Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/09
What is the difference between Category:Olympiade japonaise de linguistique and Category:Japan Linguistics Olympiad? They both have only one file, which is the same in both. Can one category get a redirect to the other? JopkeB (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Also affected: Category:日本言語学オリンピック. JopkeB (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Keep Category:Japan Linguistics Olympiad because this is in English; give the other two a redirect. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
created a category with a misspelling in the name, new, correctly named category created. Smirkybec (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- You can ask for deletion of the misspelled category by using Template:Speedydelete. JopkeB (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if it's necessary, but If so make it "videos". 191.126.166.100 12:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep Dear Sirs, Tany Solovey has begun to transfer an archive of her rare photographs and videos (there are many of them) under the CC-BY-SA 2.0 free license. I plan to upload them from Flickr as they are uploaded. Also pls find dicussion this. — Niklitov (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)- Delete: Category is not needed to upload files. Tehonk (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Should be renamed, of course. As for deletion request, this category is by no means worse than other ones in Category:Videos by creator - if we allow this type of categories in general, why this Tany Solovey should be banned from taking part in that? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The content of the category has been removed at the request of the author. Tabrus (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty category. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Closing -- category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Kategorie bitte löschen, Datum falsch, Tippfehler, die korrekte Kategorie 2023-07-22 wurde angelegt Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 11:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Closing -- category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete category, since it's now empty GustavoCza (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete|Empty יודוקוליס (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Is this serious? If so, is Commons serious? 186.173.251.75 01:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Procedurally closed: don’t waste people’s time with frivolous requests. Dronebogus (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry? What? 186.173.251.75 01:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- A handbra is when unclothed breasts are covered by hands -- the hands more or less take the place of a bra (brassiere). This category is for cases where the hands and the breasts belong to different people. Did you just want an explanation, or do you think it really needs discussion? If you just wanted an explanation, CFD is not the place for that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Procedurally closed: nonsense request Dronebogus (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Hoax, no evidence for such a letter. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 03:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
has now been fixed (renamed) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Siehe Disk: Ich habe diese Kategorie wegen Überschneidung mit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_G%C3%BCss_von_G%C3%BCssenberg_family geleert, sie sollte gelöscht werden oder zu einer Umleitung umfunktioniert werden (abweichende Schreibweise). GerritR (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedily closed per C1 and C2 as the previous items of Category:Coats of arms of Güs von Gusenberg family have already been moved to Category:Coats of arms of Güss von Güssenberg family, leaving the category in question empty. Please don't do this beforehand if a CfD is to be opened, this is then left to the closer. While there is little doubt that “Güsenberg” appears to be uniformely written with an umlaut “ü” (see File:Siebmacher112-Güsen von Güssenberg.jpg or File:Ingeram Codex 097.jpg, I do not see any file in the other category that confirms the double-s of “Güss”. In general it can be helpful to add a description to the category that enumerates and references the various written forms or links to an article in Wikipedia space which does this. The full blazon should be added as well. This easies the discussion of a possible future CfD case. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Not the full range of the Unicode block; the category contains two images apparently showing parts of the full Category:Unicode 3400-4DBF CJK Unified Ideographs Extension A block. However, even then, only the first one actually displays the range declared in the category name, the other one being titled "4800-4DBF". I think categorisation by (seemingly arbitrary; essentially the whole block was added in the same version of the standard) subsets of Unicode blocks is not really helpful and potentially confusing. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- There’s no cause for a deep discussion: This category is just wrongly named — it should be either deleted or turned into a redirect to the correctly named Category:Unicode 3400-4DBF CJK Unified Ideographs Extension A and its contents shoud be moved to it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- (Yes, I created it, mislead by a hasty reading of Antonsusi’s filename. No excuse, though. @1234qwer1234qwer4: Thanks for poiting it out.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Merged and deleted per creator's request. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty יודוקוליס (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no apparent reason for deletion. {{Category redirect}} is of good use here. (non-admin closure) Jonteemil (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Created with spelling errors; correct version exists (Latrodectus mactans); should be deleted Mhohner (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted per nom. --Achim55 (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty category. GustavoCza (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Closing -- category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This page should be deleted because it is incorrect and empty Ecummenic (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then they should better delete the unnecessary discussion you began... 186.174.143.153 12:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- What this anonymous user is trying to say in an unhelpful way is that you should feel free to speedy delete categories that you've created by accident. Just replace the content of the category page with
{{SD|C2}}and you're all set. "C2" stands for "Unuseful empty category" per Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- What this anonymous user is trying to say in an unhelpful way is that you should feel free to speedy delete categories that you've created by accident. Just replace the content of the category page with
Conclusion: Category created by creator of the discussion on the same day. Candidate for speedy deletion. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
This page should be deleted because is empty, the correct category is 18th-century portrait paintings in the Castello Reale di Racconigi Ecummenic (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Bad name}} to get it deleted. @Ecummenic: For future reference, things like this that don't really require discussion can often be handled outside of CFD. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Closing -- category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
DELETE this category as empty together with ALL the files in it. I reviewed them one by one. Don't lose your time. 186.174.143.153 12:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Not done: This it not the way it works here. --Achim55 (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Author's request PencakeBot (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: C2. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
i mistakenly created a duplicate cateogry. moved imaged to Category:The Knockdown Center instead Found5dollar (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I created this category a few hours ago. Later I realised this municipality didn't exist in 2007. Sneeuwvlakte (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then you should remove the files you keep in this category. After that it can be deleted as empty. 200.111.227.94 20:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's now empty. Thank you for your advice! Sneeuwvlakte (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Already deleted by Túrelio--A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Deletion. Wrong name right "Northern Coasts" with s. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Northern_Coasts Riquix (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Closing -- category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Such maintenance category should be deleted when empty A1Cafel (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Already deleted by The Squirrel Conspiracy--A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Typo title 源義信 (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- You can tag this category for "speedy deletion" as it wouldn't be a useful redirect. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Upmerge to the otherwise empty parent category. Or vice-versa. Both have names in French, unnecessarily. After eliminating one of them, translate into English the surviving category title. Merci beaucoup. 200.111.227.94 19:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Affaire Mila (parent) and this category have a total of two (deux) files...
(June 2021) is also totally unnecessary.
200.111.227.94 20:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Done, Category:Procès de l'affaire Mila (juin 2021) can be deleted. Tiraden (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
A category cannot be a list. This should be renamed to Buildings over [some number] of meters in Charlotte." Jmabel ! talk 02:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- I happen to be the creator of this category, and I fully agree. According to en:List of tallest buildings in Charlotte#Tallest buildings, these buildings are taller than 200 feet (61 m). Thus I propose Category:Buildings over 200 feet (61 m) in Charlotte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearEMPTiness (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @NearEMPTiness: Hmm. Looks like that doesn't line up with how anything else is named. How about Category:60-meter-and-taller buildings in Charlotte? Because 61 seems like a really weird cutoff. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- ... this seems a bit too complicated to me. We could move them into the existing category Category:Skyscrapers in Charlotte, North Carolina or split them up manually into the existing categories Category:50-99-meter-tall buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina and Category:100-149-meter-tall buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @NearEMPTiness: That's fine with me, too. Just not "List of". I take it you probably know the topic better than I do, could you take this on? I just ran across this while working on something else entirely. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Yes please go ahead. I am currently very busy in real life. I haven't got any real involvement in this category. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @NearEMPTiness: That's fine with me, too. Just not "List of". I take it you probably know the topic better than I do, could you take this on? I just ran across this while working on something else entirely. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- ... this seems a bit too complicated to me. We could move them into the existing category Category:Skyscrapers in Charlotte, North Carolina or split them up manually into the existing categories Category:50-99-meter-tall buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina and Category:100-149-meter-tall buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
While I'm not thrilled with being left to clean up a mess I didn't make in an area where I have no expertise, it seems clear that this category should not exist, and its contents need to be recategorized. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Such maintenance category should be deleted, as panoramio stopped distributing photo since 2016, and the bot stopped importing panoramio files since 2017 A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then ask deletion. You want it deleted or to chat? 186.173.202.213 00:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Category:Tessère - tessère consulaire, tessera nummularia, bâtonnet parallélipipédique, ivoire - btv1b11357877r
[edit]no file to upload by the bot because server error (404) Gzen92 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
no file to upload by the bot because server error (404) Gzen92 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty category (C2) Doclys (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Closing - category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty category (C2) Doclys (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Closing - category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty category (C2) Doclys (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Closing - category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Unused category. It might be useful if we actually had images of nude people with the number 417 written on them, but I'm not seeing any. Adsci8 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why open a CfD for an empty category? Just to feed one’s deletionist glee and waste everybody’ time? Just adding
{{speedy|empty cat}}is not enough? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)- Ah, good idea. Adsci8 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
This military base is now known as Fort Gregg-Adams (as of April 27, 2023). It feels appropriate to rename the category at this point. Odin (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Move seems in order. Fort Gregg-Adams (Q1376750) on Wikidata has been renamed, as have the articles in several of the more active Wikipedias, including en-wiki.
