Look at the notice I added to the category page for its speedy deletion and next time do the same for empty categories please. No need for discussion. 186.10.110.13820:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its been almost 4 years since the protests so its unlikely to get many images now. Geograph doesn't appear to have any images keeping in mind User:GeographBot hasn't got to 2020 yet. If we do later get some this could be recreated or they could just be added to a new category Category:George Floyd protests in Warwickshire which even doesn't exist. It doesn't seem like a village is likely to have had a significant number of these protests. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: the category now contains subcategories for three countries. In addition, the issue raised would have been better asked directly to the creator. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
@Immanuelle: Then you can ask for renaming. Go to the category. In the old version of Commons it is under the tab "More", left from the search field. In the new version it is in the right column. JopkeB (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB I can only see this. Nowhere for request renaming. Will this request renaming? I had thought it was just taken from standard mediawiki and would move the category page and break the category. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me)15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need this category on Commons? Categories are for organizing files. We do not need every category from EN-WP on Commons! Only categories that add value to organizing files should be on Commons.(By the way: I removed Category:Secularism as a subcategory because I think Secularism does not belong here, so now there is only one subcategory left, which perfectly fits in other parents.) JopkeB (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thi: I suppose you, as the creator of this category, agree that this category should be deleted, because you already made a Speedy deletion request. But this is not the right order: to create already a speedy deletion request before this discussion has been closed. How to go on?
I'll close this discussion the day after tomorrow, so you might have some time to react here (what is the proper thing to do).
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This category needs to be deleted because it was created erroneously. The one image in it needed to be recategorized to Civilians massacred at My Lai which I did. FeralOink (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Jmabel Looks like I made a mistake when creating the category. I accidentally pasted the name of another JetBlue aircraft, I ♥ Blue, instead of the proper categories. I've fixed the issue. To answer your question, JetBlue Airways gives names to their airliners often containing "Blue" puns (see Category:Aircraft of JetBlue Airways by name). The names are often applied to new aircraft when older aircraft are retired, making it necessary to have categories for the names that include the various registrations of aircraft that carry them. - ZLEAT\C03:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA: that's fine. I'm sure you can see how I could not have guessed any of that from the way you initially left this (no parent cat, no explanation). - Jmabel ! talk07:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No files or subcategories, only a lot of text in Spanish. This is not where Commons categories are for. This category will be deleted in two weeks. JopkeB (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between Cable transport and Cableways? Both terms are defined almost identically in Wikidata. It defines "cable transport" as a "broad class of transport modes that have cables as foundation for transporting things, peoples or vehicles" and "cableway" as "any of a variety of transportation systems relying on cables to pull vehicles along or lower them at a steady rate, or a vehicle on these systems." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The local description of the Cableways category says, "Some of [the] subcategories are included concurrently here and in the category of cable transport because they can be and can not be considered as cableways, in dependence on local terminology and legislation." It seems to be against the Universality Principle, which suggests suppressing "local dialects and terminology" "in favour of universality if possible". --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask for renaming. Go to the category. In the old version of Commons it is under the tab "More", left from the search field. In the new version it is in the right column. JopkeB (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Just split the categorized files into proper individual name categories, and then make this with {{speedy|empty}}. -- Tuválkin✉✇01:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly named category with no parent categories. Can someone please explain so that it can be properly placed in the category hierarchy? Jmabel ! talk22:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly categories should be in English, so I suggest deleting this one. There were more like this in wanted categories. --Velma (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category names should be in English, with Latin letters.
Categories like these should have a description.
These categories seem not to have any file, no matter how long you click. But perhaps Velma has emptied them (see for instance history of one of the files); the files have already been moved to proper categories. And empty categories can be deleted, just add a Speedy deletion (see Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion for information and use Template:Speedydelete) in the categories involved.
