Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09

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

Header 1

[edit]

Category:Skupina stromů v zámeckém parku Palvinov

[edit]

As far as I can tell, the category name here just means "Group of trees in Palvinov Castle Park". (1) Is there really something here that merits a category of its own? (2) If so, is there any reason it should not be named in English? The name here does not look like some official name or anything of the sort, but correct me if I'm wrong. Jmabel ! talk 03:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spoken Wikipedia articles about geography and places

[edit]

this should be renamed because audio files about countries or about cities are not only "about geography and places" but also about culture, history, and so on. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Which title do you prefer? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Spoken Wikipedia articles about territorial entities‎" if there's no better proposal. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective and AKA MBG: I prefer Category:Spoken Wikipedia articles about places, if there's no geography beyond the places. The term "place" is quite broad, referring to a 2D human-geographic entity, which includes both countries and cities. See Category:Places. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think place is the right term for cities and especially not for countries. It usually refers to some particular place like a specific park, a workplace, or a street. Check cats like Category:Places in Africa, they don't contain countries or cities for good reasons. Even if it was also referring to cities and countries, I don't think you have thought this through well and haven't really considered audio files about countries or about cities are not only "about geography and places" but also about culture, history, and so on. This is an inappropriate/unfitting narrow title and your proposed change would not improve the shortly described issues in any way. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about more short title: "Spoken Wikipedia articles about geography"? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exact same problem as in the nomination. Pinging some top contributors to the articles country and nation @Yr Enw, Bello1781, MiltenR, Moxy, and Ganesha811: do you think Wikipedia articles about countries or about cities are accurately described/categorized as being "about geography and places" (or either of the two)? I don't think so and have suggested "Spoken Wikipedia articles about territorial entities‎" for lack of a better alternative. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category to Category:Spoken Wikipedia articles about geography , as all contents (Cities, Countries, and others) are topics under Category:Geography, so this name and structure comply with the Hierarchic Principle. Josh (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cities and countries relate to geography so the category on these categories is due. Nevertheless these audio files are not "about geography" at all, e.g. they are about state structures, peoples, cultures, economies, and so on and not or not just geography. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't clear what I mean if you did read the nomination, "Spoken Wikipedia articles about geographical regions" or "about geographical entities" etc would both make sense / not be false and comply with the Hierarchic Principle. The link is not an argument at all for the current naming or the slightly abbreviated one you linked. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the pings above worked. @Mateus2019: you created Category:Gallery page of sovereign countries, do you think these gallery pages about countries are only or mainly about geography which is a systematic study of the Earth (other celestial bodies are specified, such as "geography of Mars", or given another name, such as areography in the case of Mars), its features, and phenomena that take place on it. For something to fall into the domain of geography, it generally needs some sort of spatial component that can be placed on a map, such as coordinates, place names, or addresses.? See above. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Spoken Wikipedia articles about territorial entities‎" sounds reasonable (no misunderstanding possible). Category:Gallery page of sovereign countries handles entities on our earth. Greez, --Mateus2019 (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bekkō-amé

[edit]

Should be called Bekkou-ame to be consistent romanization with any existing system Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 11:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:London streets in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Category for roads and streets named "London Street". Same for Category:London roads in the United Kingdom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 - These appear to be categories of roads/streets grouped by a common name and location. Format should be "Category:Roads named <name> in <country>". Josh (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Obviously. Such categories should be named as per the format. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kumar Gandharva Shankara

[edit]

Is this the same as Category:Kumar Gandharva ?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People convicted of murder

[edit]

How does this differ from Category:Murderers? Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Murderers to Category:People convicted of murder, in line with Category:Terrorists → Category:People charged with terrorism. Both "terrorists" and "murderers" are non-neutral terms, and we should always try to avoid using them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Murderers".
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
technically there exists a subset "people wrongfully convicted of murder" who are not murderers. RZuo (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which would make a very interesting subcat (or non-sub cat if we go back to just using Category:Murderers), though except in a case where a court has determined wrongful conviction, I could see it being very tricky to determine who belongs in it. - Jmabel ! talk 10:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, yes, I can see this as an argument for going the way Sbb1413 wants to go, because it is easier to have an objective criterion. - Jmabel ! talk 10:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if we go the "people convicted" way, does that mean we'd have to exclude murder-suicides? Would we have any way to categorize those at all? - Jmabel ! talk 10:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
going down this path it will just get even more complicated and out of commons' capability.
there are also people who are accused of murder (actually did something that's quite probably murder) but because of all sorts of legal procedures (plea bargain, turning state's evidence...) avoided being convicted... are they murderers?
5 guys together beat 1 guy to death on purpose. 1 of the 5 flipped and got a different charge. is this 1 person murderer? he's never convicted of murder.
also a murderer who's on trial but died somehow in the process? RZuo (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which gets to the point that using categorization as a way of collating data about a person is not a great practice. The point of having a topic for murderers is to gather files that depict murderers. Categories about people who happen to have committed murder are likely to contain a lot of files that have nothing at all to do with murder. Some will of course be only notable because of the crime they committed, but for others there will be a lot about the rest of their life.
That said, Category:People convicted of murder is a better title for the category if we are going to have it at all. Murder is a legal definition and only the relevant courts are able to pass judgement on whether or not a given act is murder or not. Unfortunately, as courts are a practical body, they rarely are going to try a person who dies after killing someone, so realistically many murderers will not be convicted as they die themselves before trial.
A person who is convicted of murder, but later acquitted still would be under this category, but hopefully in a sub-category specific to people convicted but later acquitted of murder. Josh (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes. there're many attributes of a person, but we dont create and assign categories to individual persons' cats (yet). for example, we categorise persons by nationality, but not by height, weight, hair colour, eye colour, armspan...
commons is just a media repository. there's no reason to replicate every possible way to group people/things. it makes sense only for wikidata and other wiki projects.
i feel that this kind of categories (about crimes) is one of those that should only contain most relevant files and cats, and not be used as an "attribute category". RZuo (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Inn on the Mile

[edit]

Isn't this the same as Category:Bank Hotel, Edinburgh and should be merged? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caution; inexperienced editor here!
Are these categories both just sub-categories of the building address; 82 High Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1LL.
If you merge the categories, the danger comes from choosing a common name, and all too often I see 100 years of history dumped in favour of something that is only relevant here in 2024, which is great until the business is declared bankrupt 6 months later. How long before The Inn on the Mile becomes something else?
WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When things change name/function we tend to change the name of the category unless the old name stays as the common name. Categories are sometimes broken down into by year categories like Category:Eiffel Tower is if there are enough images. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Couchois Wright

[edit]

Same person as d:Q111321518?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kunchadka

[edit]

Category is uploader's surname; is it also a topic or place? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of flags

[edit]

Should this category include every single photo depicting one or more flags? This is the problem I'm facing while trying to diffuse Category:Lahore Gate (Red Fort) with Category:Photographs of the national flag of India at the Lahore Gate (Red Fort)‎. Turns out that most photos of the Lahore Gate will contain the Indian flag, and A.Savin reverted my change at Red Fort in Delhi 03-2016 img3.jpg, which shows the Indian flag, since there is "no significance of the flag". But the significance itself is somewhat subjective. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't understand the value added of the Category:Photographs of the national flag of India at the Lahore Gate (Red Fort), especially if it is hopelessly overcrowded as is now, but on the other hand I don't understand why should we delete Category:Photographs of flags and all its subcats. --A.Savin 20:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment No, it should only include photos where one or more flags are clearly the primary subject of the photo. Photos where there are flags incidentally present shouldn't be categorized here. Omphalographer (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree with Omphalographer. JopkeB (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of prominence, i.e. exactly how prominent a subject should be in order to warrant categorization, has never been adequately decided on Commons as a matter of policy. Generally speaking however, it seems to make sense that a file should only be categorized by a topic which is sufficiently prominently depicted such that it could reasonably have some utility for a user seeking depictions of that topic. That does not mean it needs to the be primary subject, and in fact it can be relatively tertiary in the overall image. If it is still visible enough that the direct depiction and/or context provide any potential utility, then it should not be precluded from the topic category. Essentially, while some prominence is needed, the threshold is low. Josh (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree with both Josh and Omphalographer and the solution I think is applied widely and which I think should become standard practice is to only put files where this is the primary subject at the top-level or into due subcategories, that here are e.g. by country or subject, and put files where it's not the primary subject into separate subcats, here e.g. "Photos including national flags" (albeit I doubt such a cat is very useful but it does seem valid). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I've long included subcategories on images where the flag most certainly is not "the primary subject of the photo", but are a significant detail within what is shown. Does anyone find such category inclusion objectionable for example File:GentillyDirtyFlagRoofX.jpg? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me this one is OK. JopkeB (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Diffusing images of Category:Lahore Gate (Red Fort) into Category:Photographs of the national flag of India at the Lahore Gate (Red Fort) is problematic. I don't imagine that most people seeking images of this gate are specifically concerned about whether or not the particular flag is visible in the image or not. Some may be, but I am not enthusiastic about removing images from the main category to put them in such a sub-cat. It would be better if there were other criteria that these images were diffused by as well as the flag. Josh (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest Closing without action. There seems no objection to the existence of this parent category "Photographs of flags" as useful with specific subcategories. Discussion seems to be of best usage. The existence of this category makes no obligation that every photograph with a visible flag needs to be categorized in it.-- 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infrogmation (talk • contribs) 11 nov 2024 21:17‎ (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree: Category:Photographs of flags can stay. But I suggest to add a line to to the description that there is no obligation that every photograph with a visible flag needs to be categorized in it, that the category is mainly for photos where one or more flags are clearly the primary subject of the photo. --JopkeB (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CDC video redirects

[edit]

since when do we have categories for redirects? Shouldn't this be deleted? Prototyperspective (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, someone else was mass-uploading CDC videos, but were giving the categories fairly generic names. I had renamed the categories to "CDC videos about X", and I think I made this category to keep track of the old names, because changing the redirects or deleting them might have messed with the other person's project. I'm not sure if it needs to be kept now, but the individual redirects might need to be dealt with somehow. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point and thanks for explaining. Yes, it seems like multiple of these redirects should be deleted – somebody please do so. Examples: "Million Hearts®‎", "Physical Activity‎". Prototyperspective (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GIF maps

[edit]

Can this be moved to "Animated GIF files of maps" or something similar? The discussion linked in hatnote seems to be about something else. Categorizing maps by filetype does not make sense if it's not about animated maps. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep While non-animated GIF maps don't seem useful to me, they are are possibility. And thus such a category is useful for identifying those files for maintenance. MB-one (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Why would it be useful and for what? If it was useful to organize or maintain maps by filetype then this cat is still not useful as it's only misleading and not containing most maps of that type. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should contain all files, that fit the definition (see https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=29227863) MB-one (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect illustration for why the category is misleading and incomplete which is one of two parts of my rationale; the other being that it's not useful or appropriate/reasonable to organize these maps by GIF filetype; as well as why this issue should get implemented (currently no feedback whatsoever). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep for now. Category:Images by file format is an established maintenance category tree and this is a valid element of it. It isn't clear why identifying non-animated GIF images of maps would be any more or less useful than any other topic under Images by file format. If we deem non-animated GIF images as not useful at all, then that is one thing, but so long as it is part of the current hierarchy, it should be applied to maps just the same as any other topic, per the Hierarchic Principle. Josh (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see how Category:PNG files‎ and Category:JPEG files‎ would be when categorizing or searching files by that and despite of the mimetype search operator makes no sense at all and these cats include nearly all images of that kind. It's only misleading users, a burden, a timesink, and nonsensical. Images by file format may make sense for e.g. the
SVG files‎ subcat. Maybe I'm wrong about the JPEG and PNG cats since there are some categories set by templates but this cat here seems entirely nonsensical. If somebody was to populate it and the other cats, it would clutter everybody's Watchlist and the existence of this cat only facilitates something like that happening. It may need a broader discussion but something should be done...whether it's some bot populating this cat or deletion of this cat or changing the scope of the cat. At the least I wonder why people didn't put info there that this cat is very incomplete so people landing there are not mislead. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories of cities of Iran

[edit]