This military base is now known as Fort Johnson (as of June 13, 2023). It feels appropriate to rename the category at this point. Odin (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Move seems in order. Fort Johnson (Q1438661) on Wikidata has been renamed, as have the articles in most Wikipedias.
This category should be renamed: Coats of arms of Berg family (Kattentack) GerritR (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- yes, wrong name. I make it emediatly, --Hannes 24 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
erledigt, du kannst das Kastl raus nehmen, und eventuell die alte kat löschen lassen? --Hannes 24 (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Rename to Category:Coats of arms of Berg family (Kattentack), Done by User:Hannes 24 | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
arbitrate}{ E=@ Vs ELEMENTZ R= ARBIZO HARVESTING 98.152.236.138 19:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense, vandalism, no real discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Kido's AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | This category has got a redirect to Category:Kido Food by AnVuong1222004 (7) Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | No further actions to be taken, so discussion can be closed. | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
"Lightning"? Seriously? What a pity... 🥴 186.173.202.213 00:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Already moved. Is there any other issues? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Category has been renamed by A1Cafel Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Film lightning equipment (not yet closed) | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Completely useless. Vague title, no pages/files. HerodotusTheGreat (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Empty category. I think it can be deleted. JopkeB (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Ask for deletion. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Kategorie bitte löschen, falsche Bezeichnung, - Wunsch des Erstellers, ist ersetzt durch korrekte Kategorie Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 21:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Cemetary"?! 181.203.90.84 17:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Category has been deleted. Done | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
The category has a Spanish name ("typical gastronomy") – El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. You also have a Spanish name by the way. 181.203.90.84 01:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Category is empty and has been nominated for deletion Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Kategorie bitte löschen, Doublette, alles nun in der korrekten Kategorie Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 10:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ? | |||
| Actions | Redirect to Category:Astronomische Uhr Deutsches Museum München because there might be German speaking people who will find it better this way. Done | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
This category seems to exist for the purpose of promoting a photographer, who may not be notable. Jamie7687 (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Most Commons users are not notable, either. However many of them have personal categories... 191.126.166.100 12:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is possible that I have misunderstood Commons policies regarding scope and promotion. For this case, if two photographs of a person and two 608x1080 videos by a person are uploaded to Wikidata, should that person have their own personal category in the main space, with a subcategory also named after them, even if they are not otherwise notable and these uploads may have been intended for promotion of that person? I would have thought not, but I recognize that I could be mistaken. Jamie7687 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose I should clarify that I am proposing deletion of the category. I do not see evidence that the photographer herself is notable. I think the two promotional shots within it, and its subcategory (though not the nature videos within it), could also be deleted as out-of-scope/promotional, though I have not yet started those discussions. Jamie7687 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- A Wikidata item has also been created for Tany Solovey; I requested deletion at d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q120548770. Jamie7687 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Dear Sirs, Tatyana has begun to transfer an archive of her rare photographs (there are many of them) under the CC-BY-SA 2.0 free license. I plan to upload them from Flickr as they are uploaded. — Niklitov (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: F10 + G10 Tehonk (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment Unless something was changed very recently, "notability" as defined by a sister project has never been a part of COM:SCOPE except in someone's personal opinion. Given prior comments, wouldn't this be better suited for the "Creator" namespace?RadioKAOS (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Done the "Creator". Thanks! — Niklitov (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment When I originally nominated the Wikidata item for deletion, which is what led to nominating this category, there were only two promotional photos of Solovey; this had been the state of the category for nearly 2 months. The files added since then (i.e. everything except those two photos) may have changed the discussion. If these photos really were released by the photographer under CC-BY-SA and are potentially useful for the purpose of this project (which I think they might be), then this category becomes something more like many of the photographer categories, and less like the non-notable non-contributor promotional category that it looked like a few days ago. I wouldn't contest the closure of this nomination if this category now seems in line with current practice. Jamie7687 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | No further action needed | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Totally innecessary. Category:Media without a source is more than enough. Look at a subcategory like "Files with broken link"! Files are not limited to images. Delete the category. 191.126.166.100 12:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree, but the thing is: this category is automatically set through Template:Information when the source parameter is empty (which has the absurd side effect of video files ending up in the category too). That behaviour would need to change first. El Grafo (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Merge Category:Images without source into Category:Media without a sourceEdit {{Information}} to fix auto-categorization | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
- Comment This discussion has been re-opened at: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Images without source
Emtpty because not really necessary. The mother category is enough. No need for subcategorizing. 191.126.166.100 12:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Speedy delete of Category:images of maps without source | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Can Category:Retail and Category:Retailing be merged? It would be so much clearer (at least to me) where to find subcategories. For instance: Category:Retail occupations has as parent category Category:People in retailing, that does not make sense to me. JopkeB (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Support They should indeed be merged. Category:Retail preexists Category:Retailing and has all the Wikidata links, as the two terms are synonymous in this case. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:retailing into Category:retail | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
This category appears to exist for the same promotional purpose as Category:Angela Adinolfi, which has been deleted twice. I believe it should be deleted as well. Jamie7687 (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- De todas maneras no puede quedar con este raro nombre. 191.126.184.50 01:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete (empty) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Please delete this category I created yesterday and which is currently empty. I had simply overlooked the pre-existant category "Category:Created with Adobe Photoshop CC:Panoramics" which is way more specific and better suited to host all images stitched with Adobe Photoshop. Franz van Duns (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty category (as of 08:44, 5 September 2023). Multiplayer null modem games are a subtheme of null modems, as a null modem could be used for purposes other than gaming. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep the category, and I ask for closure, as reversal happened on 5 September 2023 at 23:45 (thanks, Allforrous). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | No longer empty | |||
| Actions | Keep | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
The category Ships of CCNI exists as well, both categories are the same in my opinion. Would suggest to delete CCNI container ships and place all ships/sub categories in Ships of CCNI. N. Johannes (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Category:Ships of CCNI is currently the parent category for Category:CCNI container ships and is for all kind of ships that CCNI owns, also for others than container ships. So in my opinion it should stay in case there ever be files for those other ships. JopkeB (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- OK, agreed. Have moved the container ships that were in the Category:Ships of CCNI to Category:CCNI container ships. This leaves (at the time of writing) one general cargo vessel in the Category:Ships of CCNI. Thanks. N. Johannes (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- OK. So this discussion can be closed? Can you do that yourself? If you did not close a category before and can read Dutch: see b:nl:Handboek Wikimedia Commons/Categorieën#Een categorie bediscussiëren of nomineren voor verwijdering, otherwise see Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion. JopkeB (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- OK, agreed. Have moved the container ships that were in the Category:Ships of CCNI to Category:CCNI container ships. This leaves (at the time of writing) one general cargo vessel in the Category:Ships of CCNI. Thanks. N. Johannes (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion closed - mentioned categories will be unaltered. N. Johannes (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
This ought to be named something like Category:Steam Carousel (Efteling) (if "Steam Carousel" is a proper noun) or Category:Steam carousel (Efteling) (if it is a common noun). Otherwise, much too much potential for confusion with other steam carousels. Jmabel ! talk 14:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- "(Efteling)" should indeed be added to the category name. Whether "Steam Carousel" is a proper English noun I cannot judge. In Dutch the name is "stoomcarrousel", Google gives "steam carousel" for the English equivalent (so "carousel" without a capital C). JopkeB (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Template:JopkeB so it's a common noun, not a proper noun? - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion, I did not realize that "proper" has here another meaning than "correct".