It is about a Berber language with its own script/alphabet, see w:en:Tifinagh. It also has its own Wikipedia, see zgh.wikipedia.org. (Perhaps "zgh" should be added to Commons:Babel and Commons:Language templates). So the files have a right to be on Commons, it is not just a self-made language just for fun, what I initially thought. The files just should be properly categorized.
Perhaps the best thing to do is to give them redirects; but only someone who can read this script can do it (the language is not supporte by for instance Google Translate). JopkeB (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the category was moved to the default format for dozens if not hundreds of buildings in Bern, I think we can delete this. I tagged it with {{Bad name}}, but @Billinghurst: thinks it's important to keep it. @AnBuKu, Voyager, and Ginkgo2g: who edited the category in the past. Alternatively, I guess it's conceivable to have redirects for buildings in the form "Category:Bern, name of building". Enhancing999 (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a redirect to what I guess is a correct namen. Is that enough? Can this discussion be closed? Or should this category be deleted? Please be clear. JopkeB (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between Category:Fish restaurants and Category:Seafood restaurants on Commons? Can the first one be merged into the second one? OR can both have clear descriptions showing the differences? Are there any fish restaurants just serving fish and no other seafood? If yes: would that be so important to have two categories on Commons? JopkeB (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is it then a fish restaurant, when it also serves pork and frogs? And I do not see a category with "fish" in the name, only "shops". JopkeB (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's a fish restaurant, but it still serves other common dishes with non-fish ingredients, because they want to cater to all customers?
just like nowadays how some restaurants that focus on meat also provide vegan dishes? a burger shop that start selling tofu/gluten burgers with fake cheese?
So "Fish restaurant" should be a subcategory of "Seafood restaurants"? Because seafood restaurants serve fish and other seafood, and fish restaurants serve fish but not other seafood? But how can you see on a photo which of the two it is? In the Netherlands are restaurants that call themself fish restaurant but also serve other seafood. So we cannot depend on the name of the restaurant. How would you like to solve this? JopkeB (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fish and seafood restaurants aren't the same. In general fish restaurants are more general: fish can be hauled from the sea, from lakes and rivers. Seafood is only from the sea, and it is not only fish, but other marine animals, too. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So:
Fish restaurants serve fish dishes with fish from the sea, lakes and/or rivers.
Seafood restaurants serve all kind of food from the sea, not only fish, but other marine animals too.
Bonjour, j'ai créé cette page par erreur. Pouvez-vous la supprimer ? Merci ! Datsofelija (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, i've created by mistake this page. Can you delete it please? Thanks![reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete: All attempts to categorize categories (such as countries) by status in the temporal dimension, such as former, current, future, new, old, historical, etc. are subject to the same problem, in that they can only be defined relative to a given point in time, and the usual point used is the current moment, which is constantly moving. It is also not the only point of reference that can be used. Thus, I am fine with deletion of all such categories, so for this nomination, I support deletion of this category and all of its subs. Josh (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment:Agree with Jmabel. Also, how current is "current"? Countries come and go. And Hong Kong is not a country and Macau is not a country. (I removed them from "Countries of Asia".) Editors are confused enough about "countries" without adding more categories. Krok6kola (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurstsDrewth 04:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Can this category get a proper description? Because the Wikidata item does not seem to match the subcategories. What should be in it and what not? Now it seems to be a grab bag of all kinds of subcategories. What is the purpose of this category on Commons? JopkeB (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a high-order cat, like and similar to Category:Earth. Don't really know what you're asking about but I'll add a cat description and an issue may be that it's overlapping a lot with its subcat Category:Civilizations – a difference is that this cat is also about the concept (e.g. media about the concept as a subject) as well as the contemporary civilization as one civilization which a minority may distinguish by subcultures that they consider to be different civilizations and/or as in the work "Clash of civilizations". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of your description is certainly an approvement. But I still am stuck with questions:
What is the purpose of this category on Commons? Remember: Commons categories are for organizing files and to make it easier to find files you need. For any other purpose we have Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. In my view Commons category structures should be as simple and clear as they can be. And I wonder how this category fits into this view.