We don't prefix category names with "Categories of ". This and all similarly-named child categories need to be renamed (or merged, if the standard variants already exist). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I don't see it as practical. There are 100 more cities and 246 countries and territories, plus other locations, which use "Categories of". They are useful for listing relevant metacats, like 43 of them in Categories of Iran. The only issue is misusing these categories, like the case of Categories of Taipei. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is eminently practical; we do it for every other country in the world. The number of such categories (which many other countries exceed) is immaterial. Note that we do not have, for example, Categories of cities of Mexico. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: that's true, but most countries have holes in categorization tree. I'm not speaking about this, but in general. I do agree it's an ambiguous name and many may find it confusing, however, I'm against complete deletion. What should I do with 13 categories in Categories of Isfahan or 43 categories in Categories of Iran? No existing parent category is suitable to contain all. Perhaps renaming all cities and countries is an option, to something like Meta categories of Isfahan? --Orijentolog (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be equally redundant. The 13 subcategories of Category:Categories of Isfahan by subject themselves require renaming; and then should either be moved to Category:Isfahan, or all but one moved to Category:Isfahan by subject, which itself is currently categorised tautologically. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Orijentolog: There's already meta categories for a lot of this stuff. Like we have Category:Categories of Qazvin by year when there's also already the meta category Category:Qazvin by year. Making the former totally redundant. that's not somehow magically solved by renaming Category:Categories of Qazvin by year to "meta categories of Qazin by year" either. It would still be just as redundant. As all as totally circular because Category:Qazvin by year is a "meta category of Qazin by year." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking only about renaming Categories of Isfahan to Meta categories of Isfahan, not about renaming subcategories. Those titles can stay because they're implied to be meta categories. I don't see much sense in Andy's proposal for renaming or merging. Iran by year has 817 years, plus Categories of Iran by year for 88 different subjects. The same is with cities, Paris by year has 450 years and 21 subjects. Merging all that wouldn't be practical. Neither is deleting container categories for metacats because they help maintenance. --Orijentolog (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Orijentolog: It's called an example. Regardless, your still either missing or intentionally ignoring the point that Meta categories of Isfahan would be circular and/or redundant since it's a "meta category of Isfahan." Obviously it wouldn't make sense to make the category a child of itself, but it would be totally acceptable to do that going by how it's named. Ergo violating the guidelines about how to create and name categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a single example, there are hundreds of such cases among countries and cities. I don't see how categories like Categories of Isfahan and Categories of Iran are "circular". They are not. And there's no any "violation of guidelines", that's nonsense. To repeat once again, all "Categories of" stand for meta categories, as the note says on the top of Categories of countries (aka Meta categories by country). These are (usually hidden) maintenance categories and have nothing to do with regular categories. --Orijentolog (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see how that's circular then I don't know what to tell you. Either your intentionally ignoring the facts or have codependency issues. How about this for an example though and I'd appreciate it if you answered the question this time instead of just deflecting. There's Category:Categories of Jaworzno by date, which contains Category:Categories of Jaworzno by decade. That category then contains Category:Jaworzno by decade. We also have Category:History of Jaworzno by date, which again contains Category:Jaworzno by decade. We would also normally have "Category:Jaworzno by date", but it hasn't been created for some reason. Regardless, that's the normal way to create "by date" categories for locations. So pretend like it exists for a minute (or don't, I could really care less).
How exactly are or would Category:Categories of Jaworzno by date, Category:History of Jaworzno by date, and Category:Jaworzno by date not just be circular duplicates? Again, all that Category:Categories of Jaworzno by date and Category:History of Jaworzno by date contain is Category:Jaworzno by decade and their both meta categories for ones "by date." So there's clearly no difference there. What's the actual, practical difference between those three categories though? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring anything, you still don't differentiate between regular and maintenance categories, like Andy. Jaworzno by date doesn't exist, only History of Jaworzno by date, likely because it follows naming of the country (History of Poland by date). It is a regular category and include dates, like years, decades and centuries. On the other hand, Categories of Jaworzno by date is an 'irregular' maintenance category which contains meta categories. If it was a regular category, it would be named something like Jaworzno by date by subject. But it is not. As such, it is categorized under a parent category Categories of Jaworzno (aka Meta categories of Jaworzno), while the regular category History of Jaworzno by date is categorized under regular parent category. Perhaps the situation confuses you because the irregular categories are not hidden. We have hundreds of thousands of Meta categories and it is useful to have subcategories of locations, subjects, etc. --Orijentolog (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories of Jaworzno by date is an 'irregular' maintenance category What exactly are you basing that on? There's certainly nothing about it to indicate that's what it is and if I look at Category:Categories there's absolutely nothing there saying it's a maintance category or that other categories with the same naming scheme are either. So it seems like your just making it up based on if a category is called "Category:Categories" or not. Essentially everything called "Category:Categories" is suddenly a maintenance category even though there's absolutely nothing what so ever saying they are just because it's the only argument you seem to have for not deleting them.
while the regular category History of Jaworzno by date is categorized under regular parent category. Category:Categories of Jaworzno is categorized under the regular parent category Category:Jaworzno. So I have no idea what your talking about. The fact is that your making up this whole thing about there being "regular", "irregular", and "meta" categories. There's absolutely no difference between the categories what-so-ever though and most, or all, of them aren't hidden and are in normal top level categories. Your just inventing a system of categorization that doesn't actually exist as an excuse to keep the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed categorization ain't an argument. Categories of Jaworzno was not properly categorized, this was missing. First, Categories of cities of Poland, which should be under Categories of Poland (at the moment it is not), itself under Categories of countries. On the top of the latter, there's the note: "This category contains the general country categories of meta categories". Therefore, with proper categorization (also templates and notes), it would clearly indicate that category is for meta categories. Second thing, maintenance categories should not be treated as regular categories, under alphabet letters, but should be keyed or under some general maintenance category for the city (like WikiProject City in the case of Iran). Thus I put Categories of Jaworzno under the star key. Claims that I "make up excuses" or that I "invented own system" are false accusations from a person who thinks he is always right. --Orijentolog (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maintenance categories should not be treated as regular categories Again, what are you basing your opinion that "Category:categories" are or were meant to be maintenance categories on? Categories of Jaworzno or any other category doesn't somehow magically become a maintenance category just because you added the star to it. Things like that are exactly why I'm saying that's your own invented system. I asked you what your basing the believe that they are maintenance categories on and your response is that you added the star key to them. No one else is doing that or saying adding a star key to a category makes it a maintenance category. So 100 percent this is your own personal system. Otherwise again, what actual evidence do you have that "Category:Categories" are or were meant to be maintenance categories? It's a simple question. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're twisting my words again. I wasn't talking about Category:Categories, but Categories of countries (aka Meta categories by country). And no, I did not invent this category or its subcategories. It exist with the note for 13 years. Meta categories has two maintenance-related parent categories and the bottom. By continuing with false accusations, you prove that you are not capable for a rational, civilized discussion. --Orijentolog (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I brought up Category:Categories because child categories usually have to follow how the parent is being used. Ergo, if Category:Categories isn't a maintenance category then it wouldn't make sense or follow the guidelines for the child categories to be. Although the same exact question applies to Category:Categories of countries. What evidence do you have that it was or is a maintenance category? It's in Category:Countries and isn't hidden. There's nothing saying it's a maintenance category either. So what exactly are you basing your opinion that it's a maintenance category on? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orijentolog, regarding your comment, you mentioned the case of Categories of Taipei that was misusing, but it seems like you never discussed this issue with the creator. I would personally guess that the category is used for listing all categories named after Taipei, not listing relevant metacats. It's similar to providing people with an index to easily find categories. The format "Categories of XXX" is a effective option for those looking to manage their categories without compromising practicality on searchers. If you ave a better idea or better way to address the issue, then it's best to say so early on.--125.230.83.184 23:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
125.230.83.184, if "misusing" is a heavy word, we can use "misunderstanding". Categories of such format are made for listing meta categories, not topics. For having an index of all categories, Taipei by topic (like Taiwan by topic) would be suitable. That solution is something relatively new, it exists for two years. Indeed, I never discussed with Kai3952 about anything, but I'm well aware of his truly amazing job in categorizing Taiwan, and I hope he'll resolve issues and continue editing. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support There's probably an argument for having a higher level flat list for categories as long as the child categories are normal metacats that aren't named "categories of." The whole thing is just needlessly ambiguous and circular at this level and/or when the categories are named "categories of" though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution

Categories named as "Categories of X" evidently confuse even the most experienced users, so a major overhaul is necessary. It's not only about cities of Iran, but also 100 more cities, 246 countries and territories, plus other locations. Such categories are only for listing metacategories, which is hard to understand based only on the title "categories of...", unless one opens the four additional parent categories and reads the note at the top. I don't consider deleting everything a good solution, this can be done instead:

  1. Rename (actually restore) Categories of countries to Meta categories by country.
  2. Rename all individual cases like Categories of cities of Iran, Categories of Egypt and Categories of London to Meta categories of cities of Iran, Meta categories of Egypt and Meta categories of London. Categories that are themselves metacategories (like Categories of London by type) can keep the existing titles because it is understood what they are for.
  3. Put a note template on top of all those categories, explaining that it is a maintenance category for metacategories.
  4. Make all those categories hidden, also keyed in regular categories. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your solution is that assumes after the fact that all the categories were created for maintenance purposes and you've provided zero evidence what-so-ever to show that's what they aren't for. Although it wouldn't matter because adding the word "meta" to the categories still doesn't resolve the underlining issues. The categories would still be ambagious, circular, and totally unnecessary either way. But certainly shouldn't just add "meta" to the categories under the assumption that they are or were meant to be maintenance categories meant for meta categories when there's zero evidence what-so-ever that they were created for that purpose. Be my guest and provide some though. Your the one who keeps going off on about how this shouldn't be based on my personal opinion, but then your the who can't provide basic evidence to support your claim that they are maintenance categories. I guess personal opinions are fine for you to have though, just not anyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trolling and repeating false accusations. Categories of countries (aka Meta categories by country) with the note on the top exist for 13 years and it wasn't me who opened them. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one saying I'm trolling and I'm the making false accusations. Right. Right. I've looked through a ton of these categories and most, if not all of them, are tagged as CatCats and don't include the note saying they are meta categories. One note on a single random category doesn't prove anything either. Especially since in the meantime there's a ton of categories that you created like Category:Categories of Kerman clearly aren't meta categories because they are tagged with the CatCat template. So I think your the only one trolling here. You can't just repeatedly go off about how these are meta categories and expect me to buy it when the one's you created aren't even being used that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Missing note on the top is indeed an issue, all subcategories should have it. Having only {{CatCat}} which explains it's a container category isn't enough, because there can be a misunderstanding like in the case of Categories of Taipei (it contains subjects, not metacats, and that's a terrible mistake). I never said that these categories are meta categories themselves, but maintenance container categories that contain meta categories. The categories that I opened are correctly categorized and contain the correct subcategories, as same as Categories of Paris, London, Moscow, etc. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that these categories are meta categories themselves From your comment on 19:09, 4 September 2024 "to repeat once again, all "Categories of" stand for meta categories" but sure you never said the categories are meta categories themselves. And supposedly I'm the one who's trolling. Right, right. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to the content. As same as Meta categories which is not a meta category itself, but contains meta categories. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your just talking in circles because you have absolutely no argument what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pogrzeb państwowy w Chojnicach

[edit]

category lacks parent categories
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category to Category:State funeral in Chojnice on 2024-09-02 : This does not appear to be a proper name, so should comply with the category naming policy. Additionally, per the Universality Principle, Chojnice should be spelled consistently across categories. I would add the date to this to dab from any other funerals that may take place in this location. Josh (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social problems

[edit]

What are the differences between Category:Social problems and Category:Social issues? Both sound synonymous to me, and both translate as "সামাজিক সমস্যা" in Bengali. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping NeverDoING, who created Category:Social issues.​ Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question – probably best to

Merge these somehow (in one way or another). I could be wrong but I think it may be the case that "Social problems" is currently more structured/scoped like 'problems to/in society' (e.g. containing cat "Hunger") while "Social issues" is currently more structured/scoped like 'Issues tied to society, social relations, etc' as in sociological issues (e.g. containing cats "Extremism" and "Environmental problems‎"). Prototyperspective (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it is that social issues are more general and tend to effect society more then individuals. Whereas, social problems tend to be really specific and effect individuals more then the overall society. To give a few examples solitude would be a social problem. Social inequality would be a social issue though. But there's certainly no fine line there and concepts have a lot of overlap. So at least IMO they should probably be merged. Although honestly I'm not really sure how. I don't think there's a need for both categories though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:social issues - a situation may be a "problem" for a particular perspective, so "issue" is a more NPOV way to refer to it. Josh (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Timed Text by language

[edit]

these subcats don't contain most files and it's redundant to Category:Files with closed captioning Prototyperspective (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the captions in the files under Category:Files with closed captioning based on TimedText? If so, then yeah, it looks like Category:Timed Text by language would be redundant and should be redirected to the other one (as should the existing subcategories to the corresponding ones). --Waldyrious (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is the case. Videos with burned subtitles or softitles embedded in the file are in the Category:Videos with subtitles subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So please redirect this cat and all its subcats accordingly. It may be better to delete the subcats since there are many Files with closed captioning cats without Timed Texts in {language} cat equivalents. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waldyrious and Prototyperspective: No, for instance this file contained the files with closed captioning category before even any timed text existed. Arguably this may have been an unintentional miscategorization done by Czar not understanding the meaning of closed (at that point in time).
There are more examples, though. The category name files with CC suggests to include files that have subtitle streams embedded into them, not just the sidecar file approach we adopt here. Some of the linked files might have indeed closed captions embedded in them, I haven’t downloaded any of them to check on that.
On the other hand, currently the Timed Text categories are insofar redundant as all their members follow a language‑variety.srt page name suffix scheme, the variety spec being optional, yet this naming pattern is as far as I know not enforced (nor would I like to see it enforced).
@Prototyperspective: It’s worth noting that the Timed Text by language contain exclusively talk pages, whereas the Files with closed captioning categories (should) contain exclusively file pages. A plain redirect does not adequately remedy the situation. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 04:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional context and examples, @Kays! It makes sense that TimedText categories include only pages in the TimedText namespace, but I'm puzzled about the practice of tagging the talk pages instead. Is it because adding the category to the corresponding main page would show up in the subtitles? I would have expected that something like <noinclude> might allow that, but I'm sure this must have been discussed previously and it's that way because of technical limitations. In any case, IMHO this should be documented in the TimedText categories. Waldyrious (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes/no: The page content model is wikitext, see page info, so text gets scanned for MediaWiki syntax. (There’s a trivial edit filter preventing any edits not remotely resembling a SubRip text.) However, the SubRip format has no means to indicate a comment (a subtitle to be ignored) or the end of file. Therefore, 84user documented talk page categorization as the workaround from the very start. Another workaround would have been to append a pseudo subtitle
9999
99:99:99,000 --> 99:99:99,999
[[Category: Timed Text in Mentalese]]
but that only works on the assumption that no file would ever require 99+ hours of subtitling timed texts, and processors (media players, subtitling software) can deal with such subtitles without problems. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 11:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such hacks are not needed because categorizing timed text files is redundant (see below). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes no sense. Yes there have been some miscategorizations and the solution is with any other such instances: fix it. In this case one could probably easily remove simply all Files with closed captioning that haven't been set through a template using cat-a-lot since these cats should only be set by the template.
  • These examples belong into the Videos with subtitles cats. They also contain videos with embedded / burned in subtitles. Having these two neatly separated is useful for many reasons. I downloaded some and it did not have a subtitles one can enable/disable/switch and if they had they would go into the Videos with subtitles cat. One could also create a new subcategory for videos in there that have soft-burned subtitles that one can disable or switch when downloading the video.
  • And? Talk pages are not categorized with only very exceptions and it makes no sense to categorize a random 1% subset of timedtexts for no reason and without any usefulness. I know that these cats are for the files. Adding categories to the timedtext is a waste of time, not useful, and redundant. A redirect is not needed but could be done.
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you need to categorise timedtext by language, because the language is defined by the langcode in title. RoyZuo (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Group photographs in Taiwan

[edit]

From my experience with categorizing files that Taiwanese uploaded, I found that their understanding of “group photographs” as meaning two or more people appear in the photograph. However, the word “group” should not be confused with “pair”, which is a separate concept. For categorizing purposes, we'd better discuss the differences between “group photograph” and “pair photograph” in use. The former is more people appear in the photograph and including three people, like this: File:11.13 副總統參訪「東山水岸餐廳」並品嘗臺中特色餐 (50596017188).jpg, but the latter is “NOT” including three people, and must only appear two people in the photograph, like this: File:1111105新聞稿照片1-111.11.11勇奪第一追分站建站百年紀念票卡兌換活動.jpg. If the categorization is necessary for photographing two people (or together), I propose to create the “Pair photographs in Taiwan” category so that it correctly categorized separately.