- It is a common noun (grammer) and in the Efteling it is the (proper) name of a (fairground) attraction. So I think Category:Steam Carousel (Efteling) would be a good category name. JopkeB (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- If it's a common noun, Category:Steam carousel (Efteling). I'd move ahead at this point, but JopkeB, you capitalized the "C" in your last post; was that just a typo, or is there some reason to capitalize it? - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Template:JopkeB so it's a common noun, not a proper noun? - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Steam carousel (Efteling) it is. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I created this category in an effort to clean up the "Marblehead Neck" category, which incorrectly includes an infobox about the Wildlife Sanctuary. I realize now that the better approach is to rename that category as "Marblehead Neck Wildlife Sanctuary". But first, this empty category must be deleted. NewtonCourt (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Could you not simply redirect it? The name seems like a valid search target.
- Also it's pretty easy to change linkage between wikidata and Commons, to sort the infobox, or to make a "borrowed" infobox appear on other category pages too.
- Is there anything in Category:Marblehead Neck that wouldn't belong in a Category:Marblehead Neck Wildlife Sanctuary? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Answering your last question first: Marblehead Neck is a peninsula of about 300 acres. https://www.massaudubon.org/our-work/birds-wildlife/bird-conservation-research/massachusetts-important-bird-areas/iba-sites/marblehead-neck The Marblehead Neck Wildlife Sanctuary is about 20 acres. https://www.massaudubon.org/places-to-explore/wildlife-sanctuaries/marblehead-neck
- All but one of the photos now in the sanctuary category are NOT of the wildlife sanctuary, but are of other locations on the Neck. (I've taken some more photos of the wildlife sanctuary, which I'll upload once the categories get resolved.)
- I'm new to Commons, so I don't understand some of your suggestions. Your approach is probably best, but I don't know how to implement it. If you could add the infobox (which refers to the Wildlife Sanctuary, not the entire Neck) to the Wildlife Sanctuary category, and delete it from the Marblehead Neck Category, that would solve the problem. I would then move the non-sanctuary photos from the Sanctuary category to the Neck category.
- Thanks. NewtonCourt (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- What's 'Marblehead Neck'? Is this the small island off Marblehead? Or the whole peninsula that Marblehead sits upon? Judging 20/300 acres, I'm puzzled here – the smaller 'island' area looks smaller than six times the sanctuary.
- I'm assuming that Marblehead Neck isn't WP:NOTABLE so as to have a wiki article? (although I could easily be wrong there) It does have a Commons category, because it's a definable piece of land that we can take photos of, distinct from other categories. Does it need its own Wikidata item? (if in doubt, no – we could always add one in the future)
- Is Category:Marblehead Neck even needed, given that we have Category:Marblehead, Massachusetts? i.e. is this clearly a defined smaller area within it, such that it's worth separating out the Commons photos? (I presume so)
- If Marblehead is the town and Marblehead Neck is nearby and alongside it, is it better as a child of Category:Marblehead, Massachusetts, or just of Category:Essex County, Massachusetts? Would someone standing on the 'island' part of the Neck consider themselve to be in Marblehead town? Or indeed, could we say that "Marblehead is a town entirely within Marblehead Neck"? I'm just not sure of the geography here.
- Where are the photos for the wildlife sanctuary? I can only see one at present? Looks like you're clear to upload the others whenever you feel like it (It's a little harder to delete a surplus category, but moving files around is easy.) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Here's a map showing the relation of the Neck to the entire town of Marblehead: https://www.axisgis.com/MarbleheadMA/?Splash=True
- I agree the Neck isn't notable enough for a separate article. It's mentioned several times in the main Marblehead article.
- I don't know enough about how Wikidata is run to answer whether a separate item is needed for the Neck.
- Yes to a separate category for the Neck, as a child category of Marblehead
- See the map for answers to your geography questions. Someone on the Neck is definitely within Marblehead town, and not vice versa.
- I've uploaded some photos of the sanctuary.
- Two things remain to be done--
- 1. change the photo within the infobox for the sanctuary. The current photo isn't of the sanctuary. I'd suggest using this one: File:Marblehead Neck 20230920 155816.jpg I tried to make this change in Wikidata, but it's not yet reflected in the Commons category.
- 2. close this Categories for discussion entry. I don't know how to do that.
- Thanks so much for your help with this. NewtonCourt (talk)
- You'd already changed the Wikidata image, but it can someetimes take a while for changes to propagate from one system to the other. Thanks for the extra images. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
empty and unclear Prototyperspective (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Photographs taken by AI should a) be identified and b) get subcategorized / categorized appropriately (a note would be good too).
A major issue here is that for multiple–many images, it's unclear whether it's photography or AI art, e.g. see this one with the Flickr description, tags & comments; maybe this should be discussed somewhere else like a VillagePump or an AI art board? If so pls link the place; I'd also like to know if it was okay to upload some useful high-quality AI-generated images from here when no explicit license info is provided. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- We have these pictures for a while. I like them.
- Maybe AI uses them to generate "AI-generated images"? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I like them too but the AI-generated images in that cat should be identified as AI-generated and categorized appropriately. For example so that you can exclude AI-generated images in queries. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think the category has recently been incorrectly added to AI-related categories: it's a creator category.
- I removed these. Obviously, users are free to add images to other categories, but one can't just add the creator category to, e.g. Black&White photographs. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I like them too but the AI-generated images in that cat should be identified as AI-generated and categorized appropriately. For example so that you can exclude AI-generated images in queries. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Not done: If I see this correctly, Magdalena Roeseler is a photographer who has uploaded lots of "regular", non-AI photos to 500px and flickr (from which they were imported here), and most of which were created several (up to 10) years ago, so before the availability of AI tools such as Midjourney. Now, as per the example given in this deletion request, it seems she has started to experiment with Midjourney, a search for "magdalena roeseler midjourney" currently yields 7 results. Apparently, the vast majority of images in the Roeseler category, however, have nothing to do with AI-generated art. Besides, it's not clear to me what this deletion request is even about, exactly: It's filed for the category (not for the images in the category; if nominator had meant to nominate these, they should have nominated the images themselves for deletion, e.g. with Visual File Change, properly tagging them with a DR). But deleting a category for "Photographs by Magdalena Roeseler" doesn't make sense if it contains, indeed, mainly photographs by Magdalena Roeseler. If there's an issue with some individual AI-created images by Magdalena Roeseler that don't belong into this category (because they aren't photographs at all), like said seven search results, they can be re-categorized and/or nominated for deletion individually. --Gestumblindi (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense category, fantasy. There is no such thing as a "House of Orange-Nassau-Vollenhoven". Princess Margriet van Oranje-Nassau (of Orange-Nassau) is a younger sister of former queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, aunt of present king Willem-Alexander. She married Pieter van Vollenhoven, a commoner whithout a title of nobility. When they got married in 1967, a law was made, stating that their children would get a personal title "prince van Oranje-Nassau" or "princess van Oranje-Nassau", which they could not pass on to their children. So those (grand)children do not have a title of nobility. And that is it. The current two subcategories and one file have perfectly other parent categories. JopkeB (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no 'House of Orange', for Van Vollenhoven, he is married to a princess, a sister of former queen Beatrix. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep Except there is such a thing as a ‘House of Orange-Nassau-Vollenhoven’, created through the union of Princess Margriet of the Netherlands and her husband Pieter van Vollenhoven which also created the surname (in Dutch) ‘van Oranje-Nassau van Vollenhoven’/‘Oranje-Nassau-Vollenhoven’ as well as the Princely Title of ‘Prince/Princess of Orange-Nassau-Vollenhoven’, limited to the couples children and their spouses.