What kind of subcategories should it contain? Is any country (assuming that any country is a complex society) part of a civilization, are countries part of a civilization while they started a war and murder civilians, are there any qualification to be part of a civilization, like striving for sustainability and/or "progress", or being a democracy? The answers to these questions may determine which subcategories this category can/should have.
The category purpose is basically the same as for any other category, organizing files and making them easy to find etc. There just are few media at the top-level so far but there are some which show which files would fit there and a prime subcategory is Time-use that is also about how current (theoretically also past) civilization(s) spend their time on. Other things relate to the concept and subject of civilization collapse, where I added subcat Global catastrophic risks. Media relate to integrate into large-order Big history and the civilizational scale. "Humanity" is too broad and "Earth" is just the place of it. There could and indeed should be more files there.
The kind of subcategories it contains relate directly to the civilizational scale and civilizational subjects. In today's world all countries are part of one civilization because of the high interrelations. Indigenous peoples that are fairly isolated or even North Korea may be debatable in regards to some aspects or to some but that doesn't mean we need to adopt the view that these are different civilizations. Since they make up only a very small percent of the human population, it's a quite niche detailed subject with not that much relevance here. In general, in the current world, which is only a tiny slice of spacetime, countries are part of a civilization but differ in cultural aspects, economic aspects, and so on and are (could be) different cultures or different societies. "Countries" may not necessarily be the most interesting/relevant scope in this aspect by the way where this is subject of the aforementioned book. Civilization is a layer above 1) culture, 2) society, and 3) socioeconomic system (and probably more). @Sbb1413: just proposed another cat that is a layer above society and culture – maybe you could give some input here?
As for specific criteria, these may be the subject of sophisticated works but that's not needed here since these distinguish between civilizations in history, not in regards to whether something is part of current civilization or are about the subject of indigenous peoples which could simply be put in a subcat where there is no need to specify if, which and why they are or aren't part of contemporary human civilization. Also I think you're confusing civilized behavior with civilization. Sustainability here refers to the endurability of the current ordered world system as opposed to collapse. (To clarify: if a medium-sized asteroid hits Earth, civilization may collapse with spatiotemporal variability depending on the size etc even if humanity doesn't go extinct.) Sustainability here does not refer to as an ideal, goal, or ethical value but simply sustain-ability (endurability) at the large-scale where I don't know why it's often considered some kind of idea rather than pragmatic imperative.
To clarify: society and culture shouldn't be subcats here though if it seemed like I was saying that. It's just a layer above these which was previously missing. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you extensive explanation. I can see now the benefits of this category. Further remarks and questions about the subcategories:
So you mean "sustainability" as a neutral term, the extend to which a society is sustainable, no matter whether the results of policies are good or bad for the environment?
Because there are plenty of governments, businesses and business people who prefer short term economic profits above long term endurability (or have other priorities), and their countries still are considered to be part of current civilization.
But can we not judge/investigating/laying along the yardstick of sustainability also those societies that are not part of civilization (like hunter/gatherers)? So is it really part of civilazation or just of humankind?
Shouldn't other subcategories be added, like the ones mentioned in the second paragraph of w:en:Civilization: agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, a currency, taxation, regulation, and specialization of labour (and perhaps many more) or their parents?
1. Yes, that's also why not the entire category falls into the scope of this large-scale category...only sustainability relating to or at the scale of civilization falls into its scope.
(I think it generally refers to that though when discussed for societies – it's just that sustainability is made up of so many small parts so it's used more in the sense of an adjective referring to different degrees of some specific small part as in what is either more or less matching what would be sustainable if implemented at large scale.) –– The thing is, whether actions or policies are good or bad for the environment doesn't really matter to sustainability itself, that's a misconception that's probably not important to correct: if there were only a million people living on Earth they could both extract more resources and pollute the environment more than two average Americans and Chinese combined and it would still be sustainable. Since we can't and certainly shouldn't quickly reduce population size like that, the subject sustainability is the change of societal/civilizational patterns so as to be continuable for some forseeable/meaningful amount of time (btw which duration is where subjectivity could come from). Continuation refers to both the sustainance of the civilization as well as more ethics-related aspects such as the amount of early deaths (e.g. years of potential life lost), suffering, risks, reduction of freedoms in the future, reductions of well-being in the future, and so on.