My thought is to exclude photographs of two people from Category:Group photographs in Taiwan. Actually, I've already started doing this for a while before coming to here. Because “pair” is more precise than “group” in the categorization - and I'm sure that is helpful to anyone!--125.230.65.194 15:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The definition of Category:Group photographs is a "photo of at least two or more people", so photographs of 2 people in Taiwan should not be excluded from Category:Group photographs in Taiwan as that would violate the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cognition

[edit]

Is 'cognition' and 'activity'? This cat is in cat Activities but I'm not sure it really fits there...maybe it should be moved to a parallel cat linked from there via see also like a subcategory of Category:Processes. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal hazards

[edit]

This and especially Category:Human hazards intermingle hazards to animals/humans and hazards from animals. For example this cat has cat:"Natural hazards" set but also subcat "Bird hazards" which is about hazards to birds. Also lots of subcats and files are missing (see Category:Hazards for a more complete cat). Probably needs to be split. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, This is also the same.. Category:Animals on laps > Category:People on laps
As you pointed out, It might not be good. I want your re-categorize ideas. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in King County, Washington

[edit]

What is this category about? It includes (among other places) Shoreline and Black Diamond (legally cities) and Fall City (a census-designated place with no incorporated government). I believe the only official "towns" in King County are Beaux Arts Village, Yarrow Point, Hunts Point and (rather different from those three, but same legal status) Skykomish, none of which are currently in this category. Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It started as a way to simplify finding communities in the county. There are lots of small communities in King and Pierce County. Only the Category:Cities in King County, Washington had a subcategory. Comparatively, there are few cities compared to the smaller municipalities. Tracing Cities in King County upwards, other states used 'Towns in xxx County' as subcategories. I didn't know the definition in Washington of towns, but assumed such would exist, so I created it.
Now with further checking, I've found that there is a Category:Municipalities in the United States and it has sub-categories of Category:Cities in the United States, Category:Towns in the United States, Category:Townships in the United States and Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States. Next, I checked for definitions in Washington of Cities (1st): 10,000+ when organized or reorganized (10 in 2024); Cities (2nd):1500+ without a charter when organized or reorganized (5 in 2024). Towns are defined as 1500+ operating under the OMC (Municipal Code) (68 in 2024) and then 'Code' communities, unincorporated with 1500+ without charters (197 in 2024) and many unclassified, which may or may not be 'Census-designated' places. (ref: Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC).
Confused, okay, I looked at Oregon. Their state laws define a city as any governmental unit that is incorporated, large places like Portland, every county, every small community, as long as it has been incorporated. A quick look at Indiana and Ohio showed they have legal towns and villages. Without a uniform standard across the U.S. these definition have little meaning, as each state will need a written definition in each category to keep it straight. Also, back east, the reference to a village was common, haven't heard it west of the Great Plains. So, either we continue dropping every communities categories into the general county category and/or the state category or a general definition based on perception needs to be agreed on. I don't think Wikimedia users will have much luck trying to determine if the community in Washington is a Class 1 city, a Class 2 city, a Town or just a 'Code' community. Yes, the title Code is used in the legal references. I haven't seen any references to Townships anywhere west of the plains. If they exist, they're irrelevant to the public.
For me, I can work with Cities - large, economically significant; Towns - lots of variation, mostly locally significant; Unincorporated or Census-designated, when small or a remnant community, i.e., cross-roads like Category:Krain, Washington. If I don't agree with a selection, I'll ignore it. One is as good as another. In states that are pickier about names, that area can use narrow definitions, i.e., Category:Town of Pines, Indiana. I would prefer a way to remove 33 communities in Category:King County, Washington to a category that's just communities. I'd avoid 'Municipalities' as the Category:Municipalities in the United States is also in a discussion because the word Municipalities is not in any legal definitions, apparently. Chris Light (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good generic term in the U.S. is "populated places" (not "municipalities" because unincorporated places are not municipalities). That can be a parent to cities, towns, unincorporated communities, etc. As I say above, "town" has a legal meaning in Washington state (as does "city"), so we have to be very careful with those terms. - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perspective views by subject

[edit]

It's not really clear to me what a "perspective view" is suppose to be here. Maybe like a first person perspective, third person perspective, Etc. Etc. But the sub-categories and images in them don't seem to be related to anything like that. So does anyone have any idea what exactly the point is here? Like what's a "perspective view" of a bicycle or street? Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with this and would delete most of the subcategories too. There's no clarity on how images in the category are distinct from any other photos. Blythwood (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arrondissement Haguenau-Wissembourg in museums

[edit]

A very weird, parentless category that doesn't parallel any other that I've seen. It looks like all of the content in the subcats consists of archaeological finds/architectural elements in museums; the one image directly in the category is a painting possibly from this arrondissement. I don't think I've ever seen a "[PLACE]" in museums category besides this one and its two subcats. I'm open to someone clarifying the intent and fixing this, but otherwise I'd just get rid of it. Jmabel ! talk 11:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The subcategories contain images that were at the municipality level without any other classification.
So I created these subcategories to clarify and better order. Didivo67 (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Didivo67: But are those two subcategories of any use? Again, I don't think I've ever seen a "[PLACE]" in museums category besides this one and its two subcats. -- Jmabel ! talk 13:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have put two subcategories for now. But by looking only at the Haguenau Wissembourg district it can concern a good number of municipalities.
So I think it is useful to put in a subcategory instead of leaving at the level of the municipality.
I believe I understand that "in Museums" bothers you! I do not see what else to put since it concerns objects exhibited in museums from the municipality in question. Didivo67 (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partly that, but also that the only existing parent category I can imagine for it is Category:Arrondissement Haguenau-Wissembourg, at which point we might as well put the two subcats directly in Category:Arrondissement Haguenau-Wissembourg.
At this point I think I've stated my case clearly. You are still welcome to try to fit this category somewhere useful in the category tree.
Note to closing admin: if there is further discussion on this CfD, please do look at my views expressed above. I'm taking it off of my watchlist, so I won't be further replying below unless pinged. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and white photographs by Antoin Sevruguin

[edit]

suggested for deletion: the category is redundant. ALL photographs by Antoin Sevruguin are black&white either way. If the category is kept, all photographs by Antoin Sevruguin should be added to it (but I'd consider that overcategorizing). as of now, only a small part of Sevruguin's photographs are in the b&w category. JonasSebastianL (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

after some additional thoughts, realized that the category is a sub-category of Black and white photographs by photographer; therefore, it makes sense, and can be kept. I categorized all Photographs by Antoin Sevruguin in this category. as far as I'm concerned, the discussion can be closed and the category left as it is. wish you a beautiful day JonasSebastianL (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unusual

[edit]

Category - and its similarly-named children - seems vague and subjective. And is - for example - "Unusual railway switches" really a grandchild of "Humor"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think “unusual” is actually pretty clear and subjective— it means “uncommon or atypical”. However examples of “weird” things should not be included— for example, “rare animals” are definitely unusual organisms, but there’s no reason this perfectly ordinary tree should be listed as “unusual” just because it’s slightly odd-looking. Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete What is "Unusual"? What for one person, or in one culture, is unusual (or eccentric), might for another be completely normal or just fun. What is now unusual architecture, may be within twenty year absolutely normal. It is better to categorize files according to what you really see (or hear) on an image (or other medium). Architecture usually is part of an art movement or style, then categorize it accordingly. JopkeB (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep and rename to “rare” or “uncommon”, if necessary. I don’t see any other category for objectively unusual things like Category:Rare animals. Or things like this Dronebogus (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rare animals is problematic itself - three of its member categories are related to rare breeds of otherwise common animals; Category:Exceptionally fluffy animals isn't rare at all. Which leads back to the inherent problem with "unusual" categories - they tend to become indiscriminate collections of things that people found interesting or surprising. Omphalographer (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A rare breed is still rare. Dronebogus (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ISO speed rating 0

[edit]

This should not exist; category is based on faulty metadata. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or should it be kept for maintenance?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should not. We don't "maintain" this image metadata; if a file has incorrect exposure data, it is what it is. Omphalographer (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human sadness

[edit]

Human sadness, sorrow, and "sadness". Three categories for one emotion? 186.172.58.159 23:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UBUJYENI

[edit]

This is currently on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories.

Please add parent categories and an English category description. If an English name exists, the category should also be renamed.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian FOP cases/Moscow Metro

[edit]

Not necessary to distinguish artworks in Moscow Metro from other kinds of artwork in Russia. Moscow, as the capital city of Russia, adopted the same copyright law of the country. Therefore, this category is unnecessary. A1Cafel (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikibudayo

[edit]

Please add parent categories
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, also an English language description. @IHLubis, can you help us? You moved it to Category:Wikibudayo Mandailing today. How does it differ from Category:WikiMandailing?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first we didn't make a name for the location, it was Mandailing so we fixed it by adding regions or regions IHLubis (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibudayo Mandailing discusses all the activities and oral traditions of Mandailing
while WikiMandailing will be a category for various locations and has no connection with culture and will be a marker in various photos that will be applied to all photos posted by fellow Mandailing Wikipedians who passed the rapid program IHLubis (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. Based on it, I tried to added descriptions (and parent categories) to both. Please complete/improve them if needed.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terminal emulators

[edit]

1. Can this cat be put into Category:Command-line interface? Or does it need a subcategory or new category for that?
2. "Terminal emulator" is generally not an appropriate name/category-name as the purpose and use of these is not only or mainly or not at all emulation of a video terminal – instead the purpose is being the command-line interface where the user can enter commands. Should there be a new cat for that and if so how should it be named? Category:Command-line shell interfaces? This issue also applies to the Wikipedia categorization. The Computer terminals cat containing the cat is in Category:Centralized computing. The new cat may have Category:Command shells set and would contain File:Open Iconic terminal.svg. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. "Terminal emulator" is a standard term of art for software which implements the terminal window itself, rather than the software running within that window; see en:Terminal emulator. Omphalographer (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the text first before commenting. This is a category for discussion (CfD), not for deletion, and the questions, of which none were addressed, do not include whether or not it should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women smiling

[edit]

Look at the word order in the category title, women smiling and smiling women, I honestly cannot see any difference in meaning whatsoever. Further, the former was created ten years later than the latter, which shows that the latter can replace the former. Should we merge Category:Women smiling into Category:Smiling women?--125.230.80.164 10:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Smiling women into Category:Women smiling. I think we have a consensus to name human activity categories as "people activity", as evidenced by the presence of {{People activity}}. Let me ping Josh to verify the fact, although he is absent for about a month.​ Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Smiling women into Category:Women smiling: Sbb1413 is correct. (Has it really been a month? Geez...life!) Josh (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner I couldn't track record of your activity due to your unusual long-term absence. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't tracking either, no worries. My August was hectic to say the least! Josh (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree, Sbb1413 and Joshbaumgartner. Subcategories using the "people activity" format appears to be easier to manage linguistically too, from what I can tell at this point, e.g. Category:Women smiling with teeth (obviously) and Category:Women smiling while standing (as opposed to "Smiling women standing", i.e. "Activity people activity").

I connected Category:Men smiling and Category:Smiling men to the discussion, but I don't know if there are any other duplicates. Sinigh (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Old women sitting. Sinigh (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Komatsu-jinja (Katano, Osaka)

[edit]

Should be called Hoshida Myokengu. All the signs locally call it Hoshida Myokengu Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yasaka-jinja

[edit]

Should be moved to Gion Shrines Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimedia editor engagement

[edit]

Is this only about mw:New editor engagement or about the broad concept? If the former the cat title needs to be moved and some cats like "Wikimedia active editor statistics" be removed. If the latter, the link at the top needs to be re/moved. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description seems sufficiently accurate to me. Category:Wikimedia active editor statistics could be removed as it's also part of Category:Wikimedia editor statistics, but it's acceptable here as those statistics are used by the initiative to assess its projects. Nemo 11:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I was not talking about the description 2. There is no description but only a link 3. These statistics are not part of that project which only ran for a limited duration and also looked at or created few of the images in that cat 4. That does not address the other things re the title and unclear+misleading scope Prototyperspective (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Touhou Project characters by name

[edit]

I think we should upmerge this Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 14:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume to [:Category:Touhou Project characters]]? - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about all the other characters by name categories? Trade (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cave 18, Pandavleni

[edit]

Duplicate category, empty 2409:40C2:605D:36C1:D5E5:415B:C2E7:8FA9 14:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outlines

[edit]

needs to be split (or a new cat probably needs to created) with this one being about outlines (surrounding) and the other being about the overview-thing. Currently, at least two changes need to be made: removing Category:Tables of contents and removing the interlink to "Wikimedia outline article" on Wikidata ...maybe also renaming/moving this category title Prototyperspective (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nameplates

[edit]

Anyone know what the difference between this and Category:Name signs is? It seems like there's a lot of overlap and neither one is well defined. Really, Category:Name signs isn't defined at all. Probably everything in it should just be merged into this category. It's possible I'm just not aware of how exactly they are different though. Adamant1 (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiromanticism

[edit]

Anyone know what the difference between this and Category:Pansexuality is? It seems like a distinction without a purpose. Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It has a purpose. See en:Pansexuality, it says pansexual is a subtype of plurisexuality (also known as multisexuality). Multisexual (en:m-spec) includes people who are not attracted to all genders [eg. polysexual/spectrasexual, trixensexual/neptunic (not attracted to men), torensexual/uranic (not attracted to women)]. Check google:Multiromantic, there are multiple results, and en:Multiromantic, it has a definition. Someone can be biromantic while asexual, panromantic and heterosexual (not multisexual). So not every multiromantic person is pansexual. And not every pansexual is multiromantic (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] {5}). Web-julio (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't know if I agree with that. This category is in Category:Multisexuality which has the definition of being an "umbrella term for sexual orientations and identities where someone experiences attraction to more than one gender." Whereas pansexuality is a "sexual or romantic attraction to people regardless of gender." The difference between "more than one gender" and "regardless of gender" is one without a difference as far as I'm concerned. both are essentially about being sexually attracted to multiple genders. Categorizing people by who they are attracted to is kind of wierd and pointless anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tricolor flags of Portugal

[edit]

Excessive amount of overcategorization. The following categories were created today to house Category:National flag of Portugal and File:Zs6gcck1z3s21.webp at the bottom of the category tree, and contain no other media:

ReneeWrites (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You probably aren't aware that this is caused by the cat color flags template. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that template is causing these categories to be created, then that's a problem with that template which needs to be fixed. Omphalographer (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have bring this one up to the template's talk page SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template creates a bunch of redcats. So if you start with a six-color flag it'll create 5 redcats for 5-color flags, which (if you create one of those, and apply the template) create redcats for 4-color flags, etc. But the template doesn't actually create the categories, that's still done by users. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. I'm unsure of the general utility of categorizing flags by the colors present in them, but creating 40+ categories for each combination and permutation of those colors is absurd - especially when the categories are restricted to "of Portugal", ensuring that no other media can possibly be categorized here.
This isn't even the full extent of these categories; most of the category tree under Category:Flags of Portugal by color is problematic in the same way. There are probably about ten times as many categories as actual flags in that hierarchy. Omphalographer (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Take a look at the true cause of the categories, it is the cat color flags templateSpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bilingual English-Hindi signs in India

[edit]

Although it has various types of publicly-displayed signs using both English and Hindi, this category also has banknotes using both English and Hindi. Should banknotes be considered signs? Or should multilingual banknotes have separate categories? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes should not be considered as signs.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajasekhar1961: This is what I want to say. Banknotes using multiple languages should have separate categories. But I see banknotes being put under signs categories, which does not sound appropriate to me. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay

[edit]

What is the point of this category? Files about homosexuality go in Category:homosexuality; categories about gayness as in “male homosexuality” go in Category:Gay men or Category:History of gay men or even just Category:male homosexuality. This is just an indiscriminate dump category for anything vaguely “gay” related (and obviously gayness is a very broad concept that includes multiple definitions) Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge or soft redirect, based on enwiki. Web-julio (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tricolor flags of Ireland

[edit]

Excessive amount of overcategorization. The following categories were created in the past few days to house Category:Four Provinces Flag of Ireland at the bottom of the category tree. The categories for which this is not the case have been excluded from the list below.


Excluded categories (these contain media and/or populated subcategories unrelated to this CfD, I'm listing these here so they don't get caught up in case these categories get pruned):

ReneeWrites (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably aren't aware that this is caused by the cat color flags template.
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs by technical parameters

[edit]

These category hierarchies categorize images entirely based on technical parameters of the photo, like the aspect ratio of the image or the exposure settings of the camera. The resulting categories are, for the most part, not useful to downstream users - there is no conceivable use case served by a category like Category:Photographs with aspect ratio of 3:4 or Category:Exposure time 1/1600 sec, for example, as each of those categories are effectively a random grab-bag of photos which happen to fit an arbitrary technical specification.