This house is a Cadet Royal Branch of the House of Orange-Nassau, which will eventually become a a Dutch Noble House (amongst the many others) of which the male-line descendants of Princess Margriet and Pieter will belong to as van Oranje-Nassau van Vollenhovens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.219.23 (talk • contribs) 15 sep 2023 00:54 (UTC)
- No, "Van Vollenhoven" is not part of the Princely Title, see Staatsblad 1967, nr 1 (in Dutch). The title is "Prins (Prinses) van Oranje-Nassau". "Van Vollenhoven" is only part of the surname, not of the title. And what is a "Cadet Royal Branch"?
- JopkeB (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Invented "house" without any supporting source. A cadet branch is established through younger male-line descendants, which is not the case here, considering that Orange-Nassau would have to pass through Princess Margriet. That Margriet's children (and only they, not the next generations) have a non-hereditary princely title, is purely thanks to former Queen Juliana's royal decision instead of the usual nobility convention of them becoming regular civilians [1]. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Conclusion: There is no such thing as the House of Orange-Nassau-Vollenhoven; it is an invented "house" without any supporting source. Therefor this category should be deleted. --JopkeB (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Move subcategories to their original parents, ask for deletion of this category. | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
no file to upload by the bot because server error (404) Gzen92 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per above, bot operater's request. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
no file to upload by the bot because server error (404) Gzen92 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per above, bot operater request. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Tessère - tessère consulaire, tessera nummularia, bâtonnet parallélipipédique, ivoire - btv1b11357861n
[edit]no file to upload by the bot because server error (404) Gzen92 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per above, bot operater request. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Tessère - tessère consulaire, tessera nummularia, bâtonnet parallélipipédique, ivoire - btv1b11357893s
[edit]no file to upload by the bot because server error (404) Gzen92 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per above, bot operater request. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Either the one file in this category should be up-merged to Category:Madame Tussauds Budapest or the category should have a better name, even just Category:Entrance of Madame Tussauds Budapest. Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Merge up to parent. Josh (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Closing as an uncontroversial upmerge.
What is the difference between Category:Draper's shops and Category:Cloth shops? Can these two categories be merged OR can both have descriptions indicating the differences between them? JopkeB (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Also affected/Same question for Category:Fabric shops. JopkeB (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Since there were no opposing views within a month, I'll merge these categories and close this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Draper's shops and Category:Draper's shops into Category:Cloth shops, give both a redirect | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Isn't it funny to have this category AND also Category:Clothing shops? Maybe it would better be prohibited to open new categories for a year or two and ask help from someone to put in order Commons categories.186.173.132.133 23:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Cloth" is not the same as "Clothing". Clothing is usually made of cloths, but with cloths you can make a lot of other stuff, like curtains, kitchen towels, sheets and table cloths. So both categories should stay. See the pictures in both categories.
- And though I was not the one who created this category, I think it is an inslult to like to ban someone for two years, while you do clearly not know what you are talking about, and moreover do that anonymously. JopkeB (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Create a description in Category:Cloth shops | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is the difference between Category:Technology assessments and Category:Technology assessment? Can the two be merged? JopkeB (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also why does either of the categories currently under Category:Technology assessments ([:Category:Immersion (virtual reality)]], Category:Internet of things) belong in this category at all? What is the intent? I don't see any connection. - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Unless the answer to one of my questions just asked brings up something that I'm missing, it looks to me like Category:Technology assessments is completely superfluous. - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jmabel. But shouldn't category names be in plural? Or is plural here nonsense (I am not a native English speaker, so please enlight me). JopkeB (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think the intent of the category and why it's plural is that it should contain instances of technology assessment, while the singular category above it is about the general concept.
- I object to the items currently contained within it however and support deleting this category / redirecting it to Category:Technology assessment. I'd favor the latter and would also be fine if it is changed from redirect back to a category once/if there are any proper technology assessments like PDF files of reports about some federal agency assessment of some technology (instances on technology assessment). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: I can't guess the intent of the plural category, since its content is currently nonsense, but grammatically the singular assessment can be more abstract and typically refers to an activity, while the plural assessments can only be concrete and refers to the products of that activity. Admittedly, it's a weird one: as a native speaker, I never had to think about it deliberately before, but a similar example (while not exactly analogous) that would probably be more familiar is medicine vs. medicines. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jmabel. But shouldn't category names be in plural? Or is plural here nonsense (I am not a native English speaker, so please enlight me). JopkeB (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Prototyperspective, Prototyperspective, and Jmabel: for your explanations, I think I now have an idea of the meaning: something like painting and paintings. I have added a description to Category:Technology assessment (based on the EN-WP and NL-WP), please check it, because it differs from the Wikidata item.
- And now, yes, I must agree, the subcategories of Category:Technology assessments make no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JopkeB (talk • contribs)
- Yes, "painting" and "paintings" is a perfect analogy. - Jmabel ! talk 14:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Preliminary conclusions
[edit]- Category:Technology assessment is about a concept, activity, process, to investigate the value and impact of technologies.
- Category:Technology assessments should be about products of that activity, like reports. The current subcategories are not about products of those kind of investigations and should be removed. For now this category can get a redirect to Category:Technology assessment. Whenever there are products of technology assessments on Commons, it can be reactivated.
Do you agree? If yes, I'll wait another two weeks to see whether there are other opinions, and then I'll close this discussion and make the changes. --JopkeB (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree and think that would be the best solution.
- As a note: I don't think "value and impact" there captures fully what TA is...it also includes evaluating whether technologies are suitable (e.g. for local conditions or some goal), how they compare to alternatives, when they will be available/mature, and so on. The description is good enough as is for now and maybe I'll slightly edit it later. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also agree. I added "suitability" to the cat description. - Jmabel ! talk 14:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Check/change the description of Category:Technology assessment; make a redirect for Category:Technology assessments | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Why should this category be on Commons? The two subcategories can perfectly do without it. Otherwise: can there be a good description that makes it clear why this category is useful on Commons? JopkeB (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Agreed. Google Answers should go in knowledge markets, and knowledge markets can move up out of social search. Then Delete Category:Social search. If there is content for this category, it would need to be renamed something like social search engines but for now, delete is fine. Josh (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Josh, that is good advice. I'll wait another two weeks to see whether there are other opinions and if no, then I'll implement your proposal. JopkeB (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Move subcategories. Ask for deletion of this category | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is the difference between Category:Roof forms and Category:Roofs by form? Can these two categories be merged OR can each get a description which show the differences? JopkeB (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: I agree, I think this should be merged. I see no difference between those two category — Koreller (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Koreller, for your reaction.
- I think Category:Roofs by form should be kept because it fits better in the category structure in general.
- But perhaps we should rename it to Category:Roofs by shape, because there is no Category:Categories by form, only Category:Categories by shape and its flat list.
- How do you think of these proposals? JopkeB (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you User:JopkeB for your suggestions, they make perfect sense, I'm okay with you:
- Merge "Category:Roof forms" into "Category:Roofs by form".
- Rename "Category:Roofs by form" to "Category:Roofs by shape".
- Do we need to wait to make these changes? Seeing as I'm the only person to have replied to this topic in almost 30 days... — Koreller (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Koreller!. Yes I always wait to see whether there are other people who have other ideas or suggestions. Perhaps someone is inspired now we have concrete recommendations. Let's say another week. JopkeB (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: So I think that's now you can do it — Koreller (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Koreller!. Yes I always wait to see whether there are other people who have other ideas or suggestions. Perhaps someone is inspired now we have concrete recommendations. Let's say another week. JopkeB (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you User:JopkeB for your suggestions, they make perfect sense, I'm okay with you:
- Thanks, User:Koreller, for your reaction.