1.1. Nowhere is there any implying that societies or entities that currently aren't sustainable, or aren't moving towards sustainable practices, or are actively obstructing moving towards sustainable patterns aren't part of civilization. It's just that here it's considered from the whole-civilization approach, just like the Carbon Budget studies do: these studies e.g. calculate how many years at the current level of GHG emissions there are left for the climate goals to be missed with a 50% likelihood at the level of civilization. One could also say at the level of humanity, but the former is about the modern society-aspects of it like economics, culture, state structures, and so on.
1.2. …and as you said, some isolated hunter-gatherer tribal societies are part of humanity but not necessarily of civilization – within scope here would be those that aren't fully isolated or the interface of modern civilization with these. For example, if they get somehow rewarded from elements of modern civilization for protecting rainforests then not only are they not fully isolated but the interface would be of special relevance here.
1.2. Yes, that's a subcategory. It relates to large-scale sustainability in specific within scope here (either directly or in the sense of being a research subject and/or trial-like smaller-scale testing/drafting).
2. It's not simple to (properly) populate/structure this category and the top-level of its subcategories – yes, these could be subcategories but I think they shouldn't be lumped into it directly but would need some intermediate subcategory/ies like Typical components of Earth civilizations->Land management->Agriculture instead of cat:Agriculture. Note that the paragraph states "Civilizations are often characterized by additional features as well, including…". Alternatives to "cat:Typical components…" could be "Societal management" or "Civilizational management" which could include methods of/large-scale "Land management". Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that on Commons we have categories for organizaing files, not for having a complete reconstruction of humankind? To me it looks rather complicated to build in all those extra layers (and thus extra clicks which nobody likes), let alone for ordinary people who are just searching for images and who are not familiair with the Commons category structure. If you have so much to explain in a discussion about what subcategories exactly should be in it and why, how can passersby, other editors and people looking for files, then understand that without having to read this discussion? One of my mottos is: "Keep it simple" (at least as simple as possible); I do not think this category construction meets this motto. So: can you make it more simple, without extra layers? JopkeB (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not complicated; maybe I shouldn't have taken the time to answer you in detail so it seems more complicated than it is, it's really simple and this is a major concept of utmost importance and notability with the cat being perfectly fine as it is. I don't have much to explain, you asked a lot and maybe I just shouldn't answer with precision – again this is a big concept with lots of books written about it. To make it simple: the category contents, scope and contents/subcategories are fine exactly as they are right now (except that more media like compilation videos would be good but isn't on WMC yet). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: To you it is not complicated (please speak for yourself). And I can handle details, but in discussions it may help to be compact and only add details when people ask for more explanation.
No matter how many books are written about a subject, how much scientific literature there is, that all is not relevant when it is about organizing media. Then we only need literature when we want to give a good description or want to tell the difference between two or more concepts.
There are other uses like the film and series so its possible this could be a DAB though the generic meaning is likely the primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These other uses are named referring to this concept. We don't make a DAB out of cat:Earth just because some board games or films or called like that (likewise referring to that concept). There already is a note about For other uses, see… in the cat description and if there are too many other uses of that name, there could be a subcat for these. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB and Prototyperspective: I think this category should be redirected to Humanity, and the subcategories should be dealt as follows:
Not sure if this is supposed to argue for deleting/redirecting this category but if it does, it contains absolutely no explanation or argument as well as ignores everything that has been explained above.