The only reason these categories aren't causing database load issues is that they are (thankfully?) only occasionally applied to files, typically by a couple of specific users. There are about 60k photos under Category:Photographs by aspect ratio, for example - 21k of them in one user's personal category - and a bit under 100k under Category:Photographs by ISO speed rating; this is less than 1% of all photos on Commons. On the other hand, this limits the utility of the categories even further, since none of the categories are comprehensive.

If there's legitimate interest in making images searchable by these technical parameters, a better way of doing so would be to set up a bot to import EXIF metadata into structured data use existing structured data properties. Categories aren't the right tool for the job.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Beyond looking at individual categories, categories also serve to be intersected with other (topical) categories or browsed together with sibling categories. It's clear that having the values in EXIF isn't helpful at all. It's unclear if SD is of much help either.
For F-number/ISO/exposure time, I find categories at the extremes of ranges of values are more interesting.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK EXIF metadata is being imported into structured data. For some reason, I wasn't able to search for those statements with haswbstatement though. One idea would also be to automatically apply this category automatically from there like other SDC tracking categories. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per phab:T362494#9869450, Commons categories with many members (including SDC tracking categories) are a significant burden for the infrastructure team, and are discouraged:

[the table containing category memberships in] commons is four times bigger than the second largest one (enwiki) and in itself basically is responsible for 10% of all commons database and one third of all categorylinks tables of all wikis combined. [...] This is not sustainable. Commons needs to move away from this mode of categorization (to a tagging system for example). MediaWiki categories are not built for this.

As such: expanding the use of automatically applied categories to all EXIF metadata (rather than the small subset of files that are currently, largely manually, categorized) would be a catastrophically bad idea. Omphalographer (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's worry about that when and where it's actually relevant. I think the same person had similarly alarming language when they didn't know how to fix a trivial SQL query running too long at Commons.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of categories whose meaning is not obvious at first glance. These values are the basic values that make up a photo, not all EXIF data. Together with other categories, they are particularly useful for searching. They are also helpful when searching for comparable photos with the same aspect ratio, for example. They are not really a problem. I cannot see a reason for a request for deletion or for a discussion. I would also like to point out that not all visible structured data is also recorded by the search engine. That remains to be checked. And I would also like to add that I have very little (= no) interest in a discussion. It costs unnecessary time and energy. --XRay 💬 19:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you like to see searchable content, try ?action=cirrusdump. --XRay 💬 19:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to get back to you. I can understand the motivation behind the deletion request, but not fully. Not everything that you don't need yourself isn't useful for others. For example, I use the categories for questions such as
  • Which photos use a compression effect, for example focal lengths from 200 mm?
  • Which photos may have a spike, for example night shots with apertures smaller than f/14?
  • Which images fit on a certain area, i.e. aspect ratio with 2:1 or 3:1?
As far as I know, these questions cannot be solved with the SDC. Admittedly, the categories in Category:Photographs by aspect ratio now have strange aspect ratios - like 231:500. This is probably due to the fact that the exact number of pixels is used. With small tolerances, it is also possible to find more catchy aspect ratios. --XRay 💬 07:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be also add parent categories by ranges of values to these subcategories.
Sample: Category:Exposure_time_1/807_sec would also be in [[:Category:Exposure_time_< 0.01 sec]] or similar.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Voting as response to my (XRay) vote:

  • So, trying to query all images in the 1600-2000 ISO range times out on the Commons Query Service - probably because of the sheer number of objects it matches - but a narrower range (ISO 1700-1800) works and returns 14,669 images: [5]. This is substantially more images than are returned by your search for the entire ISO 1600-2000 range (1,779 returned).
    Same principle for exposure time: [6]. This returns 289,668 (!!) files; search only finds 4,476.
    And, really, this illustrates the problem with using categories for this. Even inasmuch as they can sort of be used to perform queries, they only work on the tiny subset of files which are actually categorized this way, and they're fragile. SDC is vastly more comprehensive and can be used to perform more complex operations. Omphalographer (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly, the link you provide isn't openly accessible. It's not even clear if the result can be combined with any category.
    It's a good point to bring these categories up for improvement. Clearly there is potential to make them more useful. Obviously, no category is meant to be exhaustive.
     ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not sensible to start the search directly. Your comparison doesn't work and I don't know what you're trying to achieve. It doesn't show anything either. I specifically wrote, together with other categories. That is exactly the recommendation for searching with regular expressions. --XRay 💬 20:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. You need to click the triangle "execute query" button on the left to run the query; when you do, it will show the results after processing is complete. Omphalographer (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nice of you to show me a SPARQL query. I could have formulated it in the same way, but not with the usual search form. The two search fragments are just examples, nothing more. And the other parts of the query, such as categories, are missing. The latter components are missing in your SPARQL query. Perhaps you would like to abstract the examples a little and not use them in exactly the same way. I think I mentioned my lack of interest in a discussion? This one has already cost unnecessary time. --XRay 💬 20:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one here making the assertion that these categories have a purpose, even in their woefully incomplete state, and that they aren't redundant to SDC. The onus is on you, not me, to explain how that is the case. I don't know what your use cases are, so I certainly can't "abstract the examples" to meet your expectations. Omphalographer (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer: First of all, I will return to the discussion area. Then I would like to make two comments: I don't see the need for me to justify just the use. Rather, I see the need to be presented with a coherent justification for deletion. Your examples show that you are confusing restrictions on the search function with the size of categories. Especially when using regular expressions, it is pointed out in the corresponding help pages not to use them without further search arguments.

Now to further questions. I have already listed three use cases, but I would like to repeat them again:

  • Which photos use a compression effect, for example focal lengths from 200 mm?
  • Which photos may have a spike, for example night shots with apertures smaller than f/14?
  • Which images fit on a certain area, i.e. aspect ratio with 2:1 or 3:1?

For me, there are three areas of application, but they are not necessarily suitable for the general public. Everyone has their own areas of application and I don't have enough imagination to cover them all. (This is why I am generally against deletions.) My three areas of application:

  1. Looking for examples of my teaching activities as a lecturer for photography courses
  2. Search for possible sources of error in my own photos
  3. Building up statistics for my own pictures

I use several ways to do this:

  1. the standard search function, especially for spontaneous queries
  2. SPARQL to search for specific constellations
  3. various queries via script using the Wikimedia Commons or Wikidata API

For the photo courses, I always need pictures with certain technical parameters. The technical values alone are not enough; keywords, for example, are also needed. The general search is used, for example, in the search for sources of error. The last source of error that I identified with the technical data was high ISO numbers - together with a category - in the images I used. I was able to significantly improve these (older) images with optimized noise reduction in my software. And I use the scripts to optimize and expand the descriptions of my images, among other things. I also keep a local database for statistic purposes on my home computer for statistical purposes, which I use for evaluations (via SQL). The local databases are maintained automatically, reducing the number of queries to Wikimedia Commons. This allows me to see how I use my photographic equipment.

I hope that this is enough information and that no further details are required. --XRay 💬 05:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

[edit]
  • Strong  'Keep'. Unfortunately, I don't have the foresight to be able to judge who could use which category for which purpose. However, reference is made here to the SDC. Perhaps someone can explain to me how to enable queries such as File: insource:/Category:ISO speed rating <1600-2000>/ (photographs with an ISO value between 1600 and 2000) or File: insource:/Category:Exposure time [1-9][0-9]*(\.[0-9]*)? sec/ (photographs with an exposure time of at least 1 sec) via SDC. I use this and similar queries - together with other categories. --XRay 💬 10:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  'Keep' List generation using category hierarchies with https://petscan.wmcloud.org is accessible and useful for downstream users. Currently there is also no substitute for categories in this use case. --Zache (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • tend to  Keep. I also looked up images by technical parameters; especially cats with extreme values are interesting and cover the state of the art. Crawling data from EXIF could be one extra path, but I am not an expert to that. For different settings of photography, you need different parameters. Larger apertures for bokeh, smaller ones for larger depths of field. In the night, you need longer exposure times, than working with sun photographs. Putting that in mind, a categorisation by different values of one photography aspect can be useful. Of course cats with more exotic numbers could be grouped --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Australian Railways T class locomotives

[edit]

Deletion is requested: images can go to category "South Australian Railways T class", i.e. without "locomotives". SCHolar44 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palazzo Satriano

[edit]

I strongly suspect this should be merged into Category:Palazzo Ravaschieri (Naples), but cannot tell for sure from the one photo here. Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the same palace, but I can't prove it unfortunately. wikidata also doesn't help. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added {{Cat see also}}. If someone is sure, they can merge.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas entries in progress

[edit]

These maintenance categories are parts of the largely dormant WikiAtlas project that I'm trying to revive. Unlike Wikipedia's maintenance categories, they are manually added to atlas pages with no accompanying template. Also, "fase" is not an actual word in English, it is spelt "phase". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luxury

[edit]

This category seems way to ambiguous and ill defined to be useful. It's also apparently just being used as dump for random images of things that look luxurious but probably aren't because of how subjective the term is. So I'd like to just get rid of it if there are no objections. Otherwise it needs a better definition then just "behavior or equipment that exceeds the average standard of living", which could be literally everything and anything depending on the situation. At this point it's a Luxury for a lot of people to buy a coffee at Starbucks. Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are also categories like Category:Luxury box, Category:Luxury brands, Category:Luxury goods, Category:Luxury hotels, and Category:Luxury packaging. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Luxury box could just be renamed to sky box or kept that way since it's the name of an actual thing. The other categories could probably just be gotten rid of for the same reason though. Category:Luxury packaging only has a single image and it's questionable the category is useful in that case. The others might be a little harder to deal with, but I think you could argue at least Category:Luxury hotels is probably meaningless since anything more expensive then a 60$ a night Motel 6 is a luxury hotel depending on the circumstances. There certainly isn't a clear definition of what makes something a luxury hotel or not and it's essentially just a synonym for the price anyway.
The same goes for luxury brands and luxury goods. If I make $10,000 a year and buy a $150 Lacoste watch then it's a luxury brand and buy for me. But for someone making $100,000 a year that same watch would be comparable to a cheap Casio. That's even getting into the fact that most "luxury" brands have different quality products and lower prices depending on the market. I can get a Kenneth Cole belt at my local discount store for $15 bucks but that same exact belt with a higher end tag will sell for 4 times that at a high end clothing store. It's the exact same brand and product though. So calling Kenneth Cole a luxury brand is wrong to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed feelings on this one. There's a concept here—I'd probably have called it "conspicuous consumption", not "luxury", myself—and most of what is here looks reasonable for it (except Category:Deák Ferenc St., 17 (Budapest), no more deserving of being here than several thousand other buildings). - Jmabel ! talk 14:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support renaming it to conspicuous consumption if there's a consensus to. Apparently it has a Wikidata item and some articles on Wikipedia. So it makes sense as a solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please  Keep at least Category:Luxury goods. It is a term that is used in economic theory, see w:en:Luxury goods. JopkeB (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, most of the files in the category probably need to be moved - basically none of them look related to the economic concept. Omphalographer (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they are goods that people will buy when they have enough income to be able to do so, and that is the point. The photos in this category can serve as examples for the theory. JopkeB (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basics of topology

[edit]

Seems like a subjective category. Some files in this category belong to Category:Homeomorphisms, which is not a subcategory of this, and lots of subcategories of Category:Topology could arguably be added here. It's better to use subcategories for clearly defined subfields of topology like Category:General topology, Category:Algebraic topology, Category:Geometric topology, Category:Differential topology etc. for predictable navigation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biological evolution by taxon

[edit]

100% duplicate of category Category:Evolution by taxon EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this was a duplicate last month, even sharing the same Wikidata item as the other category, so I turned it into a soft redirect to the other category, which was older, contained more items, and was created by the same editor. There is no reason to retain this duplicate this category. However, today, Allforrous reverted the redirect without explanation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allforrous: can you explain why you have reverted the redirect? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human babies learning to walk

[edit]

 Rename to Category:Babies walking per the Universality Principle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose They in many or most cases are not yet doing what can be described as walking or what is defined as such, they are learning to walk. Common naming schemes should not override usefulness and common sense, the cat is named perfectly fine. A parallel category could be created for Human (also not non-human ones) babies already having learned to walk actually walking. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Part (hair, 9:1)

[edit]

Categorizing parted hair by ratio seems excessive and exhaustive. This impedes navigation, not helps it. ✗plicit 13:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The naming seems odd and could possibly be improved. There does seem to be a clear difference between Category:Left parted hair, male and Category:Left parted hair, male (9:1).
Whatever its name, it's unclear what navigation problem this poses. Can you elaborate?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
一九分け = The word "Ichi-Kyū wake", often used in Japanese (Ichi = 1, Kyū = 9). It's established recognized hairstyle. How do you say this hairstyle in English? But not always 9:1 > only Category:Combover. --Benzoyl (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Benzoyl: Is it a recognized hairstyle or a description of the hair part? For example, this website describes "the most common ratio is 8:2, 7:3, or 9:1". Are the other two recognized hairstyles? Can Commons users make the distinction between these three? Is the 6:4 ratio equally as valid? Is it worth splitting hairs (no pun intended), categorizing hair parts by their ratio? ✗plicit 14:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: (Daijisen [7] [8]) - "7:3" = 七三分け is very famous Japanese word.
But, I didn't create Category:Part (hair, 7:3). The reason is because I think there (7:3) are many examples. Conversely, "9:1" (or 10:0, 11:-1, 12:-2 ...) is rare hairstyle. "--Benzoyl (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)--Benzoyl (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion, as above all 5 categoories.
Sorry for the lack of study. There are the preferable expressions, "Deep side parts [9]" or "Deep side part hairstyle [10]" or "Deep side parted hair".
I think better, above 5 categories to replace with this. Thank you for giving me the opportunity reconfirming Category-name. --Benzoyl (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from the Archives of Ontario - Sports Photographs

[edit]

Nominate for deletion.