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) Merge Category:Roof forms into Category:Roofs by form ; (2) Rename Category:Roofs by form to Category:Roofs by shape. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | There are still files in Category:Roofs by shape; please give them the correct subctegory when you recognize images! Done | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Disagreement between uploader and myself about whether and how to divide the media into subcategories Doomhope (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I guess User:Doomhope is referring to the very short discussion at their talkpage. I will continue the discussion at the talk page of Category:Photographs by Frank Scholten. Vysotsky (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Can this discussion be closed? It looks like the disagreement has been solved, see Category talk:Photographs by Frank Scholten. --JopkeB (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | It looks like it | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | See Category talk:Photographs by Frank Scholten for the real discussion | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Why should this category exist? Category:Monopolistic competition has the same kind of diagrams and I do not think that there will be any other type of image there. Can this category be merged into its parent? JopkeB (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Same for: Category:Monopsonistic market diagrams with parent Category:Monopsony. --JopkeB (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Since there were no reactions in over a month, I keep these categories as they are. --JopkeB (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | no reactions | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Is this being used? Any real need for it? 191.126.166.100 12:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is a maintenance category which ideally is empty most of the time, but is needed occasionally. Unless maintainers in the Media without a source realm feel it serves no purpose, then no harm to keep. Josh (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Kept. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
One file since 2015, which does not seem to be an actual clock with CJK numerals. I don't see the need in this category, but if kept, it should at least be renamed to Category:CJK clocks following the usual naming conventions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I've nominated the single file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VulpesVulpes42, as it's effectively personal artwork. Omphalographer (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted - empty. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
probably should be merged into Category:Gamma-ray bursts; however, maybe it was intentional to have one category for specific GRBs and one for the general subject? (in that case, some files should be moved and the cat be categorized into it) Prototyperspective (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Merged. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
If Richard Dawkins made it, it can't be the parent category of him. As it has no other files or subcategories, should be deleted. 200.111.227.94 20:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Empty category that can be deleted and get restored/recreated once there is something to put into it when it Richard Dawkins should be a cat of that cat, not the other way around. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with/see arguments of Prototyperspective. JopkeB (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted - empty. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Is it OK to open this for just one file uploaded 6 years ago? 200.111.227.94 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- An option to deletion is making Photographs~Photograph (singular). 200.111.227.94 20:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think one photo is not enough to make a category. But Swapnil Karambelkar has made a lot of other photographs, see Special:ListFiles/Swapnil.Karambelkar. Perhaps they will be put in this category someday in future. But User:Swapnil.Karambelkar is not active anymore for about 5 years, thus that might be an illusion.
- So I think we should decide whether Swapnil Karambelkar as a photographer is important enough to have such a category. If yes: copy her/his photographs to this category and keep it. If no: delete the category. Unfortunately I have not enough photographic skills to be the judge of this. JopkeB (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted - single image categories are not useful. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Such maintenance category should be deleted, as panoramio stopped distributing photo since 2016, and the bot stopped importing panoramio files since 2017 A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted - empty. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Such maintenance category should be deleted, as panoramio stopped distributing photo since 2016, and the bot stopped importing panoramio files since 2017 A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted - empty. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Such maintenance category should be deleted, as panoramio stopped distributing photo since 2016, and the bot stopped importing panoramio files since 2017 A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted - empty. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Such maintenance category should be deleted, as panoramio stopped distributing photo since 2016, and the bot stopped importing panoramio files since 2017 A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted - empty. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Such maintenance category should be deleted, as panoramio stopped distributing photo since 2016, and the bot stopped importing panoramio files since 2017 A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted - empty. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
What is this category about? Not currently linked into category tree. Looks mostly like a duplicate of Category:Logos associated with web hosting, but some files here wouldn't belong there. Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss moving this category to "Te Aro Pā" to reflect the correct spelling. "Pah" is archaic. Quilt Phase (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Done: Moved. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
empty and redundant(?) due to Category:Animals on rail tracks Prototyperspective (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Should be merged. At the same time, we ought to work out a distinct subcategory (if it's not already there) for things like File:Way to ella.jpg where the animals are clearly being driven by people, and maybe File:Lama gama in Guamote.jpg (clearly not an active railway line). - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete – I didn't notice the Animals on rail tracks category when I had created this category. So I request deletion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest a redirect instead of a speedy delete and move the one subcategory to Category:Animals on rail tracks. JopkeB (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
|
 | Personality rights warning Although the contents of this category are freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information. |
- Oppose. Adolescence and Teenaged have overlap, but are not equivalent. The first is a physiological process. The second, by definition, is numeric, but also has cultural connotations. Age of adolescence can vary (usually but not always starting shortly before teen years and continuing into early teens). By late teens, in many places the people are legally and culturally no longer children but adults. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: Yes, I know adolescence and teenage are not equivalent, that is exactly the problem. They are currently being mashed together as an intermingled categorization tree and I would like to unmingle it. You say oppose, but what you write seems to indicate they should not be treated as they are now. Since my proposal has a few moving parts, perhaps you can clarify if you think the current mish-mash of adolescent/teenage is really best kept as the mess that it is, or if maybe you have some different ideas on how we can structure things? Josh (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment In the table at the right, "adolescent children" is listed, but actual category names are typically "adolescent boys" and "adolescent girls", although "teenage" (in various forms) is used for several categories as well, so no single terminology has been consistently applied. The stage corresponding with 13-17 year-olds, regardless of name, is widely used as a stage of development under Children in most people categories that are sorted by stage of development. Josh (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Lean toward keep. I see it way more as a cultural matter than a biological one. The concept of "teenagers" makes sense mainly post-WWII (certainly not earlier than the Victorian era) and also mainly in countries with a certain level of economic development. It involves having a somewhat distinct culture between that of childhood and adulthood. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say keep as is, a person is normally no longer considered a child when they reach adolescence even if some legislation uses the term "child" otherwise. And yes the term "teenager" is a definite age and most people reach adolescence before 13 but some will still be children at 13. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@Infrogmation, Jmabel, and Crouch, Swale: It is sounding like it makes sense to keep Category:Teenagers. What Crouch is saying is making it sound more like we need a third top level break, instead of just children and adults, we should have children, teens, and adults. Or are Teenagers just an additional parallel track to the 'stage of development' or something else? So I guess maybe the first question to address is, what is Category:Teenagers:
- A 'stage of development' to be fit into the structure at right
- A 'chronological age' (or group of ages) that overlaps some portions of the 'stage of development' structure, and important to maintain as its own grouping due to (particularly post-WWII) cultural implications.
I would lean towards #2 based on what I am reading here. It seems that it is worth keeping for the reasons above. A couple of follow-on questions:
- Should we continue to apply our current bright line dividing all into children (everyone under 18) and adults (everyone 18+)? It seems the word 'children' gives some pause as some do not apply that term to adolescent minors. It's probably why the law doesn't use the term, instead using 'minor' for non-adults. Do we need a third group between children and adults for age grouping? Should we limit the term 'children' to pre-pubescent minors and use a different term for all under 18s as a group?
- Some users have mentioned legal definitions around some of these terms. As far as I am aware none of these categories are bound to reflect any given legal system's definitions and we have no categorization of people based on legal status (in the age arena anyway), nor are any age-related categories intended to offer any legal statement one way or the other. So since legal age definitions seem completely irrelevant to our current categorization scheme, but yet people still bring it up, is it something we should care about, and how would we go about doing so if we were to take that into account? I can't see a workable way to do this, but am interested in what you might think.
Josh (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- A person can reach adolescence at different ages, from what I can remember at school its normally between 8 and 14, if someone reaches puberty at 7 they would technically not be classified as a child but if they hadn't at 15 they technically would still be. I think the concept of "Teenagers" is more useful as its a crisp definition as people won't normally know if someone is a child or not and we can't expect users here to define that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment Not proposing a particular solution here, but I've always been uncomfortable with most of the "stages of development" as we've had them. "Babies" for pre-toddlers and "children" for toddlers up to adolescence make sense to me; after that (maybe even there?), these distinctions vary across cultures, and our current approach reflects a Euro-centric industrial and post-industrial culture: very culture-bound and hence era-bound, but it ends up treated as if it were universal.