The concept of civilization is broader than particular instances of civilizations and the target categories is not where these cats would be recategorized into. I elaborated above specifically what the difference to humanity is. As an illustrating example:
an individual of an isolated uncontacted tribe is currently part of biological humanity but isn't really part of contemporary civilization,
civilization is about things like infrastructure and activities with spatiotemporal reference rather than biological species,
and one may be interested in how things varied between and throughout different instances of civilizations or in things relating to how it may develop going into the future, in what is associated with humans developing a civilization but not yet other animals of Earth, or how such may look like on other planets and so on
I favor having comprehensive descriptions for each category on Wikipedia, including high-level categories such as "Civilization" and "Earth". I believe that a well-defined description is not just a "nice to have", but a "must-have" for each category. The primary reason for this is to avoid ambiguities in categorization. A clear, thorough description helps editors understand the scope and intent of the category, thereby ensuring that articles are categorized correctly. Unambiguous classification of articles is particularly important for broad categories, where the risk of misinterpretation is higher. The imperative to have categories defined exhaustively is a prerequisite to avoid conflict in editing or misunderstanding between editors on tossing the categories, which leads to conflict between editors.
Moreover, a well-defined category description can guide editors, helping them decide whether an article fits into a specific category or a more general one. Clear guidelines in the category description can help editors make these decisions.
If a category cannot be defined exhaustively, it may be a sign that it is too broad or ambiguous and should, therefore, be reconsidered or even deleted. Categories should be distinct and meaningful to aid not only in the organization but also in the retrieval of articles since the reader is the principal user of Wikipedia rather than the editor. Clumsy or broad categories that are hard for the reader to fathom how they unite articles, especially if they are not uniform, are the worst thing.
What makes sense? There is no explanation in the comment that could make sense as far as I can see. I have elaborated specifically why Civilization should not redirect to Humanity and your comments seem to show how you two want to decide on a subject you don't understand and without considering such explanations. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What subcategories and files should be in it and what not?
What is the purpose of this category on Commons? [Addition:] What problem does it solve?
Answers so far:
(about the description) [Added to the category by Prototyperspective, before this discussion was closed, not discussed here:] A civilization is any organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond natural spoken language such as writing systems. It usually includes agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor. This category is about the broad general concept as well as the concept of modern civilization as one interconnected global civilization.
What should be in: subcategories and files:
that relate directly to the civilizational scale and civilizational subjects;
about agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor;
about how things varied between and throughout different instances of civilizations or things relating to how it may develop going into the future, in what is associated with humans developing a civilization but not yet other animals of Earth.
What should not be in: countries.
(about the purpose) Still no acceptable answer, it looks like this category makes things more complicated rather than simpler, with an extra layer. And as User:Sbb1413 has proven: we can easily do without it.
Is this good enough to know what this category is about, what should be in and what not? Would that also be clear enough to an unsuspecting passerby looking for images or an editor looking for a correct category to put files into?
No, about agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor should not be in this category. Subcategories like "Origin of architecture" or maybe categories that contain multiple of these like especially Category:Industries dealing with natural resources could be there.
In addition, see the files and subcategories that are currently contained here to get a better sense of what fits here. I spelled that out in explanations above but maybe concrete examples are more easily understood.
An "acceptable" answer has been provided in regards to purpose. It could be that you don't understand it which is fine but then please don't delete categories just because you don't understand them. The purpose is as for any other category on notable subjects of WMC, making things discoverable, organizing things, and so on. See the category description you quoted. Sbb1413 even asked for a category that encompasses in its scope both culture and society and did not provide any explanation whatsoever. Do not delete categories on obviously very notable subjects with Wikipedia articles in a large number of languages just because you based on misunderstandings and ignorance of explanations vote (that is: not argue based on rational explanations) against their presence. And I don't know why you mention "unsuspecting passerby" users.
If this is still not clear here are some WP:RS sources that prove this is a notable major subject that should not be deleted despite of that by a small handful of users who don't provide any good reasons; these all back up what I've been explaining above: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].
Yes, it should be kept and these sources ^ should be enough in regards to this question.