This category is a duplicate of another: Images from Archives of Ontario - Sports Photographs. Mordant Fuzz (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did a copy-and-paste move. Maybe lowercase would be better for "sports photographs". I suggest moving this there and redirecting the other one.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the World

[edit]

This category seems pointless since it overlaps with a bunch of other subjects. Does anyone care if I just up merge what's in it to better defined categories? Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Allforrous (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment There are certainly books that would fall under this heading that won't fall elsewhere. At least have a plan for those before you kill this category. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking quickly at content (this is after Sbb1413's remark below, so after Allforrous made some additions), I'd say for about half of the categories here (e.g. Category:The Historians' History of the World) and at least some of the images (e.g. File:Visual Timeline of World History By Land Area Conquered by Various Empires.png), this genuinely looks like a correct parent category. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 and Jmabel: Allforrous has added a bunch of categories under Category:History of the World today, despite themself agreeing on Adamant1's proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genre

[edit]

I feel like the name of this category should be in plural form. Does anyone have an issue with that? Adamant1 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portrait paintings by year

[edit]

This whole "portrait paintings by year" thing seems pedantic and pointless. No one looks for paintings of portraits or categories related to them by the specific year. 99% of the time it's a totally meaningless fact that can just be put in the file name, description, or somewhere else. There usually isn't enough files or sub-categories to justify it in a lot of instances either. So these should just be up-merged to "portrait paintings by decade" or something. I don't really care, but the categories should be gotten rid of as to granular either way. Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category is relevant for those interested in fashion history and history in general. Removing it would oversaturate the category of portrait paintings by decade and would require adding the categories “people by year” and “fashion by year” to each image. The idea is to simplify, not complicate. Ecummenic (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think fashion changes that much from year to year. By decade sure, but we only have one portrait painting for the years of 1461 and 1462 and the fashion isn't that different between the years. I don't see how it over saturate other categories when most of these onlg have a few subcategories and/or images to begin with either. The most populated subcategory only has like 5 categories and a few files to begin with. Most have less then that. that's going to over saturate anything. But if it does the answer to that is to just create subjrct specific sub-categories for portrait paintings. Not create a bunch of "by year" categories that barely contain anything. It just things harder to navigate and find. Plus leads to a lot of dead links in the "by year" template. And there's never going to be portrait paintings for a good percentage of years on here either. Which I think should be a requirement if there's going to be "by years" categories for the topic to begin with. Some people on here seem to have a weird aversion to categories containing more then one sub-category or image for some reason. No one cares if a category is contains 10 images. It's better then having to click through 15 categories before you can find what your looking for. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I agree with Ecummenic: this category should be kept:
  • To prevent the parent categories of being overcrowded.
  • For those interested in fashion history and history in general. We, as laypersons, can think fashion does not change much from year to year, but experts do want to see the difference from year to year.
  • For navigating within related subjects.
JopkeB (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Lets keep the categories for "experts." Whatever. Did you even look at the categories? I don't see how up merging categories like Category:1553 portrait paintings will cause overcrowding anywhere. Even if you look at a category with a lot of files, I think the most I saw when I was looking through them earlier was 30 images and there was ways they be put in topical categories. 99% of them have way less files then that though. Like the amount of files in all the "by year" categories for the last 50 years except for 2 or 3 are in the single digits. So I really don't see how overcrowding would be an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wiki Atlas of World History

[edit]

I would have expected atlas pages here, but instead, it is a category of maps created for a Fandom page. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete; all of the maps appear to already be categorized more appropraitely. The original purpose of these images isn't a good basis for categorization, especially given that it's a non-Wikimedia project. Omphalographer (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get this idea from? Source website is a quite common categorization scheme at Commons. Exclusively non-Wikimedia BTW.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Fandom (formerly Wikia) web site isn't the source of the images; they were all created and uploaded to Commons by User:ZyMOS. The Fandom site was the intended use of the images (I think they used to be able to embed images from Commons?), but that's not their source. Omphalographer (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recumbent people

[edit]

Category:Recumbent people and Category:Lying humans are redundant to each other, and none of these are consistent with the consensus "people posture" category name, as established at Category talk:People by posture. So I'm providing my proposal in the tabular format, like Joshbaumgartner.

Current categories New category
Category:Lying humans Category:People lying
Category:Recumbent people

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"People lying" is an unfortunate-sounding title; it sounds like "people telling lies" just as much as "people lying down". Is there some clearer phrasing we can use here? Omphalographer (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "people lying down" will be better, as you suggested. But the parent category is called simply Category:Lying, which is not about telling lies. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither seem ideal.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999, @Omphalographer, @Sbb1413 That is just the limitations inherent in using the English language. If Category:Lying is too easily confused for lying as in telling lies, then the main category should be considered for dabbing. In any case, this category should match that category in its naming per the Universality Principle. For the time being, that is simply "lying". The question is whether it should be before or after 'people', and on that score, I don't think either are more or less confused with telling lies. Josh (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also ;Category:Prone humans Category:Recumbent people (prone), etc. and Category:Supine humans to consider.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999, @Sbb1413, it seems this category is confused between whether it is depicting the action of lying down, or the posture after one has already laid down. We have adopted the "'people' 'action'" order for activities, but when it comes to posture, there isn't a set order, which these other examples show. Josh (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports competitors

[edit]

What are the differences between Category:Sports competitors (athletes) and Category:Sportspeople, and that of Category:Sportspeople and Category:People in sports? My native tongue Bengali is unable to make these distinctions. It uses "ক্রীড়াবিদ" or "খেলোয়াড়" for people directly involved in sports, and "ক্রীড়া ব্যক্তিত্ব" for all people involved in sports, directly or not. I'm showing the problem in a tabular format shortly, as it will be easily digestible. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"People in sports" categories
Bengali term(s) Definition Corresponding English categories
ক্রীড়াবিদ/খেলোয়াড় People directly involved in sports. Category:Sports competitors (athletes), Category:Sportspeople
ক্রীড়া ব্যক্তিত্ব All people involved in sports, directly or indirectly. Category:People in sports, Category:Sportspeople

By the way, I often use the term "sportsman" for male athletes, and "sportswoman" for female athletes. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've visited Dictionary.com for definitions. Here's what I found:
  • athlete: "a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill."
  • sportsperson: "a person who takes part in sports, esp of the outdoor type". It cities Collins English Dictionary.
  • sportsman: "a man who engages in sports, sports, especially in some open-air sport, as hunting, fishing, racing, etc."
It looks like the terms "athlete" and "sportsperson" are nearly synonymous, which explains why Bengali is unable to distinguish the two terms. "People in sports" is self-explanatory, and it directly translates to "ক্রীড়া ব্যক্তিত্ব" in Bengali. Actually, there was a discussion on the athletes vs sportspeople issue at Bengali Wikipedia's village pump (bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:আলোচনাসভা), and one user suggested using "ক্রীড়াব্যক্তিত্ব" (without the space) for sportspeople. However, there were no discussion on which term to use for "people in sports". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term "athlete" was abandoned a while back because it's ambiguous. In some countries (including the US), it can mean anyone who participates in any sport. In other countries, it's specific to people in what the US calls "track and field", and other places call "athletics".
As for "athlete" and "sportsperson" being nearly synonymous, I think that "sportsperson" includes people who don't play a sport, such as coaches. "Athlete" wouldn't include coaches (except those coaches who participated earlier in their careers). -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "athlete" was abandoned a while back because it's ambiguous. In some countries (including the US), it can mean anyone who participates in any sport. In other countries, it's specific to people in what the US calls "track and field", and other places call "athletics".

@Auntof6: No English dictionary restricts the term "athlete" to someone participating in "track and field" or "athletics", let alone non-American ones. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term (without any national qualifier) as "a person who is very good at sports or physical exercise, especially one who competes in organized events". Its "American Dictionary" defines the term as "a person who is trained or skilled in a sport and esp. one who regularly competes with others in organized events". In India, we have a lot of "athletic clubs" and none of them are restricted to what we call "athletics".

As for "athlete" and "sportsperson" being nearly synonymous, I think that "sportsperson" includes people who don't play a sport, such as coaches. "Athlete" wouldn't include coaches (except those coaches who participated earlier in their careers).

Yes, coaches, referees and umpires may be counted as sportspeople but not as athletes. I missed that point. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: I didn't say there was a dictionary that restricted the term. I said that Commons stopped using it because it's used in different ways in different places. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment For those wondering why I've nominated Commons categories for terminology issues at Bengali Wikipedia, I have nominated them because it is very hard to make a distinction between Category:Sports competitors (athletes) and Category:Sportspeople, given the English definitions are similar, and Bengali does not have separate terms for them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kamalapur Railway Station by year

[edit]

All subcats are named "<year> at Kamalapur Railway Station". I think we write "Kamalapur Railway Station in <year>" when it comes to individual structures, and "<year> in Dhaka" for places. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novobelokatay

[edit]

Следует удалить Belokatay patriot (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Tule station

[edit]

Delete category, duplicant, Use "Tule station, Gotland" VisbyStar (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Creamery in Tatev

[edit]

Необходимо удаление в связи с ненадобностью Well-read MountainMan (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, there is no creamery in Tatev. - Kareyac (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Obvious mistake by the creator. --Telford (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books of Italy

[edit]

What is the difference between Category:Books of Italy, Category:Books in Italy, and Category:Books from Italy (similar for other countries, if applicable)? Do we need a books / country category for every possible pronoun?! Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt: In my opinion, Category:Books in Italy means books located in Italy, Category:Books from Italy means books originated from Italy, and Category:Books of Italy means books associated with Italy in some way. I believe Category:Books of Italy is an umbrella category covering both Category:Books in Italy and Category:Books from Italy. Pinging Joshbaumgartner who knows better on how to use these prepositions (not "pronouns") properly.​ Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation. I'm not sure if this category is needed (we could just have its child categories go directly in the various parent categories), but it's harmless. - Jmabel ! talk 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand "books originated from Italy", but I don't understand "books located in Italy". What is the latter category supposed to contain? If I photograph a book on my desk at home, should the photo go to Category:Books in Germany, and when I take that book with me during my holiday in Italy, and I photograph it there, should the photo go to Category:Books in Italy? I don't understand the purpose of this category.
As for "books associated with Italy", this is indeed a very vague and general name. Should the photo of my book taken in Germany also go to Category:Books of Italy (it is associated with Italy since I'll take it there temporarily)?
Please keep in mind that a category name should be understandable not just by its creator, but by arbitrary users of Commons. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the photo you mention would be valid in Category:Books in Germany, though I understand why in that case there would seem to be little value in such categorization. The intent of the 'books in country' categorization is more aimed at notable books which exist on display or in collections in a country, but doesn't exclude any depiction of a book depicted within a given country.
"Of" is indeed a catchall, as you describe, though ideally it would be more specifically diffused from there to be more useful.
Sbb1413 is completely correct regarding the structure of these categories. Josh (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landslides at Mount Etna

[edit]

no landslide at mount etna, just lava flow GioviPen GP msg 20:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

excessive and superfluous overcategorization diffused in subcategories of Mount Etna, this is just an example GioviPen GP msg 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lunar sample displays

[edit]

Most subcats (excluding Apollo 11 and 17 ones) need to be renamed as "Lunar sample displays in <place>", as these subcats are about lunar samples displayed in a given place. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gaffron (coat of arms)

[edit]

Redundant and not useful, because Category:Coats of arms of Gaffron family already exists. GerritR (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe auch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaffron_(Adelsgeschlecht), demnach passen die Wappen nicht in die Polnische Wappentradition. Richtig ist die sonst übliche Einsortierung in "Coats of arms of Gaffron family". GerritR (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An IP tried to remove the template about this discussion from the category. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gaffron_(coat_of_arms)&action=history --GerritR (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch people

[edit]

Header 3

[edit]

Category:Images by topic

[edit]

 Delete. Same criterion as Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images by subject. Pinging participants from the previous discussion.​​​​​ Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong keep Various other media types are sorted by topic. Upermerging does not make sense. Basically no deletion rationale has been given. Sorting images by topic makes a lot of sense. It is useful to find categories for images by subject. It really needs to be kept and is a very useful category with some subcats and probably more subcats getting added over time. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: aren't we in danger here of duplicating almost the entire category tree? How does the rationale to keep this differ from the (rejected) rationale to keep Category:Images by subject? - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't know what category you tree or which rationale you refer to. It makes no sense to delete this category and is very inconsistent. The other cats in Category:Media types all have by subjects or by topic subcategories such as Category:Animations by subject‎. Why do people suddenly want to censor or delete all by subjects/topic categories? They are the most useful subcategories to find things you're looking. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: I will presume you are in good faith in saying you don't know what I am referring to, and will expand on what I said. What I am saying is that if we build out an entire tree of "images of this", "images of that", etc., the vast majority of categories on Commons will have such a subcategory, and many, possibly a majority, will have all of their content in that category. Tat seems to me like a poor way to organize what remains predominantly an image repository, and is likely to remain so for many, many years, possibly permanently. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point and yes that point was not clear to me and so far missing here. I briefly wondered if something like that is why e.g. Sbb1413 finds the car should be deleted. The cat is still useful for the cats it has and the pointers it may contain like a see also to Topics. Furthermore, animations and videos could be increasingly split out into distinct subcat which then makes creating also a category for only images easy. Often it makes sense to keep videos separate from images and a wrong assumption would be that if things are categorized as just described there would no category that contains both images and videos etc in one view. In any case, if there is no Images by topic subcat then the link to the Images category should be removed at the top right of the Main page (for being misleadingly incomplete etc and not a good place to start exploring to find media here). If the link is removed from there I may reconsider my Keep but other than that again the cat is valid and useful even if it's quite incomplete but it's worth it even if just for Photographs by subject for which the exact same rationale would hold but which is well-populated and useful and the same could and is taking place here. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically no deletion rationale has been given.

I have cited the previous discussion (Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images by subject) as deletion rationale. To quote the nom of that discussion (Estopedist1), "do we actually need this category? It is poorly developed so it is easy to think about other solution (eg upmerging and deleting)".

No. I don't know what category you tree or which rationale you refer to.

Jmabel refers to the keep rationale of MB-one of the previous discussion. To quote them, "Yes, almost all files here are images, but then not all of them. To stay consistent then, we should categorize images in the same manner, we categorize videos, documents etc." I don't like quoting every single participant's statement of the previous discussion instead of just mentioning the existence of such a discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also quoting Auntof6's deletion rationale, which is more solid than Estopedist1's one,

My thoughts:

  • The overwhelming majority of files here are images. If we try to include every "images of" category here, we'll end up nearly duplicating the entire category tree. That would be a bad thing.
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A link is not a rationale. Yes we need this category. And at least as much as any other of the hundreds if not thousands of by subject or by topic subcategories. It seems poorly developed but other cats are not deleted on that basis and its state is not that bad and the situation should simply be improved. A note about it missing many subcategories is missing and can be added. A category not yet being complete is not a proper deletion reason but a reason for fixing that, and the same reason was discarded for Category:GIF maps which is a far far worse state. Upmerging does not make sense and bloats the category above and is not consistent with the many other by topic or by subjects cats. It does not make sense and this may well be the most useful subcategory here.
Yes, almost all files here are images, but then not all of them
Should be changed. All files in Photographs by subject should obviously be photographs and it's entirely baseless why this would be a reason for deleting this cat if this was the case.
The category's hatnote says "To find images by topic or subject, see Category:Topics and Category:Categories."
That's a misunderstanding. I think it was there because the category was missing subcategories but the topics cat has many subcategories so people could go there to find files. However, if people are specifically looking for images then this category is what they could use and again its incomplete state does not warrant deletion, which isn't done for other cats, but for populating this category. Cat:Images is linked from the Main page and people going there should have a by topic subcategory which again is the most common sense useful one. A hatnote that shows these links at this place is a great thing to do and what I just suggested doing since the cat is currently a bit incomplete. It can thereby serve as a pointer for people looking for images by subject to related categories where they can find what they need but harder to go through since these cats are not just photographs or illustrations or images in general but also videos and so on. It was constructive to add this hatnote to the category and it's sad to see people misunderstood what it means or implies. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the vast majority of files on Commons are images, so this leads to duplication of categories. If you want images of, say, the Eiffel Tower, you look in "Category:Eiffel Tower", there is no need for an additional "Category:Images of the Eiffel Tower" category. Blythwood (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point makes sense.
In that case however the entire Category:Images should be deleted and the prominent link to that category on the frontpage that lots of people see and use be removed.
There may already be a category for photos of the Eiffel tower to distinguish these from paintings which may also have their category. Videos and audio files would also have these categories and maybe it just needs a bit of catalot work to make more cats have differentiated images subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bridges in Gyumri