I'm 68 years old. I don't particularly think of myself as an "old person" (though there are days...). I find it very weird to classify, say, Angele Merkel as an "old woman" or Vladimir Putin as an "old man." Conversely, I'm told that in much of Africa 40 is considered "old". In Jewish law, a boy becomes a man at 13; in the South Sea islands, I gather that it is considered simply normal for both of the leading genders to begin an adult sexual life at puberty. In the U.S., the age of majority is 18 for some purposes, 21 for others. It's really hard to homogenize this sort of thing.
I do think teenagerdom as a cultural phenomenon deserves a category, but with the understanding that (for example) there is no such thing as a 17th-century teenager any more than there is a 19th-century hippie. - Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oooh... the 'old' person category, I agree I am not enthusiastic about that for one, but in general anything beyond child/adult has been a hard one for me. I don't know who came up with that guideline I put there, but I've only been attempting to live within it as it seemed a pretty established standard for categories. 'Stages of development' do seem to make a bit of sense for children as of course, they are developing. But looking at the articles on the subject, it is not like there is some universal standard (or even generally broad standard) in the world, but just various schemes by academics based on their particular academic focus and what fits with the research they work on.
- I think the influence of English-centrism and more broadly Euro-centrism in categories is quite strong, and I think you are right that it gets presumed to be some universal thing. The list at right may not be my creation, but I did add one bit, "as categorized on Wikimedia Commons" because I wanted to highlight that this wasn't some universal standard, but just the way it happens to be currently structured here on Commons.
- When you talk about categorizing Merkel or Putin, i.e. categorizing individual person categories, that is also problematic. It is one thing to sort a picture saying the person in the picture is a woman, and put it under Women. But if one sorts a category of Angela Merkel, saying that she is, as of this moment a woman, so her whole category goes under Women sounds fine, but she wasn't always a woman (presumably she was a baby like most of us at one point), and when she announces she has transitioned to a man one day in the future, then what? Does her whole category get moved to Men? I don't know, but I generally stay away from doing this kind of categorization because I am not comfortable with placing people categories under things based on their momentary current state (even if it seems unlikely to change much). Anyway, that's probably too far off on that tangent.
- You are right that the concept of a 'teenager' as a group at all is relatively recent. That would indicate it is not really a pure 'chronological age', as a 15-year-old is a 15-year-old no matter where or when they are from, but it seems rather silly to talk about 'Teenagers of the Roman Empire' or something since that would be an utterly irrelevant concept at that place and time. I do think "Teenagers" are a legitimately recognized phenomena.
- One additional think I note is that the word teenager is expressly an English-language creation. The concept of covering the 'teen' numbers (13-19) is dependent on how English names those numbers, using unique number words through 12 before transitioning to 'ones-plus-ten' format from 13 on. In Spanish for example, this doesn't make sense, since they number uniquely through 15, and only from 16 on does Spanish use a 'ones-plus-ten' format, so even the linguistic concept of 'teenager' being 13-19 doesn't make sense. "Teenagers" are "adolescentes" in Spanish, but really that is the word for "adolescent" of course, and as we know, the two are not synonyms. So yeah, I complete get that this category, and probably the whole range of age groupings that we have are probably the result to a large degree of English-language and Euro-centrism influence on our structure.
- I would actually be okay with binning the entire young/middle-age/old categorization for adults. It has always seemed rather arbitrary at best, and I do not understand how exactly they should be populated. If they really are just a chronological age grouping, then why bother? The chronological categories can do that just fine. I'm not sure why a 39-year-old is better categorized in with 18-year-olds than with 41-year-olds. Also, on what grounds do we determine which group for those we don't know the actual age of, is it just 'oh this one looks old' or what? There are may be distinct developmental traits and mile-stones that identify babies from children for example, but for adults at best there are some general trends and changes that indicate aging, but no bright lines. I know this would be kind of a bold thing to do, but I would say if we know the age, categorize in chronological age categories, but if not, then its just adult, not old/middle/young based on what users think the person looks like. Josh (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done: No consensus for a change, (and it would be a massive undertaking to do so). --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The only parent of this category is Category:Alaska. There is no by-state parent category, nor could I find any such category for other U.S. states. Since the hierarchy below Category:Alaska is already arranged by topic, this appears to be an attempt to give selected categories a higher placement in the tree than what they normally should be expected to receive. This is borne out by the fact that the creator of this category also created some of its subcategories at around the same time. RadioKAOS (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's an index/meta category, so not sure why it would have more than one parent. There are nearly 6000 'by topic/subject' categories. What is special about this specific one? Josh (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason for them not to have more than one parent. I just created Category:States of the United States by topic to track them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- The simple fact that a category has only one parent is not enough reason to get rid of it. It is possible that, for instance, other states of America should also have a similar category, but have not yet one. JopkeB (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are currently 42 such categories, counting some that are for US territories. I just added a navbox to them and created Category:States of the United States by topic to track them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I personally dislike the "by topic" categories. The only advantage I see to them is that they can make it easier to find a category that's buried underneath other categories in the main topic. However, since nothing guarantees that all topics will be in the "by topic" categories, I don't think they can be counted on. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Auntof6 is right, at least for this category: there are only 10 subcategories in this category, while in the parent category there are nearly 30 others. It is not clear to me why these 10 subcategories are in this category and the others not. So:
- Either all topic subcategories should be here.
- Or this category should be deleted.
- JopkeB (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Auntof6 is right, at least for this category: there are only 10 subcategories in this category, while in the parent category there are nearly 30 others. It is not clear to me why these 10 subcategories are in this category and the others not. So:
In the mean time Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Terminology has been closed, with some remarks about categories by topic, like this one:
- A category by topic is for improving the findability of subcategories.
- Overcategorisation is allowed.
- Subcategories may only be topic categories (so for instance have not 'by' in the category name or is about a medium)
- All subcategories should have other proper parent categories, so that they also can be found via the regular category structure of the main category.
- Subcategories with similar names can be left out.
My conclusions:
- This category can stay. It has now appropriate parents and 45 subcategories, for now that is OK, perhaps later more subcategories might be added. It meets the conditions for a category by topic.
- This discussion can be closed.
@RadioKAOS, Joshbaumgartner, and Auntof6: Please let me know whether you agree with these conclusions. I'll close this CfD over one month, unless there are objections. --JopkeB (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @JopkeB No objections, close at will. Thanks! Josh (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
France has roughly 35'000 communes, this category already has more than a thousand files and is becoming increasingly difficult to read and maintain. Should we create subcategories, for example : Election apportionment diagrams of French communes in Ain/Aisne/Allier, or Election apportionment diagrams of French communes in 2008/2014/2020 ? I am taking the example of Spanish municipal elections Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- In the absence of a response, I have started creating sub-categories : c:Category:Election apportionment diagrams of the communes of Ain for example. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- It sure is allowed to create sub categories if a category is too large. But I hope this is work in progress and they all get more than one file because otherwise it is shifting the problem to the subcategories. JopkeB (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Tpe.g5.stan and JopkeB: Sub-categorization is certainly a good way to go here, but per the Universality Principle the naming should reflect that used for Communes in France, for example:
- Rename Category:Election apportionment diagrams of French communes to Category:Election apportionment diagrams of communes in France
- Rename Category:Election apportionment diagrams of the communes of Ain to Category:Election apportionment diagrams of communes in Ain (for this and other departments, index under Election apportionment diagrams of communes in France by department)
- Support the effort. Josh (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Josh: All these categories should be renamed the way he proposes. JopkeB (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have renamed each category "Election apportionment diagrams of communes in département". I am not used to renaming categories, should we use a bot to rename the "Election apportionment diagrams of French communes" category ? When this is done, I am planning to create the subcategories and move individual files inside. It will take time, though. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have made a request here : User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Election_apportionment_diagrams_of_French_communes. When this is done, I will ask for the closure of this discussion. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have renamed each category "Election apportionment diagrams of communes in département". I am not used to renaming categories, should we use a bot to rename the "Election apportionment diagrams of French communes" category ? When this is done, I am planning to create the subcategories and move individual files inside. It will take time, though. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Tpe.g5.stan and JopkeB: Sub-categorization is certainly a good way to go here, but per the Universality Principle the naming should reflect that used for Communes in France, for example:
- It sure is allowed to create sub categories if a category is too large. But I hope this is work in progress and they all get more than one file because otherwise it is shifting the problem to the subcategories. JopkeB (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @JopkeB: and @Joshbaumgartner: . I have moved and renamed all the files into subcategories. However, I notice that if we want to stay consistent with other European countries (for example : Category:Election apportionment diagrams of municipal elections in Portugal), should we name the main category : Election apportionment diagrams of municipal elections in France ? I have had no answer for my request to rename/move the category, should I do this by hand ? Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The main category for Election apportionment diagrams of municipal elections or any other local government is Category:Election apportionment diagrams of local government. (It had only four subcategories, I have filled it with more subcategories for Europe (were poorly categorized), but for the other continents this work is still to be done.)
