers specific files. By just renaming the category and not doing any changes in the template, stuff broke. We also have long term file usage statistics on this, that would break too. So this isn't a simple change.
So we probably need to make a new category for the 2009 image release (Category:Images from the Tropenmuseum 2009 release?) and point the template to that one. It's 15 years ago so that's a bit of a puzzle. Multichill (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vehicles by color by country

[edit]

I can kind of see the merits of there being a categories for vehicles by color based on the country, although it's a little obtuse to begin with, but looking at some of the sub-categories they seem to go down to the level of regions and cities in same cases. Which just seems totally pointless and pedantic. Even more so because some of the categories are also based on the type of vehicle. For instance Category:Tricolor trucks in Kraków, which contains the extremely over precise child category Category:Black, green, yellow trucks in Kraków‎. Although apparently there's also Category:Black, green, yellow trucks in Poland. So I can kind of understand it, but I think organizing images of multicolor vehicles (or even single colored ones) at the city level is overly perfectionistic and serves no actual purpose. So I think the "vehicles by color by city" categories should be gotten rid. If not also the country level categories depending on how useful they are. Especially in cases where the vehicles (as well as the categories) involve more then one color. Thoughts? Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree totally pointless and not helpful. Gürbetaler (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dijital Kültürel Miras Ağı-2024 Kent Buluşmaları

[edit]

The 3 parent categories for individual dates should probably be subcategories. The category also lacks an English description, so I hestitate to change it. The 3 other categories are currently on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DOCUMERICA photographers

[edit]

Shall we keep this? it's currently on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories as parent categories have been removed. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiCan Yamoussoukro

[edit]

it would be good to have a category description. The subcategories may not be suitable/specifically about this topic. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/08/Category:EKLÔ_CAN helps here too, I added similar parent categories.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former sanatoriums

[edit]

As far as I can see none of the Category:Sanatoriums are still operating. They are all Former sanitoriums, so this category is redundant. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech Republic

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Products of the Czech Republic.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Czech Republic.

Although there's no consensus to change the change the name of this country category at previous discussions, we still have a mix of "Czechia"/"Czech Republic" throughout Commons. While I don't want to rename this category to "Czechia" or something, I want to restrict the scope of this category to the current republic. The Czech region before the republic and the current republic should come under an umbrella category, which can be named either "Czechia" (from the suggestion of ŠJů) or the "Czech lands" (from Wikipedia's history of the Czech lands). The Czech name for the region will be "Česko". I'll present the tabular proposal soon. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tabular proposal is as follows:

Czech region (Česko) proposal
Czechia (Option A) Czech lands (Option B)
Category:Czechia Category:Czech lands (currently Category:Historical Czech lands)