[edit]

Прошу удалить, неактуально Well-read MountainMan (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jizō in Japan by prefecture

[edit]

All subcategories should be Jizo statues because there are also other artistic depictions of Jizo that this is not talking aobut Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this category should be renamed "Category:Jizō statues in Japan by prefecture"? I don't object.--禁樹なずな (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and gold objects

[edit]

Category:Black and gold objects and Category:Black and golden vehicles are inconsistent with each other. Use either "black and gold" or "black and golden" throughout Commons categories, not both. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Audio files by subject

[edit]

Should be deleted consistent with deleting cat Images by topic/subject – see Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/09/Category:Images_by_topic Prototyperspective (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos by subject

[edit]

should this be deleted consistent with deletion of Images by subject/topic – see Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/09/Category:Images_by_topic Prototyperspective (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep this, videos are substantially different from our default media type (photos), similarly to SVG files.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep--Allforrous (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photography by subject

[edit]

Shouldn't this be deleted consistent with deletion of Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/09/Category:Images_by_topic Prototyperspective (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious artifact shops

[edit]

Should be Category:Religious goods stores to match english wikipedia and to indicate that some of the goods sold here are consumable or otherwise do not really fit the definition of artifact Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FürthWiki

[edit]

duplicate and redundant of Category:Fürth-Wiki which exists since 2018 and is set on the images this cat contains which the user who created apparently didn't check Prototyperspective (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct :) Could the Fürth-Wiki Category be renamed to FürthWiki? It's the correct spelling. Kristbaum (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could easily be moved but now some admin needs to first delete the new category or something like that. Please do. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I migrated to Category:FürthWiki before seeing this discussion. I guess all what is left to is is to delete Category:Fürth-Wiki. I will nominate. --[[kgh]] (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original older category should be kept and be renamed. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had known I would not have touched anything. I think I made this mess even messier. :| As long as the result is Category:FürthWiki with whatever page ID I am all for it. --[[kgh]] (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clingmans Dome

[edit]

A few Wikipedias have followed the name change to Kuwohi, but most still have the old name, and the category move to Kuwohi has been proposed. Abzeronow (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support renaming category to Kuwohi. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the Climgmans Dome category should still be retained as a redirect; especially for the Wikipedias that haven’t changed the article title yet. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also; as far as I know; only the English and German Wikipedias have changed the name (unless some of them in Arabic script have); I have left a message on the French Wikipedia talk page (and a disclaimer that I used Google Translate) to request a name change. I also left one on the Simple English talk page as well. Will probably try to do so on a couple others as well. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and moved the Simple English wiki page. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I’ve also manually moved the article on FR-Wiki. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedias with a Latin script except for Cebuano, Danish, and Polish have changed over. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this CfD can be closed soon in favor of renaming the category on Commons. I'll approve the cat move once this is closed. Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would be in favor of that: I would suggest maybe waiting another week just to make sure there ain’t any objections. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mohawk

[edit]

This category and the ones it can get confused with, see

Not to be confused with the categories: Mohawk hairstyle or Mohawk tribe.

need additional hatnotes: What makes the Mohawk subculture different from the Mohawk hairstyle (and the Mohawk tribe, although that latter one is more obvious). Given the content of this category (which includes mostly people with notable Mohawk-(hairstyle)-like hairstyles), it seems impossible to distinguish between Mohawk hairstyle and Mohawk subculture. Also, the subculture doesn't even have any WP articles that define or describe it. Enyavar (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punk is a subculture, and sometime well after the hairstyle was first used by the namesake it came into vogue within punk. I imagine that is what Wieralee was intending, and for my part I think this cat should be fully osmoted (I think other people call it 'diffused' but osmosis is more memorable to me for some reason) to the subcats, on the basis of being an ambiguous name if for no other reason. Arlo James Barnes 09:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't create a category without attaching it to an existing category tree. Such categories are immediately deleted. When I saw that you did something like that, I wanted to help you and pinned the category where (according to my knowledge) it should be. If you think my edit was wrong, just correct it. Have a nice day Wieralee (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is merely here to collect images of punks with mohawk hairstyles, I'd suggest to have "Mohawk hairstyle in Punk fashion" as child-nodes of both the Category:Mohawk hairstyle and the "Category:Punk fashion". The "Mohawk" category would then be a disambiguation for the crater, the town, the ship, the tribe, the hairstyle etc. --Enyavar (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal (that is, to make a category:Mohawk hairstyles in punk fashion) seems like a good solution to me. Thanks to Wieralee for helping with the initial placement among the categories. Arlo James Barnes 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done (probably?): I made the debated category into a disambig and moved all images from here into Category:Mohawk hairstyles and its subcategories, which now include Category:Mohawk hairstyle in Punk fashion, and a few additional color-themed subcategories (with double categorizations if a Mohawk is both blue and Punk, etc.). There were also a few Category:Mohawk tribe images, that I moved there. @Arlo Barnes: does this look okay? --Enyavar (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, well done! Arlo James Barnes 17:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accessibility

[edit]

this should probably not be directly in cat:"Disabilities" but e.g. in a cat above it in a subcat like "Disabilities in society". "Disabilities" suggests or implies the scope of the direct cat is subclasses or instances of disabilities. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demonstrations and protests against austerity by country

[edit]

révolution française 2A01:E0A:BA9:4E70:BDE6:39B1:2E17:C441 14:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Special

[edit]

No clear central subject; this category should be deleted. The use of the English word "special" as a distinguishing mark in category names like Category:Special clocks or Category:Special relativity doesn't imply any connection between those topics. Omphalographer (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete for now if it is ever recreated it would need to be named e.g. "Special (word)" or specific things like "Customized products". Prototyperspective (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamborghini

[edit]

Header 4

[edit]

Category:Wir positionieren uns mit unseren Körpern in Unterwäsche gegen die Ausbeutung von Tieren! Wir sind für die körperliche Freiheit von Mensch und Tier und klären über Veganismus und Tierethik auf.

[edit]

I moved this category to "2024-08 vegan protests at Pariser Platz (Berlin-Mitte)" but the category creator created a subcategory with the same name. It is too long and that German name isn't a succint descriptive cat title and thus I think the category should be renamed. The cat creator argued that this should for some reason be the category title because that is how the protest was protest was registered with Berlin Police under that name. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimedia maps

[edit]

Category:OpenStreetMap and Wikimedia for example is not about "Service-specific Internet-related maps of the world" – should this category be changed somehow or a new category be created above it called e.g. Category:Wikimedia projects and maps/Mapping in Wikimedia projects/…? Prototyperspective (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Russia

[edit]

Can we rename this to Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia by id? "Galleries" at Commons refers to gallery namespace, not categories.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Crimea (which, concerningly, is categorised as "in Russia"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note also Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia with known IDs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: For some reason I thought that was purely about pages related to this and the template, not the actual categories themselves. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coding

[edit]

Code redirects here and many files and some subcats like Category:Code icons seem to be about software code. This cat also is not any where under Category:Computer programming. What to do – should it be split? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and convert to disambiguation between:
and anything else that people are likely to be looking for. Many of the files in the category are deletable as unused screenshots, often of plain text; others should be diffused to more appropriate categories. Omphalographer (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of files which were in this category have been deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coding. Omphalographer (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia article videos in English

[edit]

What is this? Please check the only two files. Should it be deleted? or moved? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I made this category in 2014. I do not remember why.
Whatever the case, merge to Category:Wikipedia videos in English which is the contemporary best category for the same purpose. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inanimate objects

[edit]

doesn't this new category mean that all subcats in Category:Objects by type except for Category:Organisms should be moved here? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead organisms are still inanimate objects. So probably the category should just be deleted as to ambiguous and general. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, one could subcat the Organisms accordingly but since that hasn't been done removing the cat for now may be best. I think there should also be a note in the Objects by type and Objects cat that this is about the large-scope concept of objects in the sense of physical objects...I think many people at least colloquially distinguish between objects and living things. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. I'm not so sure it would be worth creating specific "Inanimate cats" categories for dead animals or whatever, but you make a valid point that people usually distinguish between objects and living things. I just don't think this category is the best way to do that. Maybe there's a better way though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 and Prototyperspective: Yes, I have created this category to distinguish between organisms and other objects. Actually, there are various terms that can include or exclude certain things, depending on context or use:
  • The term "animal" includes humans in biological contexts, but exclude them in other contexts. Currently Commons adopts both definitions inconsistently.
  • The term "country" always includes sovereign states, but some people or organizations also include dependent territories and some even include constituent countries.
  • The term "road" includes streets in some contexts, but exclude them in others. Commons has recently adopted the former definition, while Wikipedia adopts both definitions inconsistently.
  • The term "structure" includes buildings in some contexts (especially formal ones), but exclude them in others. Commons adopts the former definition, while Wikipedia adopts the latter.
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. This seems way to general to be useful. Otherwise essentially everything that isn't a living thing could go in the category, which makes it essentially pointless. Plus there's already a lot of other better defined top level categories similar to this anyway. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever that things like Insignia and spikes should (or need to) be in the same parent category. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: I had created two other categories to cater to varying definitions of two of the terms I've mentioned: Category:Nonbuilding structures (has a Wikipedia article) and Category:Non-human animals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't really see the point in those categories either since there's no "human animals" categories on here that I'm aware of. So it goes without saying that any category for animals is "nonhuman." The word "non" is just pointless. The same goes for "nonbuilding structures." Ask yourself if Category:Nonbuildings would make sense or be useful? I'd say no. We don't categorize things based on what they aren't. Otherwise there's an infinate amount of ways you could do it with in increasingly less usefulness as you go along. That's not how people search for things or find media anyway. If someone wants to find an image of a bicycle they don't search for "noncar vehicles" or some nonsense. Your just creating a bunch of categories that are going to turn into useless dumps of random media and categories that don't ultimate have anything to do with each other outside of not being some other thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue there is humans are animals, so this is just a colloquial distinction widely known to be 'false' in some sense so I support the current solution of having at least that one category be named "Non-human animals". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't disagree in theory but then I have an advanced degree of any time I've heard anyone refer to humans as animals, let alone "human animals, and if your have a category called "nonwhatever" then the "whatever" should at least make sense and have common usage somewhere. Rarely if ever are things refered to that way anyway. Like there's exoplanets and then planets within the solar system. The later aren't generally refered to as "nonexoplants" though. marine life/terrestrial life, matter/antimatter, yin/yang Etc. Etc. Yin/nonyin is kind of funny but wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't really see the point in those categories either since there's no "human animals" categories on here that I'm aware of. So it goes without saying that any category for animals is "nonhuman." The word "non" is just pointless.

@Adamant1: The "human animals" belong to Category:Homo sapiens, which is a species within the kingdom Category:Animalia. Yes, humans are animals biologically. So Category:Non-human animals is a valid category for animal topics that don't include humans under animals, especially Category:Animal rights and Category:Animal welfare. In most other cases, human (or people) categories will belong to animal categories.

If someone wants to find an image of a bicycle they don't search for "noncar vehicles" or some nonsense. Your just creating a bunch of categories that are going to turn into useless dumps of random media and categories that don't ultimate have anything to do with each other outside of not being some other thing.

The term "vehicle" always include cars, so the category Category:Noncar vehicles doesn't make sense. However, the term "structure" may or may not include buildings (see :Category:Buildings and structures categories of English Wikipedia), so Category:Nonbuilding structures makes sense for structure topics that don't include buildings.

Like there's exoplanets and then planets within the solar system. The later aren't generally refered to as "nonexoplants" though.

Yes, we don't call the planets of the Solar System as "non-exoplanets", and we generally don't have planet topics that are restricted to the Solar System. If there's such a topic, we add "the Solar System" in the category name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Let's keep it simple and focus on end users: Who will search for this category? And moreover: who will search for calendars and masks here? Category:Objects by type is good enough to make differences, is clear and fits in the category structure. This category does not fit in the category structure (there is no parent for Inanimate). --JopkeB (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This can just be upmerged to Category:Objects (and its subs, such as Category:Objects by type). There is no need to group inanimate objects in a separate category, as they are already categorized from living objects by virtue of the later being sorted into Organisms. Josh (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Obviously ineligible submissions for WLE

[edit]

Do these historic categories still serve any useful purpose? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barefoot nude people

[edit]

 Delete, since Category:Barefoot is already classified as a type of nudity in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I guess it depends on whether nudity extends to feet. Is someone "nude" if they are wearing nothing but shoes? If so, then I can see the distinction between 'barefoot nude people' and 'nude people wearing shoes'. However, even if that is a distinction, I'm not sure it is one we necessarily need to diffuse to, so I'm still not sold on needing this. Josh (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: IMO such distinction can be made as Category:Barefoot, bottomless, topless people and Category:Bottomless, topless people wearing shoes (or Category:Partially nude people wearing shoes). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Agreed. But it ultimately derives from how we define 'nude', which right now seems to be a bit of an open question. I guess my point was that I agree with you for now that 'barefoot nude people' can be upmerged into Category:Barefoot/Category:Barefoot people (see that CfD for which one we go with) for the time being, but that I wouldn't necessarily see oppose seeing the mentioned distinction re-emerge in a better form in the future if it really seems needed. 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Josh (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: By the way, I have given a working definition of nudity at {{Category navigation/appearance/sidenote}}, and it now appears in most nude categories using {{Category navigation}} templates. We will continue following this definition until consensus for a precise definition emerges at Commons talk:Nudity. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, and am generally in agreement with your version, but there have been a lot of voices with differing opinions that I have heard over the last couple of years since I started working on this topic. I've been meaning to write something up for that discussion, but have been wanting to gather a bit more information and then put it all together and distill it down to a proposal, or at least discussion starter. In the meantime, I have no problem continuing with what you laid out, as it essentially matches the structure that already is in place, so barring consensus to change, we continue on. Josh (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brunel University RFC

[edit]

Only one file, which could easily go into Category:Brunel University logos instead, and the file is only tangentially related to the title of the category (it's a general university sports logo, rather than the logo of the club the category is titled after). Suntooooth (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suntooooth: thank you and this indeed makes sense. Lotje (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Six Flags

[edit]

Similar to en Wiki, there should be three pages here as determined after a lengthy discussion here. Category:Six Flags vs. Category:Six Flags (1961-2024) vs. Category:Cedar Fair. Cedar Fair should have never been moved to Six Flags to preserve the history of that page. Astros4477 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Sreejithk2000. Astros4477 (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was done as per request here: Commons:History_merging_and_splitting/Requests/Archive_6#Category:Cedar_Fair_→_Category:Six_Flags --Sreejith K (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item

[edit]