- In that main category are now a variety of subcategory names. I propose for now to let them stay te way they are. JopkeB (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you ! Do you think we can ask for the closure of this discussion ? (I am not used to it). Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- + Shouldn't we separate the elections for cities/municipalities/communes/villages and the elections for Provinces/States/Länder/Regions/departments... ? Both are "local" government but not the same thing. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to learn it: you may close a discussion yourself, see Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion for an instruction. Otherwise, I can do it, just ask me.
- For me that would not be necessary. I weigh the costs (time to make the changes) and benefits (how likely is it that someone finds a file quicker with such an extra construction). But if you want to, you can do it.
- JopkeB (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- + Shouldn't we separate the elections for cities/municipalities/communes/villages and the elections for Provinces/States/Länder/Regions/departments... ? Both are "local" government but not the same thing. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you ! Do you think we can ask for the closure of this discussion ? (I am not used to it). Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I am closing the discussion. I have renamed the subcategories. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete Looks to me a redundant category because all the photographs except for one are about coins and there are a lot of images of coins that are also close-ups and are just in the regular categories. JopkeB (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Don't delete. --ComputerHotline (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- @ComputerHotline: Why? Why should this category be kept? JopkeB (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Since there was no reason given not to delete this category in over four months, I'll close this discussion and delete the category. --JopkeB (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | no reason for not deleting this category | |||
| Actions | Move the files to correct categories and make a deletion request for this category. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Empty apart from an equally empty subcategory that's already up for discussion here. Both are unlikely to ever hold anything that's not a copyright violation. El Grafo (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agree There might be images that are not copyright violation 70 years after the dead of the last living member of the group (founded in 1987), but that might be far away. So I agree to delete this category and its subcategory, that is also empty. Or perhaps keep it and add {{NoUploads}}. JopkeB (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Rename Category:Young people to Category:Young adults This is a category for people by stage of development. The current scheme on Commons for stage of development is for 'young people/humans' to cover ages 18 to approximately 40 (exclusively adults). "Young adults" is more clearly a group of adult people, as "young people" can easily be misconstrued as including children (they are young afterall). Josh (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Young people to Category:Young adults | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
This seems like a poor category name. I added a parent category to match its creator's intention, and removed a few images that blatantly had nothing to do with the Indian Subcontinent, but with a name like this it is going to be a magnet for wrong images. Whatever is the intent here, can we rename it more clearly and specifically? Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Uff! Begin by moving it to Historical Place. Can't you see that this is a proper noun? 186.173.132.133 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- West Bengal (or maybe India) has a concept with that name, but the description on this category seems to be intended for one particular location. - Jmabel ! talk 01:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agree This category should be renamed to the correct name of the intended (historical) place. Now there are already photographs in it that look like being taken on different locations. And be careful with using "historical" in category names, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images, better use specific periods in the category name, like year, decade or century/centuries. JopkeB (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- West Bengal (or maybe India) has a concept with that name, but the description on this category seems to be intended for one particular location. - Jmabel ! talk 01:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel and JopkeB: I'm from West Bengal and the description provided in the category Historical place is not coherent enough, and none of the images in the category depict such a place. Better deleting the category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- For starters, there is no central government organisation in India named "Geographical Survey of India". We have "Geological Survey of India" (GSI) and "Archaeological Survey of India" (ASI). Since the category describes a historical place, the relevant central government organisation would be ASI. You can look into the Monuments of National Importance in West Bengal category for similar historical places. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this should simply be deleted, and it sounds like I'm not alone, but given that I opened this and there is something less than full agreement, probably someone else should close it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Since there were no objections for over a month, the category will be deleted and this discussion can be closed. --JopkeB (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Move the files to proper categories and ask for deletion of this category | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | Before I could finish the implementation, User:Sbb1413 had moved the rest of the files and made a redirect instead of a deletion request. Done --JopkeB (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
What does absolute cleavage mean? There is no mention of absolute cleavage to be found on wikipedia or wiktionary, and a Google search shows that it's not a widely accepted term. Unless I'm mistaken and this is an accepted term, these pictures should go back in the parent category. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, please merge back to parent category. We don't need yet another category classifying exactly how much of a particular body part is showing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- You could also try ousting so-called users obsessed with female (or male) human bodies. You would save a lot of time, energy and calm... 186.174.143.153 13:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am sure you would save a lot of sockpuppets as well Trade (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- You see, you opened an absurd category and when people say that, you get nervous. Then avoid opening these meaningless pages. 186.174.249.153 18:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you could not be bothered to ping the user you are accusing then it was clearly never that of a big of an issue to you Trade (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- You see, you opened an absurd category and when people say that, you get nervous. Then avoid opening these meaningless pages. 186.174.249.153 18:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am sure you would save a lot of sockpuppets as well Trade (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep According to https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Absolute_Cleavage (mentioned in the Wikidata item) "Absolute cleavage" is about a dress or top that is specifically cut to show the entirety of the wearer's cleavage and the top bit of the stomach of a women. So there is more to see than just cleavage, so they have distinct characteristics and so there can be two different categories, in the same category structure as now. My suggestion: adjust the descriptions in both categories so that the distinctions are clear and check the files in both categories to see whether they are in the correct category. --JopkeB (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- You could also try ousting so-called users obsessed with female (or male) human bodies. You would save a lot of time, energy and calm... 186.174.143.153 13:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Conclusions and proposal
[edit]- There is a difference between Category:Cleavage (breasts) and Category:Absolute cleavage. This is a good argument to keep this category, no matter what feelings or thoughts someone may have or not may have about the subject.
Action Adjust the descriptions in both categories so that the distinction is clear.- Action Check the files in both categories to see whether they are in the correct category.
@Cryptic-waveform, Auntof6, and Trade: Do you agree? If there are no objections over two weeks, I'll close this discussion and implement the actions. --JopkeB (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | See two Actions above Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Category created and populated exclusively by one user to complain about being “censored” on social media. In any case “non-governmental internet censorship in non-authoritarian countries” is just “Internet censorship” and doesn’t need its own category Dronebogus (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is a distinction which the category name makes clear. This is illustrating that such censorship takes place and what it is, not "complaining". There could also be a subcategory for "Non-governmental Internet censorship" more broadly. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Prototyperspective:
- It useful to have such illustrations of such censorship on Commons and group them together in one category (with perhaps subcategories).
- There should indeed be a parent category for "Non-governmental Internet censorship", for instance for messages from Twitter/X and Facebook.
- But I doubt whether those illustrations are allowed on Commons because they might be violation of copyrights of the senders of the messages. JopkeB (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'd agree to that in cases where the messages exceed a certain length. However, in these case I'm the sender of the messages.