(btw, my interest in Czechia/Czech lands is partly due to Tomaš Bata, the founder of the Bata shoe company, which is very popular in India) --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all the participants of previous discussions: @Themightyquill, Gryffindor, Wieralee, Palu, ŠJů, Juandev, Jklamo, Ragimiri, Jan.Kamenicek, Blackcat, Nyttend, Helveticus96, Joshbaumgartner, Joostik, Auntof6, Catrìona, Buidhe, Adamant1, and Enyavar: Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support either: they are both historically accurate and correct. Buidhe (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Before adding your comments here, remember that this is not one of the proposals to change the name of this category. The proposal is to restrict the scope of this category to the current republic, and to add a region category to the cover the Czech region before the republic. This is similar to the Bengal/Bangladesh dichotomy, where Category:Bangladesh covers the current republic, while Category:Bengal covers the region before the republic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per my comments in the previous discussion about it. Mainly I'm against any kind of splitting of categories because it's not really clear what areas or periods encompass the Czech lands and/or Czechia. Especially in the case of "Czechia." But in general you can't have category structures based on amorphous, nondistinct geographical areas that have no actual agreed on boundaries or concept of when the boundaries started and/or ended. It just doesn't work. At the end of the day everything should be named "of the Czech Republic." As that's the only region here that has an actual start date and a clearly defined boundary.
There's no legitimate reason we can't just have categories for things that happened or existed before the modern state of the Czech Republic in a category for the history of Czech Republic either. That's how we do it in literally every other instance. To give an example there is no "history of the Congo Lands" or whatever for things that existed before the modern country of the Congo and/or during the Belgium occupation of the area and it would be totally ridiculous to suggest we should have one. What's so special about the Czech Republic?
I don't think the comparison between Bangladesh and Bengal is really relevant to this either since those are widely and nationally recognized concepts. Whereas the whole idea of "the Czech Lands" seems to be a fringe concept created by a minority of nationalists that isn't even recognized by anyone or accepted anywhere. Which is why the Wikipedia article for it is barely referenced and the sources it has are extremely questionable. BTW, at least two of those sources and the article refer to it as "the Bohemian Lands" anyway. Not "the Czech Lands." Sure though, lets have a category for "the Czech Lands" when it doesn't even exist, no one recognizes it, and it isn't even called that to begin with because of Bangladesh and Bengal. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained many times in previous discussions, "Czech Republic" never existed before 1969 as an entity, while Czechia is a timeless name of the country which can apply also retrospectively for the area. "Czech Republic" in category names is unusable because it is absurdly anarchic for items and subjects relating to the time before the establishment of this republic.
The problem with the instability or variability of the demarcation could concern all countries. Yet for most countries we have a category structure named after the timeless geographical name of the country, not the political name of the current power entity. It is a proven and widely used standard solution for category names and that is the reason why it should also be applied for Czechia. Its identity is relatively stable since the Middle Ages.
You can be right the the term "Czech Lands" is an ahistorical equivalent of "Bohemian Lands" which is the correct translation of "české země". The "Czech" identity appeared since the late 16th or early 17th century, when it is still not possible to talk about nationalism in the sense of the 19th century. "Czech Lands" can be distinguishing name for the core lands of the Bohemian crown where the Czech language is autochthonous, unlike Lusatias and most of Silesia which also belonged under Bohemian crown but never were Czech. --ŠJů (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As already pointed out by Sbb1413 this discussion doesn't exist to rehash the whole "Czech Republic" versus "Czechia" thing. It's to decide on if there should be a category for "the Czech Lands" having to do with things before the modern state. I disagree with the crux of your argument though because there's plenty of "history of country X" categories that contain categories and images of things that existed before the modern area. What we don't do is create "lands of country X" categories.
Just to repeat what I said in my first comment, there's no reason media related to things that existed before the modern "Czech Republic" can't just be put in a "history of the Czech Republic" category. That's how we do it in literally every other instance. Otherwise be my guest and provide some evidence that we don't. Even if we did though, as I've said below it's not totally clear the whole "Czech Lands" thing is an actual concept to begin with anyway. Or again, you should provide some actual evidence outside of your personal opinion. Otherwise I think "history of Czech Republic" works perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained many times in previous discussions, we should apply the same solution for Czechia as is consensually applied for all similar countries. I.e. to use a timeless non-political geograhic name of the country, because such a name can be applied retrospectively, while political names of specific republics or monarchies are very inappropriate for anachronistic use. Similarly, "History of Germany" makes more sense in retrospect than "History of the Bundesrepublic of Germany", because the concept of Germany can also be referred back to the period when Germany was not a unified state entity. And this despite the fact that we follow defaultly the today's territorial demarcation. It works fine for the vast majority of other countries, i.e. there is no reason why this standard should not be applied to Czechia as well.--ŠJů (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as has already been explained to you multiple times now there isn't a consensus to go with "Czechia" instead of "the Czech Republic" for the names of the categories. At least sounds like we agree that "Czech Lands" isn't appropriate though. So I guess "history of the Czech Republic" it is then. Again, just like how it is with every other country. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should have categories named "Czechia" for Czechia, and categories named "...Republic" for the specific republic, if needed. The key is to understand the difference between the two terms and to accept and apply the proven standards we use for other countries. Many people from Czechia have nothing to do with the Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't do that because there's no consensus to use "Czechia" for categories to begin with and there's no difference between the terms anyway. Know where has the government of the Czech Republic or anyone else besides you said that "Czechia" only refers to the areas of the Czech Republic before the country was created. Your just making it up to push "Czechia" when there's no consensus to use it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cs:České země (en:Czech lands, or better Bohemian Lands or Lands of the Bohemian Crown) is rather a historical term related to the monarchic period, especially before the Habsburg personal union with Austria (1526) and its later centralization to the Austrian Empire. It can also be used for the todays Czechia, but it carries with it a very strong emphasis on medieval origins, it is not an ordinary neutral timeless name of the country. An analogy to non-political geographical names of countries as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Germany, Italy, France, Russia etc. is unequivocally and only "Czechia" (Česko). Geographers, linguists and political authorities agree on this. The term Czechia appears in the late 16th century in Latin and in the 19th century in English, it is surely not limited to the independent Czech Republic.