What is this category about? Why does it exists? In what cases should a gallery page be emptied, get a redirect and end up here? JopkeB (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do they get deleted from sitelinks at Wikidata? Mike Peel might bring some clarity.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a gallery (or other page that can have a hard redirect) gets redirected it will appear in the category just like when a Wikipedia article or other page gets redirected unless the link is removed from Wikidata. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I've added a description to the cat. It's an automated maintenance category by MediaWiki. If the redirect is deleted here, then the sitelink will also be deleted from Wikidata. However, there may be cases where having a redirect deliberately linked to from Wikidata is desirable - for example, where a species is known by multiple names, and there are Wikipedia sitelinks at the different names - or in Bonnie and Clyde situations, where Wikipedias sometimes have separate articles about the two, but we have one combined category (although in that case, we do have separate subcats, hence why I gave the other example first). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: I think it's mostly redirects to the corresponding categories. Ideally the bot at Wikidata would update the sitelink on Wikidata.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies and action. So:
  1. First somebody empties a gallery page (or another page) and gives it a hard redirect.
  2. Then a bot automatically puts the page is put into this category via MediaWiki.
  3. Someone or a bot removes Via MediaWiki the link to the page in the Wikidata item can be removed if that is the correct thing to do. Then the page automatically will be removed from this category.
Is this correct? JopkeB (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2) and (3) happen via MediaWiki, not a bot. (3) should only be done if that is the correct thing to do (e.g., changing the sitelink to a new gallery/category). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel I am heavily in favor of 3 being done semi-automatically -- unless we designate it as an appropriate redirect match to -- do we have a template that signals that its been reviewed by a human? Sadads (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any templates, but it is possible to specify on Wikidata that it's a deliberate link to a redirect page - if you edit the sitelink, you can add a badge, 'intentional sitelink to redirect'. That doesn't help with cases where it isn't intentional, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(3) could be done by bot, similarly as it does the inverse operations (add Commons categories to Wikidata items).
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected my conclusions. Is it now correct? Can I add them to the category, for more clearity?
Follow-up  Question: Why have those gallery pages being emptied? I see a lot that have a lot of images, up to at least 19, see Palazzo Strozzi, and the logo and manuscripts of the National Central Library of Florence are a lot easier to find in the gallery page Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze than in the Category:National Central Library of Florence. I admit, they are no beauty queens, but is that the reason to empty them? JopkeB (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sailko: Can you perhaps answer this last question? JopkeB (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! Galleries are a big unresolved problem of Commons, especially since wikidata came. In fact galleries often do link from Wikipedia articles, and they are usually hardly updated since 2008, and it contains just a small and random quantity of old, superseeded images. You bring as example Palazzo Strozzi: the palace has received a full new set of quality-eligible images, and those who were in the gallery were just the images the website should hide, in favour of the newest and higher quality ones, not something you want to see in the showcase as you jump from Wikipedia articles. Therefore that old gallery was not just annoying, but also misleading.
Another issue is that Commons categories are often already linked to a Wikipedia category, making it impossible to have a direct link to those from most of the wikpedia articles, since a Commons category can be linked to one wikidata entry only. A possible solution to these problem are redirects. I know it would sound a bit strange to those purists of wikimedia language, but there are a lot of positive consequences to this:
  1. You can finally link Commons categories to any Wikipedia article (through Wikidata's "Multilingual sites" field), making you able to immediately find all the available images about a topic, divided into subcategories and with the possibility of sorting out quality/valuable images, slideshow and so on.
  2. Searching from Commons is much more easier, even for thos who are not very into wikimedia language: any user who types just the name of a topic in the search box could end up in the redirect from the simple name and get directly in the categroy, where all the files are better displayed and updated.
  3. Having the category linked (even though a redirect) in the "Multilingual sites" field of Wikidata makes the direct link to it appear in templates, like the recently-added "Family Tree". Without that link in "Multilingual sites" it would just appear there a plain name without a link, with a note that (if you see it) it will move you to a wikidata entry from where you have to scroll looking for the "Commons category" field and finally click to go to the Commons category. It is quite complicate for experienced users, can you imagine for a newby?
  4. You can get rid of those poor galleries with just a couple of old files without going through a regular deletion procedure which can take months, and you will save chronology for a possible future reverse of the redirect and the recreation of a valid gallery.
Being said this, I found that redirects from ns0 (gallery page) to categories are really usefull, and I have deliberately created some in the recent past. So having a category that summarize those can be usefull (for some reason), but we can just ignore that and keep going on: Wikidata should not remove those link, as they can be very useful. I hope you agree in this, as the pros are much more than the cons. --Sailko (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Sailko: for your explanation. Clear. Sorry for my late reaction.
 Oppose But I have a problem with this procedure. To me it looks like a sneaky way to get rid of a gallery page which just one person does not like and only one person takes the decision that a gallery page should be empted. While the deletion procedure might be a long and inconvenient process, it gives the Commons community the opportunity to react (perhaps other people do value the gallery page in spite of the old images) and propose other solutions. Now nobody knows about the emptying, the creator gets an alert, but (s)he might have withdrawn from Commons long ago (since there are only old images in the gallery page, it will be created long ago). The community will never know what the loss has been, for instance a loss of information (see my remark: manuscripts of the National Central Library of Florence are a lot easier to find in the gallery page Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze than in the Category:National Central Library of Florence). So I'd rather have this kind of emptying gallery pages being stopped and the deletion procedure being used instead. Because if you can empty a gallery page this way (I assume with good intentions), anybody can, also people with bad intentions.
@Enhancing999, Mike Peel, and Crouch, Swale: How do you think about this procedure to empty a gallery page instead of starting a deletion procedure? JopkeB (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I think they are redirected to the category of the same name though I'm not sure if that's still preferred. Otherwise Commons:GA1 or Commons:Deletion requests can be used to delete galleries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB, Enhancing999, Mike Peel, and Crouch, Swale: HI, I understand in general about the regular procedure, and basically I agree. Just I would like to point out that sometimes galleries have less than 3 files (while the category has hundreds or even thousands), or the files displayed were mostly old images uploaded by myself years before, so I thought in such cases making a redirect would be equivalent of a speedy deletion. Since Commons has regularly too many procedures to handle, and they usually take many months to be completed, I would agree that "speedy deletion" though a redirect would be preferable in those limited cases. Thank you for your consideration. --Sailko (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it is only you who decide that galleries with less than 3 files or old images should be gone, while there is no policy for that. So either you start a discussion for those gallery pages, or you start a discussion to get those criteria into the deletion policy of gallery pages. JopkeB (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA1 only applies to galleries with none or only 1 image so if there are 2 it can't apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and proposal

[edit]
  1. This category is a maintenance category. But it is unclear who maintains this category and what should be done with the gallery pages in it.
  2. The procedure to add a gallery page to this category is:
    1. First somebody empties a gallery page (or another page) and gives it a hard redirect.
      1. Gallery pages are emptied and not get a proper deletion discussion to bypass the long procedure for a deletion request.
    2. Then the page is put into this category via MediaWiki.
    3. Via MediaWiki the link to the page in the Wikidata item can be removed if that is the correct thing to do. Then the page automatically will be removed from this category.

Proposal

  1. The royal way would be to revert all gallery pages in this category to the version just before the emptying, and then create proper deletion requests for them (with the possibility for a discussion, so not speedy deletions).
  2. If there is agreement about a deletion, a gallery page should not get a redirect again, but the gallery page should be deleted and the Wikidata item should be adjusted accordingly. These gallery pages should not be in this category anymore.
  3. From now on this category will function as a real maintenance category: gallery pages in it are red flags, they should get a proper treatment, like a deletion discussion.
  4. This category will get a description and a guideline how to handle gallery pages in it.
  5. Someone who does not agree with the current deletion policy can start a discussion to get other criteria into the deletion policy of gallery pages, so that more gallery pages can get a speedy deletion instead of a deletion discussion.

@Enhancing999, Crouch, Swale, Mike Peel, Sadads, and Sailko: Do you agree? Is the summary correct or did I forget something? Do you agree with the proposal?

@JopkeB: you did not read all the positive effects of having a redirect linked to wikidata I wrote before? What is the point if the conclusion is just delete the galleries and the redirects? I totally do not agree, sorry.
  1. nobody has much complained so far of those very poor deleted galleries, so why loose so much time in reverting all of them and make regular deletion procedures? I would agree for new galleries from now on, but if you have to open up all the terrible galleries we already got rid of, the time would be better spent if we would use it to make some good galleries instead, reflecting most the files currently in the categories, not just a couple of files form early 2000s.
  2. redirects should not be removed, instead they should be pushed further for use in Wikidata, for the application in the "Multilingual sites" field. Read at least the reason n.3 I wrote up before, and see how there is not a valid alteranative for that, as far as the Wikidata structure is what it is now.
I can only agree if the conclusion of the deletion procedures is the transformation into redirects, where necessary, since the categories usually cannot be linked directly in the "Multilingual sites" field. I would turn this into a policy, as for me it is very necessary --Sailko (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@1. I have no objection at all that people improve the galleries that have been emptied in the past because they only contain old of poor images. But I still have a problem with one person deciding on whether a gallery page should be emptied for this reason, because this is not a democratic method. So that is why I put so much time and effort in making this good. And democracy costs perhaps more time than other methods, but I think that is worth it. Why should people otherwise make a gallery page if it might be emptied just because another person does not like it?
@2. Why should you add an empty page with a redirect to Wikidata? You can just as easy add the category itself to the "Multilingual sites" field, where the redirect is going to. See for example d:Q8632151. And if it is not possible, see the "topic's main category" field, in that item it is possible and it is valid for the original item as well. So I do not see any reason to keep empty pages just for the sake of Wikidata. JopkeB (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JopkeB: . For @1 it is ok for me, but I also think there should be some trust on experienced user (more than a milion edits), but I will not complain about that.
@2: this is the key topic: use of redirects in Wikidata. No, the category is not linkable because often linked to a Wikipedia's category, and the "topic's main category" field does not have the same effect. It is slower, needs a sort of veryfication, a further Wikidata category entry, does not make an instant link, neither in Commons nor Wikipdia articles: you cannot rely on that for a Commons' "Wikidata Infobox" instantly, nor it shows a direct link in templates like "Family tree". If you change the name of a Commons category, with "move", when it is linked in "Multilingual sites" it is automatically fixed in Wikidata, while "topic's main category" needs as a manual fix. "Topic's main category" has a lot of issues and downfalls, that require very experienced skills. This is a Wikidata problem that could be fixed one day, requiring long Community discussions and procedures involving Phabricator. A redirect is an easy way to fix it quickly, that has no downfalls. Redirect is a soft link that hurts nobody, so why should we not use it? Please agree on this, then I will agree on your proposal. --Sailko (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short: I am asking if we can use a ns0 redirect in the "Multilingual sites" field when the category is not linkable. We can use a different category for those, like "Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item not to delete" --Sailko (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree: This would mean that Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item would be useless for what I guess is its original purpose: maintenance. Or with "Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item not to delete" you create another problem: you have to take care that the redirects in it will not automatically be copied into Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item as well. This makes it unnecessary complicated to maintain this category structure. And what for? If there is a problem with Wikidata, then it should be solved there, not here, not use an empty gallery page to create a workaround. I did not experience this kind of problems with Wikidata. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did experience the problems I listed, instead. How am I supposed fix to Wikidata? Of course I have not the skills to do so, otherwise I had already done. But you can chose or not to fix a minor problem (the existence of a redirect linked to Wikidata) doing a larger issue (untiying wikipedia articles to their main categories and files). --Sailko (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, why you never reply about the issues I listed in particular? Did you even read what I wrote? --Sailko (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of a Wikidata item with which you exeperienced such problem? JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. For example open the Category:Carlo_Buonaparte and the "Family tree" template. On the side of the sons you can see "Joseph Bonaparte" does not have any link, just a "[d]" you can click to enter his Wikidata entry: There you can see the "Multilingual sites" field has no entries, as the Category:Joseph Bonaparte is instead linked to wikidata:Q31993664. If you are looking for images you have to do a long scroll to the Property:P373 in order to jump back to Commons. So even if the Commons category is present in the property "Commons category" of Q7726 it makes no direct link. I found this issue as I was uploading images of royal tombs, and I had a hard time finding category names as I had to jump in and out of Commons a lot of times. Yes, you could create a gallery to link in Q7726, but making a good gallery requires time and maintenance. A gallery is just an extra step when you just want to find a category name, especially when it is a poor one. For this reason, in other pages, I have deliberatly created a redirect from ns0 to category with the purpouse of linking it in wikidata "Multilingual sites" property, and removing that redirect would also break the link in templates like "Family tree" and others. Moreover, the property "Commons category", when you make an entry, has not an immediate effect in Wikipedia, meaning if you just need a quick link from Wikipedia to Commons category (through wikidata, with templates) you will have to wait a few days to have it.
@JopkeB: , in conclusion, I think we should divide two cases of redirect ending in this category: 1) Galleries or pages whose name was just moved and needs to be updated (like Category:Il_Balletta that I moved some weeks ago, and BTW this only happens in the Property:P373 that is not authomatically updated) and 2) redirects made for technical reasons. We can fix and cancel the first ones, but we should keep the second ones, as far as there are no system updates. --Sailko (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I now see what you mean. I always thought that in these cases, where there is a Wikidata category involved (with a 'category's main topic" in one Wikidata item and a "topic's main category" in the other), Commons links in the category Wikidata item are automatically put through to for example the Commons category and corresponding Wikipedia's. I still think they should. Have you ever report it as a fault/failure/malfuncion, on Wikidata or Meta.wiki? JopkeB (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: , no I had a not-so-good experience in Phabricator, as I am not native English speaker and do not have technical skills to motivate my proposals :( If they could fix this I agree we could get rid of "technical" redirects in wikidata --Sailko (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the problem on d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Problem_with_Commons_categories_in_Multilingual_sites. Would you please check whether the formulation is correct? JopkeB (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Thank you so much! I hope they can fix this and make it easier for all. BTW: I will be out of internet for about 3 weeks from now. I will sometimes check notifications here, but probably I will not post, so in case there are important updates please wait a little longer to take conclusions. Thank you again! --Sailko (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I did not get any answer on Wikidata, I try it on Commons:Village pump/Technical#Problem with Commons categories in Multilingual sites in Wikidata, consequences for Commons.--JopkeB (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pictures of the Year (galleries)

[edit]

The name is problematic as "Galleries" at Commons aren't categories. There is Category:Pictures of the Year (by year) for the annual subcategories. These could be removed and the category for the remaining subcategories named "by place".
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nom. We usually reserve the term "gallery" for mainspace pages in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - the name is deceptive Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:玄史生 files uploaded by Solomon203 from Flickr

[edit]

This category is not created by the user, pinging @Solomon203: to see if the user wish to keep this or not A1Cafel (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems redundant to Category:Flickr files uploaded by Solomon203 in 2024 created by Solomon203.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos in English

[edit]

I think this should be merged with Category:Instructional videos on using Wikimedia Commons in English‎. There are several other categories where the same thing could be done. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikidata video tutorials

[edit]

should probably be merged with Category:Wikidata videos. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Instructional videos on using Wikimedia Commons

[edit]

should probably be merged to Category:Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Instructional videos on using Wikidata

[edit]

should this be merged to Category:Wikidata videos? Prototyperspective (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is ok for me, no problem. :-) --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from diseases and disorders

[edit]

I think these cats, espeically Category:Disease-related deaths by country, should be split by people categories (and images) and statistics thereof. This may renamings of cats like "People who died from diseases and disorders". For example see Category:Deaths from cancer in the United States which has several charts. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rail transport accidents in Germany