- Also I do see now how the category name seems overly specific – it's because it was meant to be a subcategory of "Non-governmental Internet censorship" and/or "Online semi-censorship" (e.g. 'voluntary' self-censorship or not removing posts but greatly reducing their reach). It's just that there currently is no media about censorship in countries where censorship is more common / which are considered authoritarian (e.g. see [2] [3] [4]), hence just created the subcategory since its parent category would be empty. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I not just meant copyright violation of the messages, but also of the writers and makers of the screens. JopkeB (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- By that I don't know what you mean. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- To me File:Decentralized censorship on reddit via community moderation not based on subreddit rules (promotional posts are allowed and have a dedicated tag on rOpensource).png, File:Semi-censorship on Twitter ("Show more replies").png and File:Semi-censorship on Twitter.png look like printscreens and maybe copyrighted. JopkeB (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- While I don't know what you mean with "printscreens", I don't think they are and that these are at a minimum Template:PD-shape/Template:PD-text. In any case, that would need to be clarified/discussed elsewhere and more broadly since there are many other Category:Screenshots of Twitter (also see the subcat there). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you say so, your responsibility. Then, please add those PD templates to the files, to avoid misunderstandings. JopkeB (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- While I don't know what you mean with "printscreens", I don't think they are and that these are at a minimum Template:PD-shape/Template:PD-text. In any case, that would need to be clarified/discussed elsewhere and more broadly since there are many other Category:Screenshots of Twitter (also see the subcat there). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- To me File:Decentralized censorship on reddit via community moderation not based on subreddit rules (promotional posts are allowed and have a dedicated tag on rOpensource).png, File:Semi-censorship on Twitter ("Show more replies").png and File:Semi-censorship on Twitter.png look like printscreens and maybe copyrighted. JopkeB (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- By that I don't know what you mean. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I not just meant copyright violation of the messages, but also of the writers and makers of the screens. JopkeB (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Prototyperspective:
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Conclusions and proposal
[edit]- Category:Non-governmental Internet censorship in non-authoritarian countries is not a good name: it is too specific. It should be "Non-governmental Internet censorship".
- There was doubt about the legality of the files: they might be violation of copyrights of the senders of the messages and the printscreens itselves maybe copyrighted too. One file has been nominated for deletion for this reason and it has been kept. Another one has been deleted because it was out of scope. All remaining files have now a PD template. So this doubt has been fully refuted.
Proposal: Rename this category as proposed and give it a good description. @Dronebogus and Prototyperspective: Do you agree? If there are no objections to this proposal over two weeks, I'll close this discussion and implement the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm okay with it. Maybe there can be subcategories once there are many files if that ever is the case. Just know that by removing that part, the scope of the cat will be much broader and may encompass more files. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename this category as proposed and give it a good description. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Should this category be "Dev Kant Baruah" instead? See https://web.archive.org/web/20210102065312/https://www.inc.in/en/leadership/past-party-president/d-k-barooah Ooligan (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Renamed to proper name. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Empty category that duplicates Category:BSicon/railway/set f/set mixed/crossing/stations and stops, and does not follow the standard BSicon naming nomenclature. Useddenim (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- delete, its RDT-template designers decision as to how to interprete.. Cmuelle8 (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The nominated category is already deleted. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete category As previously discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images by subject, nearly every file on Commons is an image of some sort or another. Indeed one could argue 100% are since what we actually provide to a user are images of the files we maintain. In any case, it seems the consensus is that there should not be an 'images of' analog for every topical category, and I can't see a reason for people to be an exception to this. Josh (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Redirected the image categories to topic categories. Sorry for being too late. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
should be merged into Category:Animals on roads – see its subcats (and the few files here) Prototyperspective (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I would keep both:
- roads like all, especially outside/between populated places
- for mostly (wildlife) animals (outside populated places, for example on dirt roads, forest roads or other) on roads
- streets especially in cities/villages/hamlets = in populated places
- for mostly pets/animal husbandry (in populated places) on streets
- or (wildlife) animals that moved into built-up areas/streets
- roads like all, especially outside/between populated places
- Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 07:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
No proper reason given to merge this category. However, its parent will be decided once the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/02/Category:Roads and streets is over. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I doubt if we really need this diversification. Better we keep only Painted ceilings and use also Hand painted objects Oursana (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agree Almost all painted ceiling images in Commons are hand-painted, therefore this division only causes unnecessary noise. Darwin Ahoy! 01:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
The nominated category is already deleted. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Unclear name and description, no parent categories. I think it’s just a test edit, but I’m not confident enough to mark it for speedy deletion under COM:CSD G1. Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- This category contains Commons:First steps/Sorting and its sibblings in different languages. I think these subcategories should indeed be grouped together, but perhaps deserve a better category name and parent categories. I have not enough knowledge about this matter to suggest a new category name. Anybody? JopkeB (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- These pages are already grouped together through the language selector bar at the top of each of these pages. As long as there is no more than one English page in the category, nor does it have any parent categories or meaningful description, I see no way in which it is, or could be, useful. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a useful category in any way. It was created and added to Commons:First steps/Sorting by a user who created a bunch of nonsense category trees. This was apparently some kind of editing experiment; perhaps well-intended, but not helpful. Marbletan (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Empty category, so this discussion can be closed and the category can be deleted. --JopkeB (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
This category feels pretty arbitrary Trade (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- In what way? Does it need a better description? At the moment it's really awkward to find images of abusive people - the categories are by type of abuse (often not including people or focusing on victims or presentations about the type of abuse) and there are no categories for images focusing on the abuser, e.g. if you want a general image of an abusive woman do you look through all the Category:Female with weapons (mostly war), intimate partner violence or sort through varies categories in Category:Female criminals and Category:Abuse by subject. This category will contain general images and various categories of women who have been convicted of abusive crimes (eg violent crimes), or performing a certain type of abusive behavior (which is not likely to be criminal eg verbal abuse).
- I have also created Category:Abusive people (gender neutral) and one for men. - [[User:Amousey|Amousey]] (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's certainly hard to define. When I see mention of abuse in media, it usually refers to some kind of direct interpersonal abuse -- physical, mental, psychological, sexual, etc. -- not generally committing crimes that aren't aimed directly at specific people. A person with a weapon isn't necessarily abusive. Neither are criminals: it depends on the crime and circumstances. I see several subcategories under Category:Abusive people that I don't think belong there. I wouldn't want us to start categorizing people as abusive just because they aren't perfectly polite all the time.
- Another issue is that this category for women has subcategories for females -- it should be the other way around if we're going to have both. The same issue exists in the male categories.
- And how exactly is the "angry anime girl" abusive? She's yelling, but that isn't necessarily abuse. Does that image represent a specific anime character who's known to be abusive? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntof6 (talk • contribs) 0:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, far too vague to be useful. Plus, as User:Auntof6 points out, anger and abuse should not be conflated. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note there is a more recent CfD covering Category:Abusive people so subsuming this into that discussion. Josh (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  No consensus | |||
| Actions | subsume into Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:Abusive people | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Duplicate of either Category:Leyte (province) or Category:Leyte (island). howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- If there is a Wikidata entry (disambiguation item) about Leyte, then you can make this a parent or "container" category. I should spare some time to teach the relationship between Wikidata, Commons and Wikipedias at Wiki gatherings. 186.174.249.153 16:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | dab | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Delete category Most of the contents are categories of screenshots. It seems like an attempt to limit those categories to screenshots (vs. audio or video clips), but this would seem to be addressed by including "screenshots" in the category name and having a hatnote. I don't think this category helps much as there is no way (besides individually visiting each category) of identifying which of them contain non-'images'. The hatnote template can stay on them, but it just should stop auto-catting them here and this category can be done away with. There are a few 'image' categories here, but the same applies, they say 'image' in the name, they don't need a category like this to track them. We don't have a 'Categories which should only contain aircraft' for all of the 'aircraft' categories..and so on. Josh (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete category | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||