If there is appropriate to keep a specific category for the Czech Republic (in some topic), it should be a subcategory of the more general category for Czechia (as well as Category:Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938), Category:Czechoslovak Socialist Republic or Category:Czech and Slovak Federative Republic‎ etc. are subcategories of Category:Czechoslovakia via Category:History of Czechoslovakia). However, it is customary to establish such categories only for former state entities and are intended for very specific content only. Most current republics and monarchies do not have their own subcategory within their timeless country category. Even Q1991965 and Q3496079 as the previous two Czech power entities have not their specific Commons categories because they are factically identical with the current Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czech lands....is rather a historical term related to the monarchic period...Geographers, linguists and political authorities agree on this. Can you provide sources to those "Geographers, linguists and political authorities" who agree that there was a historical area before the Czech Republic called "the Czech lands" and who detail exactly what that area is? Because I looked into it pretty extensively when there was the other discussion and couldn't find any references to it what-so-ever outside of Wikipedia and a couple of random books that don't seem to be authoritative or even agree with each other about it.
Even looking at the Wikipedia article for "Czech lands" it only has three references, two of which just contain images that have nothing to do with the article and the other isn't any better. There's also a Wikipedia article for "History of the Czech lands" but even there only 1 out of the 44 references in it refer to "the Czech Lands." The rest talk about other things like the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. Nothing really comes up on Google for "Czech Lands" either except Wikipedia and the aforementioned book either. So I'm really failing to see how this an actual concept outside of a badly referenced Wikipedia article. Let alone one that "Geographers, linguists and political authorities agree on." So where exactly are these "Geographers, linguists and political authorities" who agree it's a thing and discuss it? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting falsely. That statement about the consensus of experts and politicians did not refer to the term "Czech lands" but to the word "Czechia", which is officially and consensually the only non-political geographical name of Czechia, analogous to the geographical names commonly used for all surrounding countries. The basis is to understand that photographs or personalities from the time before the establishment of the Czech Republic undoubtedly relate to Czechia, but it is inappropriate to categorize them under the Czech Republic. Until you understand the difference in meaning between the two expressions, we will not move forward in the discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As both I and Sbb1413 have already said we aren't here to discuss the whole "Czechia" thing. There aren't going to be categories called "Czechia" at this point. And I doubt the conversation is going to move forward until you get that and stop trying to highjack the conversation by making it about "Czechia" when that's not what it's about. Although I think your response does answer my question about "Czech lands." Clearly there's no evidence of it being a real thing or you'd just provide it instead of deflecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal by Sbb1413 is to use "Czechia" categories as the standard country categories with standard name form and "Czechrepublican" categories reduce to specific categories for the specific political entity, similar to the specific categories for varoius forms and periods of Czechoslovak republics. This is quite a logical system concept that corresponds to Commons standards. --ŠJů (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sbb1413 can propose whatever they want. There was already no consensus in two other discussions to use "Czechia" for categories related to the Czech Republic. I disagree that the out of the prior two CfDs are worth ignoring simply because a single user thinks "The Czech" is anachronistic or whatever. At the end of the day there are still guidelines we have to follow and one of those are that category names can't be ambagious or refer to multiple topics.
In this case "Czechia" refers to both the modern country and historical areas. So it really doesn't make sense to just use it for the historical lands. Since again, that's not what it was created for or how it's used. It would also just create two competing categories because some people would use "history of the Czech Republic" while others would use "history of Czechia" since it's not really clear what exactly is "the Czech Republic" or "Czechia" to begin with and there's no consensus to use the later anyway. But I'm sure your counter argument to that will be just to handwave that I'm the one ignoring facts or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like neither of the options.
  • Option A implies Czech Republic ⊂ Czechia. The latter is nothing else but a "shorter form" of the former (hence being more less equivalent), having started to appear around ten years ago.
  • Option B implies Czech Republic ⊂ Czech lands. Czech lands was a quasistate with variable borders existing between 9–20th century, Czech Republic is usually considered a successor thereof. They are both subjects of the "Czech identity".
If there is a demand for having a (umbrella) supercategory for everything Czech(ia)-related, whether contemporary or ancient, have something like Category:Czech (supercategory), Category:Czech (topic), Category:Czech (term), etc. Its subcategories will be Category:Czech language, Category:Czech Republic, Category:Historical Czech lands and so on. This is the best compromise I can think of. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matěj Suchánek I agree. Both options A and B seem to be an effort to conflate a country (current Czech Republic) with a nation/people/lands/region (not exactly defined what). This is incongruous, as a country cannot be presumed to be a subset of its related nation, nor vice-versa, even in cases where they may appear coincident at first glance. As for option A specifically, Czechia is widely used in reference to the country (alternate to or shorter form of Czech Republic), so it would be inappropriate to use that name for something else instead. As for option B, Czech lands are currently defined as a specific set of geographic regions (Bohemia, Moravia, & part of Silesia), though that's indirectly via WD. Is this limited to territories within the Czech Republic, or does it include external territories as well? Josh (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option B doesn't actually sound that bad if we think of Czech lands as the "bearer" of the Czech identity. But it's confusing (made me confuse "Czech lands" and "Historical Czech lands" when writing my comment, I thought it was defined the opposite way).
As you say, "Czech lands" can also be the set of three geographic regions you can split the Czech Republic into for historical curiosity, i.e., which towns were located in Moravia, but other than that, it doesn't have much more to do with it. (By the way, since you split Czech Republic, shouldn't the relation be the opposite: Czech lands ⊂ Czech Republic?)
In general, Category:Czech Republic supercategories should be only Countries in Europe, Member states of EU, etc. and then possibly "Czech (supercategory)". Trying to make any other historical "Czech" entity a subset or a superset of it will eventually result in anachronisms. However, I see no problem in categorizing "History of the Czech Republic" ⊂ "History of the Czech lands". Because there is obviously only the historical aspect. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the people in the "lands" before the Czech Republic didn't have (or bear) the Czech identity and that's kind of what your insinuating by creating such a category and putting categories for groups of people in that had nothing to do with the Czech Republic or it's "identity." Like say you had have a Russian traveler who went through the area before the Czech Republic became a state. They weren't "Czechs." No one called them "Czechs." If you had of asked them if they were "Czechs" at the time they probably would have had no idea what your talking about. I don't think anyone know even calls them "Czechs" or considers them to be part of the Czech Republic outside of a few extreme nationalist. It's not that way in any other country either and what ever solution we adopt here has to follow how it's being done in other countries. If there is no "X country lands" categories then there shouldn't be one in this case period. And at least from what I can tell it's not done that way anywhere else. Otherwise be my guest and point out where other countries have "lands" categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: As you can see, trying to reach a solution here is futile. There is always someone who ignores arguments and facts and blocks a reasonable solution. --ŠJů (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how I'm ignoring facts when I asked you 4 times to provide some sources for what your talking about. It's not on me that your unwilling to provide any. It's impossible to agree on a reasonable solution when one side can't be bothered to do the basics of supporting their side of it with evidence outside of just just talking in circles about the other person is just ignoring things that aren't being provided to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if in English, but in Czech, name "Czechia" (Česko) is controversial re-introduced neologism from one person. Controversion is less intensive with time, but still there is negative perception of Česko of nany people. I am against such controversial names at all. Czech republic didnt exist before? Never mind, it is not only state which didnt exist before, for example Russia exist from 16th cenzury? USA? Kanada? Etc. Palu (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a linguistcal problem. As a German native speaker I would not dare to propose a solution and I think that the Czech native speakers have to decide. In the past I have created categories and I wasn't sure which name to use. Anyway, I hope that a clear guideline for the future can be given. I admit that it would be difficult to understand what the difference between Czechia and the Czech Republic would be., if it cannot be used synonymous. I feel that there is a consensus, that by country categories mean states and not areas. Gürbetaler (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice in theory, but it doesn't work for a global project. Things have to be universally accepted, used and understandable outside of a specific geographical area or group of people. Otherwise it doesn't really work. Otherwise you'd have examples like how as from the United States I prefer "America" over "the United States" because the later is longer and not really what we call it. But then most people outside of the United States don't call it "America" and it's ambagious anyway since it can refer to the American continent. So that doesn't really work on here.
With "the Czech Republic" versus "Czechia" as Palu points out it's a fringe neologism anyway. One that know one in the Czech Republic has even said would or should the replace main name for the country. It's simply a shortened for of "the Czech Republic" that the government decided to use in some cases where it's easier. Sadly though it appears to have gotten used by a few nationalists to baselessly refer to some ridiculous thing about Czech Republic lands that existed before the forming of the country when that has nothing to do with it's original intent. The fact is that most people in the Czech Republic still refer to the history of the area of the Czech Republic as such. Not "Czechia" or "Czech Lands." I don't think we should adopt a fringe neologism just because it's been pushed and misrepresented by a few nationalists either. Even if you could argue they should be the one's who should have the say or whatever because their local to the area. Otherwise I'll get right on Changing everything having to do with the United States to "America" lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1, @Gürbetaler, @Palu: I am fine with Czechia, but respect the lack of consensus on the matter, and thus am okay with retaining the status quo for now. All categories referencing the nation should use the name "Czech Republic" until such time as there is a consensus to change the whole thing. Since this proposal was not intended as a rehash of the Czechia vs. Czech Republic debate, I'd rather just move on from this and focus on the proposal by Sbb1413. Josh (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Palu: source? Prove, that's a "controversial re-introduced neologism from one person". "Česko" is widely accepted in public discourse, media outcomes, spoken language (see Česko × Česká republika in the news). — Draceane talkcontrib. 11:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
w:cs:Spor o užití slova Česko. Palu (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just a personal opinion and preference hidden under controversies and fears and other excuses Chrz (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I watch on my (printed) enciclopedia, and i read that "Antonín Dvořák, Bohemian composer of the Austro-Hungarian Empire". What has changed ever since that Bohemian Lands must be called Czechia? -- Blackcat 15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Böhmen und Mähren were the two main regions of today's Czech Republic. Böhmen = Čechy is clearly a region and not the whole state. Thus we are not on the same level. Then again America is a continent. It's not a country. So I come back to the relevant question: Why is "Czechia" a "fringe neologism"? It is quite normal to speak about a country without the addition of formal state definition. Our country is officially the "Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft" (Swiss Confederation) but it's fully accepted just to speak about "Schweiz" (Switzerland). I still don't understand the controversy and would be glad for more explanations. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite normal to speak about a country without the addition of formal state definition. To qoute from a news article about it "Czechia and the Czech Republic have both been used in an official capacity for years (since 2016, in fact), with the former being simply a shortened form. From now on, however, Czech Republic will only be used in things like official government documents, legal correspondence and embassy business. Czechia will be used in things such as literary works and newspapers, as well as by people representing the country like sportspeople." So it is a formal state definition. Although the government has been pretty clear that they are only going to use in specific situations and that it won't replace The Czech Republic.
The issue comes in when people like ŠJů try to put a nationalistic intent beyond it that just isn't there and/or use it to white wash the history of the area by acting like "Czechia" was some mythological land of Czech people before the modern state. Not only is it ridiculous premise to begin with, but literally know one in the government has said that's what the word means. Again, it's just shorter form of "the Czech Republic" for purposes of making it easier to write the name of the country in news articles and official documents. That's literally it though. Just like we "USA" for the United States or the United Kingdom goes by the UK sometimes. Anyway, the important thing to take away here is that part of the quote I boldened Czechia being simply a shortened form of the Czech Republic. We usually use the full form of a countries name and there's zero reason to make exception in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We usually use the full form of a countries name and there's zero reason to make exception in this case. Czechia is an equivalent to Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Russia. The Czech Republic is an equivalent to Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Mexican States, Russian Federation. The first form (= shortened form) is used everywhere on Commons, we don't use the full form in fact, but the shortened one. I don't see a valid argument to make an exception and use a long form in the case of Czechia / Czech Republic. — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the better analogy here at least for Germany would be deutschland. I don't think your example of the Kingdom of Spain works because that was the former name of Spain. The same goes for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" BTW. That was it's name, but it's not anymore. Whereas, the Czech Republic is not the former name of the Czech Republic. It's still being used and clearly more widely then Czechia. Once that's not the case then we'd obviously go with Czechia instead, but acting like "the Czech Republic" has been completely phased out (or even phased out at all to begin with) in the Czech Republic or anywhere else is just disingenuous. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 Goethe was German author, can be in subcategory of Germany but not of Federal Republic of Germany. Antonín Dvořák was Czech composer, can be under Czechia (top category) but not under Czech Republic. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dvořák was Czech composer, can be under Czechia (top category) but not under Czech Republic. Well, it could sure. But there was already a CfD where the consensus not to have categories named "Czechia" until it's more universally adopted. Which people you seem to be ignoring for some reason. The fact is though that this has already been decided and there's zero consensus categories for "The Czech Republic" to "Czechia" or to use that name for categories at this point. I might support using "Czechia" purely for the historical territory, but out of two conversations now I have to see anyone provide any source what-so-saying saying that's what the name was created for and everything I've read in the meantime says it's just meant to be a shortened form of "the Czech Republic" because it looks better on forms. I'm more then willing to be proved wrong about that if you or anyone else can provide some legitimate sources saying otherwise though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Czechia" will solve eeeeeverything. Just wait for Wikipedia to change in a month or 10 years, do not create specific commons nonsenses and specialities for this country. Chrz (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wiki Soccerthons 2024 in Uganda