[edit]

is this subcategorized so that one can add Category:Deutsche Bahn to any subcat? It was previously set only on arbitrary "2021 Fallersleben rail accident‎" and "Zugkollision Leiferde Dalldorf vom 17. November 2022‎" Prototyperspective (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Could please explain this Cfd request again? I don't understand the nomination here. Category:Deutsche Bahn is a german rail company created in 1994, but Category:Rail transport accidents in Germany covers rail transport accidents in Germany across decades and companies. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but only a subcat for DB-related accidents belong into "Rail transport accidents in Germany". Individual accidents don't belong in there directly. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see individual accidents are usually categorised within the proper subcats by decade (which we see straight within Category:Rail transport accidents in Germany) and also by state. I don't see specific subcategories to categorise rail transport accidents additionally by company resp. companies involved. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine. Please simply don't add them to the Rail transport accidents in Germany cat or the Deutsche Bahn cat directly. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. If I happen to see such a mistake, I will help our colleagues to categorise properly. I suggest to close this Cfd now,  Keep. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as long as Deutsche Bahn is active internationally (see at Category:Subsidiaries of Deutsche Bahn), it doesn't make sense to have this company's accident category within Category:Rail transport accidents in Germany, not at all. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Esperanto 1887-1908

[edit]

This and similar categories don't seem to add anything that isn't provided by, and better structured under, Category:Esperanto by decade‎ and Category:Esperanto by year. The periods seem arbritrary and all but one has a one-year overlap with adjacent categories. Sinigh (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete:
Sinigh (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of this category are also better organized by the by-year categories and e.g. Category:Books in Esperanto:
Sinigh (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sinigh, thanks for the consideration. Your arguments make sense. Then in the days, I recreated historical periods (they are not necessariliy arbitrary) not thinking about the nature and characteristics of WMC. Ziko van Dijk (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I feel like I should apologize; the "by decade/year" branches are much later additions that didn't exist until over a decade after the timeline structure that your categories provided. It was obviously good idea to create them, too.
Would you say that the "by decade/year" have replaced the above categories, or do you think it would make sense to include (versions of) them in a category like "Esperanto by period"? Sinigh (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geology by decade

[edit]

Category:History of geology was just added but this cat contains cats like Category:Volcanic eruptions in 2023‎ while geology is Study of the composition, structure, physical properties, and history of Earth's components, and the processes by which they are shaped, a branch of natural science so natural events would not fall under it, only the study thereof. Probably this needs restructuring so only (partly new) subcats about the research/study are included here but there are also alternatives like renaming. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judges from the United States

[edit]

Also the various subcategories by US state etc. Category not about place of origin, but rather where they work. Eg, a judge on the court of a given state may be from a different state or another country (where they are from) but they do not work in the role of a judge of where they are from. Where they work as a judge is is important. From history I see that the category was from 2006 to 2008 at the much more accurate and appropriate name "Judges of", but was moved to "Judges from" by SieBot - if there was any explanation or discussion I do not see it. I propose moving back to the "of" formulation. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create Category:Judges of the United States as a parent of this category. Infrogmation is right, "from" refers to the place of origin. However, "of" is a catchall term, which would contain judges somehow associated with the United States, including the place of origin ("from") and the place of location ("in"). Joshbaumgartner and others have used this scheme with "of" as the parent, and "from" and "in" as children. This is what I also follow. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photos and videos from unmanned aerial vehicles by country

[edit]

these should be moved to just be about photos; they contain nearly no videos which are separately located in Category:Drone videos by country Prototyperspective (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Categories#Selectivity principle. Videos are not photographs and they should not be in Category:Aerial photographs by country and its subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Media from unmanned aerial vehicles in Colombia for an example – category was moved and files put into subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Views of cities from above

[edit]

1. Shouldn't this be merged somehow with Category:Aerial photographs of cities?
2. Wouldn't Category:Cities from above be a better clearer more findable name including more expectable subcats like Category:London from above instead of just Category:Aerial photographs of London (if it should instead be a subcat please explain why)? It would contain files like 1 and 2 and maybe one should distinguish between top views (like from drones straight down) and from elevated positions (like high buildings) Prototyperspective (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your first point, as you've indicated in your second point not all views from above are aerial views. The latter are images from airplanes, helicopters, drones/UAVs, hot air balloons etc., but should exclude images taken from inside tall buildings (or from outside, such as from the EdgeWalk). I'm indifferent on the naming of the category; when I created it, I was following the naming structure of categories that already existed at the time. Mindmatrix 17:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. So I'd like to move the 'Views of …' categories in Category:Views from above by subject and the subcategories here to the '{subject} from above' naming scheme. This is to harmonize category names with this standard, to make the cats more findable, and to make it show up in the HotCat autocomplete when entering {subject} as is a common practice. I added the discussion note to that category and half of them already have the {subject} from above naming. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be merged somehow with Category:Aerial photographs of cities?

No, Category:Aerial photographs of cities includes only photos from above, while Category:Views of cities from above also include paintings and videos from above.

Wouldn't Category:Cities from above be a better clearer more findable name including more expectable subcats like Category:London from above instead of just Category:Aerial photographs of London (if it should instead be a subcat please explain why)? It would contain files like 1 and 2 and maybe one should distinguish between top views (like from drones straight down) and from elevated positions (like high buildings)

Cities from above is a better alternative of Category:Views of cities from above, as it does away with the redundant "views of". However, Category:London from above should be a parent of Category:Aerial photographs of London, because, as I have said, "aerial photographs" means no paintings or videos from above, only photos. We already have separate Category:Views from aircraft (planes, drones, helicopters) and Category:Views from buildings (Category:Views from roofs and Category:Views from top storeys), which help distinguish between two types of views from above (not "top views", as we have reserved the term for aerial shots of objects perpendicular to the camera). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. With merging I meant still having subcats for things like paintings and videos. I see how it shouldn't be merged like that now. I agree with what you said. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tollbooths and toll gates

[edit]

Confusing category structure, especially for non-native English speakers. Which is the top category here? Category:Toll plazas or Category:Tollbooths and toll gates? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic-waveform: Neither is. They are different things that can exist independently. A previous CFD that discussed this is at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Toll gates. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. For context, I'm not a native English speaker and therefore don't quite grasp the difference between each of the terms. I was trying to categorize File:East Link Bridge Toll Booths - geograph.org.uk - 5417618.jpg. The directory structure confused me instead of helping me make the best choice. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic-waveform and Auntof6: I had created this category for structures that are either tollbooths, toll gates, or both. The discussion is on whether the two things are separate, and it turns out that both may or may not coexist. East Link Bridge Toll Booths - geograph.org.uk - 5417618.jpg shows both tollbooths and toll gates, where tollbooths are the arches and toll gates are the checkpoints attached to the arches. Maybe Category:Toll structures or Category:Toll infrastructure might be better terms for Category:Tollbooths, Category:Toll gates, and Category:Toll plazas (sequence of tollbooths and/or toll gates on a toll road) rather than the current name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call a toll plaza a structure. A toll plaza is more than the tollbooths and/or toll gates. It also includes the related adjacent roadway. That can be extensive when there are many tollbooths/gates in a row, such as with this picture and this one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are still structures, since roadways are also structures (land transport infrastructure). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so how would you categorize File:East Link Bridge Toll Booths - geograph.org.uk - 5417618.jpg? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, as either Category:Toll plazas, Category:Toll gates, Category:Toll booths. Between those, then Category:Toll plazas because that implies the other two as well and is the most restrictive of the three, yet is applicable here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of Fort-Louis (Bas-Rhin)

[edit]

I see no functional difference between Category:Maps of Fort-Louis (Bas-Rhin) and Category:Maps of Fort-Louis. Can they be merged and under which name? Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agricultural charts

[edit]

this cat misses est. 95% of files and I suggest it's upmerged to Category:Agriculture statistics Prototyperspective (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, @Prototyperspective: . This category dates back to 2008 when there was no possibility to list structured data yet. One could expect nowadays that every graphic (here agricultural charts) can be documented in the structured data by field (agricultural) and by type (chart) and such category as Category:Agricultural charts could be generated automatically.
The need still stands to divide all Agriculture statistics by type for archiving and data retrieval afterwards. Upmerging in this case will make that category into a mixed media/type collection, which is harder to comprehend. At the moment there doesn't seem to be an uncontrollable situation here. The cat offers a selection which I think is good for a first impression, and as so as a first introduction. -- Mdd (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you largely abandoned the site years ago? Because you probably have many items on your watchlist and would have noticed that most files do not get structured data set (and if they get it set some/the key things are often missing or the data is just pollution/flawed instead of useful). I estimate far less than 0.1% of agricultural charts have the structured data set roughly like you described. Moreover, if they have it set, it would be set by adding it en-masse based on the category, not the other way around.
The category is misleading and people will go it and think this is all the agricultural charts on WMC and leave again. Subdividing the Agriculture statistics cat by datagraphic type is a good point. However, I don't see much of an advantage of that as long as maps are in their own subcategory and the drawbacks are large as explained. I think the best solution would be upmerging for now except or until somebody actually comprehensively subcategorizes by datagraphic-type. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lead

[edit]

the cat is currently in Category:Soil pollution. That cat should be removed and things be moved into a subcat about that in specific. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval people by country

[edit]

it seems like for the country sub-categories here there's a mix between "Navy people" and "people of the X country Navy." Category:Naval people is currently a redirect to Category:Naval personnel. So probably "Navy people" should at least be changed "Naval personnel" or visa versa at the least. That aside though, the parent category of this is Category:Military people. So maybe "Navy people" makes more sense then "people of the X country Navy." But then everything else for people related to an organization outside of the military seems to be "people of X organization." Anyone can look through Category:People by organization for a ton of examples.

I personally don't care either way, but it should at least not depend on the country and organization per the Universality Principle. So renaming all the categories related to the military, including the Navy, to "people of the military", "people of the navy", Etc. Etc. just makes sense IMO. There doesn't seem to be a consensus about it either way though. Ergo this CfD. So, what should the standard wording be? Or should it depend on the military branch, country, a combination of the two, or something else entirely? Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have slowly come round to agreeing with this Universality Principle, that you mention. Clearly, at the start of the project this is what was adopted.
It holds true for Category:People, the bulk of Category:Physicians and Doctors as a prefix. Then there's Category:Accountants by country. We have Category:Jockeys from Scotland, not Scottish jockeys.
The entire structure of the project is built on the same lines as we do using the prefix People. It works for ships, Category:Vegetables, Category:Cities, Category:Politicians, etc. So therefore we shouldn't mess with it.
There are exceptions, of course, but they are so rare and not so well travelled, as to upset this rule. We should be correcting these cats, rather than changing high profile cats away from this Universality Principle. Equally we should be protecting these high profile cats, from deviating away from the Universality rule
The Universality Principle, walks hand in hand with the need for a consistent approach. It should be routine to be able to predict what a categories name is likely to be, without having to search for it every time we want to edit.
This is important for editors, who do multiple changes in every edit of a file. I appreciate that the majority of people here, who only do one edit at a time, using hotcat, are deaf to this issue. They need learn and conform with it.
Category names should also be as short and direct as possible, however, I agree with you, that the Universality Principle is a priority to that. Broichmore (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Douglas Emhoff with writers

[edit]

Nobody in this category is known foremost for being a writer. The only file is of Doug and Mayor Pete, who's known primarily for being a Cabinet secretary, presidential candidate and mayor, not a writer. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete upmerge
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pictures from outside town or low relevance

[edit]

Should this category remain intact or be disseminated/renamed? EmpressHarmonic (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First may I point out that the pictures are in a category Tarsus (town)? Put there by people who may have used it just to get rid of the problem where to put them, or ignoring the (town) in the category name (bots do that often). In Turkey a province has the name of its capital, which also is the name of the main district (in some cases with the addition of "merkez", "central". As a result pictures that have "tarsus" in their name are almost routinely in the main category. I created this category to be rid of them there, but in this case would invite anyone willing to do so, to disseminate the content. But don't let it be me. I have been wishing for years that a three tiers naming would be introduced to and used in Turkish provincial categories, but instead I sometimes see two tiers and a few of more districts, and a mish-mash of pictures of the capital put in the province, and vise versa. Any takers? Dosseman (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete and move the files to the locations they depict and the location they were taken.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of Cappadocia in history

[edit]

Should this category remain intact or be redirected/renamed to align with common category naming conventions? Example: Category:Old maps of Turkey EmpressHarmonic (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. Dosseman (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimedia Commons βeta

[edit]

What is Wikimedia Commons βeta? This cat contains only 4 files and I could not reproduce their view or find any info on Wikimedia Commons βeta and the feature(s) displayed in them can not be enabled in the Beta features in Commons preferences. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2019 the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) team of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) launched a set of optional features and the screenshots were of those, perhaps a better title or the categories would be "Wikimedia Commons BETA", but I remember the wiki using the Greek term "βeta". The main page of this wiki could be found here. For whatever reason I put the wrong source links in the files, as they link to the regular version of the Commonswiki. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. But the questions remain largely unresolved. Is there any info page about this like some page on meta? Is this ongoing or abandoned? What about the screenshots that seem to show categories on mobile – will this feature come and is currently already in testing stage? Why hasn't it been implemented by now if these screenshots are from 2019? Prototyperspective (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse the late reply, I actually take screenshots of almost everything I do online and I would've screenshotted the settings page of "Wikimedia Commons βeta", as the screenshots come from a Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile device it was likely either a Microsoft Lumia 950 XL or a Microsoft Lumia 950, my Microsoft archives were uploaded to Microsoft OneDrive and at the time Google Photos had unlimited storage for all devices so I made an additional Google Photos back-up of all images and videos on my laptop and my mother's laptop, this means that I can probably find this on my Google Pixel device's archives, but due to real life circumstances I haven't had the time to look for them. From what I can remember, these features were announced somewhere either at Tech News or the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) pages, as I don't have access to my browser history on Microsoft Internet Explorer Mobile from that period I'll try to find it somewhere. I am not entirely sure, but I think that the βeta features were enabled through the Wikimedia SUL-account settings, but I can't find them now. I'll report back after I've found any actual information on these features. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current events

[edit]

It would be great if there was a main page tile (also in the Commons Android app) for media about/of current events.
This would make the site far more interesting and be more reasonable and engaging than the current main page tiles (I'm not suggesting to put just one image of a current event there but a small thumbnails of multiple media files with buttons to show more/the next set, each with a category link).
This category clearly needs some work – e.g. the template doesn't exist and it contains just two files. See Portal:Current events. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with DJI radio-controlled helicopters

[edit]

1. I don't think "helicopters" is the right term here so this should probably be moved
2. Please make it so videos in any subcats here go into Category:Videos taken with DJI (and maybe this could be configured at the respective template). Prototyperspective (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Category:DJI radio-controlled helicopters since this CfD applies as well.
Pedantically, unmanned radio-controlled camera quadcopters are a type of helicopters. However I do agree that helicopter is too broad here and that a change need to be made. DJI radio-controlled helicopters is a subcat of Unmanned quadrotors, however I don't like to continue using the term quadrotor since some DJI drones have more than 4 rotors. So we could use something like DJI multirotors and Taken with DJI multirotors. And then have subcategories Pictures taken with DJI multirotors and Videos taken with DJI multirotors. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, makes sense. I think terms unmanned aerial vehicle and drone should also be considered, especially when considering the modern use of these terms and there may be more accurate variants of these terms. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/09&oldid=967930989"