[edit]

added parent categories, but the infobox seems to be about something else. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a user might have placed an infobox in a wrong place Fiktube (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem at d:Q129177377
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiFEMUA 2023

[edit]

This category was on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories. I added parent categories, but the infobox seems to be about something else. Please update the parent categories/fix the infobox as needed. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata link to unrelated topic removed. It;s not clear what Category:WIKIFEMUA should have as a parent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure either when writing the above, but in the meantime, I came across Category:FEMUA (currently a redirect that could be converted). Possibly also Category:Wikimedia Côte d'Ivoire.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anoumabo Urban Music Festival has now been created by @Cryptic-waveform.
Also, I added related/parent categories and created Category:WikiFEMUA 2024. Most photos in Category:WIKIFEMUA and Category:Wikimedia Côte d'Ivoire in 2024 can probably be moved there. I think that solves it.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Present and Future Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps at 1-km resolution

[edit]

The following two seem to be about the same:

Can they be merged? Or should one be renamed?

One of them had come up on Commons:Report Special:UncategorizedCategories. → Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pronunciation of India

[edit]

the contents don't match Category:Pronunciation of names of countries. Maybe some other subcats of that cat have the same issue. Moreover, "Culture of India" cats (here and in parallel cats if they are present there) probably are not appropriate, anybody could speak that word. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women by body shape

[edit]

Is this only for pregnancy? That is a temporary situation. Delete this category. 200.39.139.20 16:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Please close. 200.39.139.20 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book referencing

[edit]

Should probably be merged (moved to) Category:Sub-referencing without leaving a redirect – "book referencing" is a broad phrase and refers to referencing books with lots of media on WMC about it (but not in this cat and apparently not within the cat as currently inteded). Prototyperspective (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Thanks for the pointer. As the person who created this category in 2019, I agree that it should be moved to Category:Sub-referencing. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marktplatz 40 (Haßfurt)

[edit]

fehlerhaftes Duplikat von Category:Hauptstraße 40 (Haßfurt) Redd4osm (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Wrong adress for Einhorn Apotheke, correct adress Category:Hauptstraße 40 (Haßfurt) Nemracc (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Private libraries in Germany

[edit]

This category is both empty and appears redundant with Category:Personal libraries in Germany‎. Redirection may be appropriate. Ilzolende (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A private library could belong to an institution. A person library would belong to a person. Therefore, they aren't the same and redirection wouldn't be appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reflected photographs

[edit]

I don't understand what this category is intended for. "Photographs with (prominent) reflections"? It seems better to use more specific categories instead, like Category:Water reflections from grazing angles, but perhaps I'm missing something. Sinigh (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mirror effect also exists. Sinigh (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brunnen in Haßfurt

[edit]

can be deleted. as there is already Category:Fountains in Haßfurt Redd4osm (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Redundant, double Category:Fountains in Haßfurt Nemracc (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Ligue Haïtienne Division 1 Groupe A

[edit]

Most parent categories (4 existing, 9 red ones) should probably be subcategories, but none of them contain any photos or other content. Some eventually loop back. The cluster might have been intended for Wikipedia. Given the lack of content, I'd delete this category, its parent and/or subcategories. List:

Category:Free music on Wikipedia

[edit]

The category title is misleading. I think it should be moved to something like "Free music on Wikipedia (Swedish project)" (or similar). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People dying

[edit]

It is hard to guess whether people are dying or not. There are various ways of death, but people can survive in most of these cases. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's to guess at Category:Death of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington? Do you categorize based on guesses?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should probably be under death, not under dying. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nezarim Build and prepared

[edit]

Please merge into Category:Netzarim as they deal with the same former settlement (NoteːCreator of category has sadly passed away earlier this month) DGtal (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Selection of pottery from the Przeworsk Culture in Kuyavian-Pomeranian province

[edit]


Same issues also with Category:Selection of pottery from the Linear Pottery Culture and Lengyel Culture in Kuyavian-Pomeranian province Enyavar (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files

[edit]

Why is there this infobox even after purging the page and removing the flawed cat on the WIkidata item? There are more files on WMC than pictures and even if that wasn't the case this page does not match Help:Pictures. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needed an edit, problem is solved now. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep After some more repair work there is no problem anymore. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tagata Shrine minor haiden

[edit]

move to Tagata jinja okumiya Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos from Germany by year

[edit]

Triplec85 (talk · contribs) reverted my edit without any explanation but this category does not belong into Category:Germany by year by topic because videos is not the topic and this cat is not even subcategorized by topic. Please change this cat back to e.g. Category:Categories of Germany by year. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion with @Yann: and @Adamant1: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Triplec85#Revert) The whole Category:"Categories"-thing is just pointless, nonsensical, and doesn't follow the guidelines about how to name categories.
I helped in Germany to reduce Category:"Categories". @Yann: and @Adamant1: : Was this case wrong?
Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 17:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And: And I apologize for that. it wasn't a malicious reset. It was part of a group edit with Cat-a-lot when I wasn't aware of the previous reset. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 18:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. There might be a better place for the category then Category:Germany by year by topic, but Category:Categories of Germany by year clearly isn't it for the reasons stated by Triplec85, myself, and Yann. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health by stadium of life

[edit]

stadium of life? Rathfelder (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Age just broader than that. I think its subcategories relating to Child health, Health during adolescence, Old people health make it quite clear. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it should be Stages of life? Rathfelder (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if 'stage' is necessarily a better term but yes it could be moved to that or to "phase". I think stadium in this context translates to stage of development but stage of life seems to be a more common phrase which apparently I didn't know. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commons To do

[edit]

The cat title is ambiguous and misleading. For example it does not include pages like Commons:Audio and video requests or backlog cats and is only about Commons & Help pages that need a lot of work. Thus, I think it should be renamed to e.g. "Commons and Help pages in need of work" or something similar if the scope is not to be broadened to any kind of todos where the task/thing-todo is specified. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maya calendars

[edit]

Should probably be moved to the singular form because it's not only photos of the calendars but also the calendaric system and the glyphs. The {{Gallery page}} had a redcat link because the singular form category did not exist so I made it a redirect. The WP article is also in singular form. It's the same for Category:Julian calendars and maybe some other ones where the insufficient-quality gallery page has the singular title and no hatnote with a link to the category page. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: You can use {{gallery page|Maya calendars}} to link to the category instead of renaming the category. I have done just that to link কলকাতা (native name of Kolkata) to Category:Kolkata. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks, but it's not what this discussion is about and maybe I shouldn't have mentioned how I found out about the problem of this cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Cork

[edit]

Category:2000s stamps of the British Empire

[edit]

There was no "British Empire" at this date Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about stamps of the British Overseas Territories? And where does Gibraltar belong to? Is there a better term than "British Empire"? At least these are "remnants of the empire". Gürbetaler (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this category should exist at all (and I'm not sure it should), certainly it should refer to the "Commonwealth of Nations", not the "British Empire". - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler and Jmabel: We usually categorize the British Overseas Territories under the United Kingdom, despite not being parts of the country, because those territories are under the British sovereignty. The Commonwealth of Nations also includes former British colonies, like Australia, Canada, India, etc. So I suggest deleting this category as an unnecessary anachronism. I had once created an anachronistic map of the British Empire (UK + dependencies + Commonwealth realms.svg), but that does not mean the empire continues to exist even though it officially ceased to exist in 1997. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Go ahead! Would the British Empire end in 1997? Or earlier? Thanks for explanations. Gürbetaler (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gürbetaler: Yes, the British Empire ended in 1997 when Category:British Hong Kong came under the Chinese sovereignty. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint George 4th class

[edit]

Is this the same as Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint George IV Class? if so, please merge or make it a subcategory where it belongs.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GS.TS Nguyễn Đức Nghĩa

[edit]

Appears to be a quasi-article in Vietnamese (which I don't read). Clearly way more text than is acceptable for a category. It's also parentless, but it's not empty, so I can't just delete it. Can someone help out here? Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be 3 more uploads by the same user of the same person. I left a note at VP in Vietnamese.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicide by hanging

[edit]

Suggesting rename to Category:People who died by suicide hy hanging consistent with Category:People executed by hanging. The cat contains mostly subcategories for individuals affected by suicide hy hanging, in analogy to Category:People executed by hanging containing subcategories for individuals affected by execution hy hanging. The wikidata infobox is misleading due to "cat main topic" filled that way on WikiData. Apart from "cat main topic", the WikiData item d:Q7190242 stipulated the category "Suicide by hanging" to contain people, in the same way as "People executed by hanging" does. 08:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Church west facades

[edit]

Currently the description reads: "West facade is the church front facade with portal and tower (even if it does not point directly westwards)".

This kind of, makes sense, except when the main facade points elsewhere.

I'd generally use Category:Church main facades instead.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scope is nonsensical; it's either west or it's not. If it's not west, it's just the front door so move to Category:Church main facades instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Youth climate activists

[edit]

should not redirect Prototyperspective (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Create this category. We generally consider people below 40 (including children and teenagers) as young people, and both young and mature people can be climate activists. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else can create this category. It should not redirect and it shouldn't be an empty category. This means somebody needs to turn it from a redirect to a subcategory and populate it or it should be deleted (it can be recreated). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Programme PONCA

[edit]

this is in Category:Wikimedia projects and has this 1 file Prototyperspective (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clothed women with bare nipples

[edit]

Looks to me, most images in the category appear to be about a bare breast woman wearing clothing, but we already have a category on the same concept as "Clothed women with bare breasts". If there is no better way to highlight the conceptual and functional differences than Category:Clothed women with bare breasts, it's fairly easy to get confused. Anyway, apart from the category title, I actually see almost no difference.--125.230.84.57 07:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No need to go more specific for this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I started that category, originally under the title "Women wearing clothing with bare nipples", because many images were IMO inappropriately being put in "nude women" and related categories when the woman was otherwise clothed but with a visible nipple. I have no strong opinion of the best way to categorize, but do have this strong opinion: A visible nipple does not make a person "nude" or "naked". Some other relevant issues: I think "bare breasts" should be defined, perhaps with a hatnote. I'm concerned that many images with partially but not completely bare breasts might wind up there, like décolleté or "side boob" images. Also, are women wearing pasties bare breasted? The nipple seems a specific culturally significant factor. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images generated by Microsoft Copilot

[edit]

is this redundant to Category:Images generated by Image Creator by Microsoft Bing‎? See also this CfD and pinging cat creator @Cepice: . Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Air traffic control towers by country

[edit]

The subcats are a mix of "airport towers" and "air traffic control towers". Which term is more common? As per the Universality Principle, only one term should be used throughout Commons for a given topic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, only one type of thing is involved, not two. What we have is two names for the same thing. My preference is for precision, so all should be named "Category:Air traffic control towers in Foo". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bilingual area entrance pillars in Ireland

[edit]
  • Rename to something else maybe. Perhaps "Irish residential areas bilingual entrance pillars" as it woudd include both housing estates and apartment blocks. We are on an upward trajectory of seeing more of them in the future I believe. "Bilingual signs in Ireland" would be a parent category.

The Bilingual Signs in Ireland and Official Languagess Act 2003 categories would be parent categories for it, I think. Most countries have not got an Official Languages Act OLA I think so that is I think the biggest reason why there may be no other parent categories in other Commmons languages for it.

Category:Netto (supermarket)

[edit]

i suggest

  1. renaming this to "Netto (Danish supermarket chain)".
  2. Category:Netto Marken-Discount stays unchanged.
  3. Category:Netto (Les Mousquetaires) for Netto (Q2720988).

RZuo (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support GeorgHH • talk   16:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Tipperary

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in County Donegal

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Donegal. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Dublin

[edit]
Agreed. Suggest renaming all such categories to [[Category:Populated places in ...]]. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in Fingal

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in Fingal. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Galway

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Galway. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Kerry

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Kerry. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Kildare

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Kilare. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Kilkenny

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Kilkenny. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Laois

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Laois. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Leitrim

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Leitrim. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Limerick

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Limerick. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Louth

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Louth. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Mayo

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Mayo. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Cork

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Cork. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Clare

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Clare. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Cavan

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Cavan. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Carlow

[edit]

eview: "Rename" to Category:Populated places in County Carlow. Categories should not have a mix of things (towns / villages). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns and villages in County Meath

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in County Monaghan

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in County Offaly

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in County Roscommon

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in County Sligo

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in South Dublin

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in County Waterford

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in County Westmeath

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in County Wexford

[edit]

Category:Towns and villages in County Wicklow

[edit]

Category:Portrait engravings of men

[edit]

Clarify the difference between Category:Portrait engravings of men and Category:Engraved portraits of men EmpressHarmonic (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:No longer existent subjects

[edit]

Maybe it's just me but the name of this category doesn't make any sense what-so-ever because obviously the subjects in the category exist or there be categories and images related to them. I'm not really sure what to rename it to though. As the only thing that comes to mind is "former entities", which I'm not a big fan of. So does anyone have a better idea? Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me the category name may stay as it is, unless someone has a better idea. JopkeB (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it looks like a mix of things that no longer exist and things that are obsolete. For example, the extinct noble titles (extinct baronetcies, etc.) no longer exist. Obsolete medical terms may no longer be used, but they still exist. Dead organisms may no longer be alive, but they exist, except that extinct species (a subcat of dead organisms) don't exist.
So I think this needs some reorganizing, with some things staying in this category and others not. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Schmitz Detlef family

[edit]

Seltsame Kombination aus Familiennamen und Vornamen des Stifters bzw. Erfinders dieses Wappens. Wenn es ein Familienwappen sein soll, gehört der Vorname weg GerritR (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stifter ist schon richtig, "Erfinder" in diesem Zusammenhang nicht gebräuchlich. Warum mit Vorname? Weil der Familienname "Schmitz" sehr verbreitet ist und es auch andere Familien gleichen Namens gibt, die aber andere Wappen führen.
So dient der Vorname hier der eindeutigen Zuordnung, um welche Familie Schmitz es sich handelt. Detlef.Schmitz63 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SVG Tibetan Letters

[edit]

Should be "letters" lower-case, but in line with other subcategories of Category:Glyphs of Brahmic scripts in SVG and since this category also contains two diacritics, Category:Tibetan glyphs in SVG is probably the most consistent name. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with moving to "Tibetan glyphs in SVG", and would support expanding this proposal to all of the subcategories of Glyphs of Brahmic scripts in SVG, except for "Malayalam numbers in SVG". VanIsaac (en.wiki) 18:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:EKLÔ CAN

[edit]

A short description of the scope of the category would be helpful (in French or English). Possibly other parent categories can be added.

The category was found on Commons:Report Special:UncategorizedCategories.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! I created this category as part of the project called “EKLÔ CAN”. The CAN is the African Cup of Nations “Eklô” is a theme which means “let’s love” in Baoulé, from the verb Love conjugated in the first person plural. the translation gives “Let’s love the CAN” or “Let’s love the African Cup of Nations”. It is therefore the name of a project carried out at the beginning of the year to promote the African Cup of Nations. I would like to point out that I was not responsible for this project specifically, I was asked to create the category. I actually had my category:WikiCan Tour project in San-Pedro. I admit that I had to at least lowercase the letters. Open to any recommendations for improving the category and for my future contributions in category creation. I fully approve of this approach. Dadrik (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I tried to add an explanation based on it to the category. Ok for you?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tribal village

[edit]

Parentless category. Intended scope is not at all clear. Is this about a specific legal status of a community, or something else? Is this intended to be specific to some country or countries that have a clear designation of "tribal"? Jmabel ! talk 00:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stupid as making a Category:Global village. However, what is more stupid is to discuss this kind of stuff, instead of outright deletion. It looks like people in Commons have too much time and energy to dedicate to absurd activities. 191.126.5.238 12:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak keep. While the definitions of terms like "indigenous" and "tribal" are contested, both terms convey the sense of primitiveness compared to the modern society. There are a lot of paintings depicting indigenous or tribal villages (like this one), and there are populated places that look primitive compared to modern villages and towns. By the way, the category should be under Category:Tribes, and the name should be in plural. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indigenous means primitive, ha? Where I live we have indigenous peoples like the Mapuche, Aymara and others who have representatives in all walks of life, artists, writers, academics,politicians, journalists et al. I can't see anything primitive in them. Buy a mirror or eye glasses. 191.126.5.238 15:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/08&oldid=923915480"