I think the concept behind the Civilization category can be easily covered in Society. Although there are uncontacted tribes that are considered to be outside of the global civilization, the number of images we have for such tribes is few, and it is logically so. Therefore, having a category on civilization just to exclude the uncontacted tribes doesn't make any sense to me. The entire global society should be considered to be synonymous to the global civilization. I'm withdrawing my proposal for a category covering both culture and society, as culture is an inherent part of society. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't. This comes from a fundamental understanding what Civilization refers to. It is much broader than Society; nobody would say there is a global society, rather it is a global civilization which encompasses many societies. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't. This comes from a fundamental understanding what Civilization refers to. It is much broader than Society;
This is why the category should be disambiguated instead of being kept.
nobody would say there is a global society, rather it is a global civilization which encompasses many societies.
1. Void of any reason to properly address. Should Cat:Humanity be deleted as well because there already is a cat:"People by name"? Or Cat:Food because there already is Cat:Nutrition?
2. This is about a) international relations between b) countries. If anything it could be a subcat here. Both a) and b) as well as several other things like scope (again civilization is broader than society) are different. Society is a kind of generic term applied to different scales etc, I was referring to one firm society. You could make it a subcat but the cat's contents are problematic.
Also I think this is becoming another case of a wall of text disincentivizing further editors to participate while ignoring the explanations made and especially the refs provided which should override such objections. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the word "civilization" in sources cited by Prototyperspective can be easily replaced by "humanity" or "society" depending on context. Just because many sources using the term "civilization" does not mean we should keep the category. Instead of redirecting to somewhere else, I think the Civilization category should be converted into a dab page with links to Civilizations, Humanity, Society and World. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they can't. I suggest you simply don't comment when you don't understand something. To pick an example I already used earlier for illustration: humanity may not and probably would not go extinct with some of the ten threats of source [7] however civilization may collapse worldwide. I already elaborated in length what the difference to humanity is before so I suggest you read that instead. Humanity is also a much different scope, it's about a biological species while civilization about higher-level social structures and so on. Do not flout these high-quality sources with your personal layman assessment that finds the concept to be superflous. Civilization is a notable subject which encompasses historic civilizations and does not refer to Humanity, Society, and World. If these are the terms you most closely associate with it that's all fine just like it's fine when a person thinks Cat:"Animals on flowers" to be redundant because there already are categories "Insects on flowers" and "Insects on leaves". Prototyperspective (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I still believe the Civilization category can be done away with, I can't totally ignore how the sources use the term. The scope of the category is broad and based on what JopkeB and Prototyperspective have said and what I have analysed, the category scheme might be as follows:
World — a broad-concept category, generally covering the planet Earth and all the people in it.
Society — group of people related to each other through persistent relations.
Civilization — organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond spoken language.
Culture — shared aspects of a society's way of life.
The subcats of civilization might be as follows (the list is not exhaustive):
The brief description are useful for illustration but it should probably be mentioned that they aren't accurate as is, for example the relations do not need to be persistent and it can also revolve even more loosely around common fictions like cultural aspects.
I do not see how Education and Knowledge could directly be subcategories here. They could maybe become part of this cat tree through some intermediate categories that connect them to it, maybe via Category:Knowledge-based sector (it's the same as with Cat:"Industries dealing with natural resources").
The adjective "uncivilized" referring to "uncultured" or "barbarous" behavior in contemporary language does not refer to the same concept of Civilization as organized society; it refers to behavior and this can sometimes be confusing. For example multiple historic civilizations could be considered to have acted in quite uncivilized ways and the same applies to groups and individuals who are part of some civilization.
This is a subcategory because it relates fundamentally to civilizations as in how civilizations interact reciprocally with their environments. This is a concept that can be compared throughout and between civilizations that is characteristic to civilizations and doesn't imply there are people not involved in nature, the subject is how they inevitably are (e.g. see Classic Maya collapse#Drought theory or Avatar (2009 film)#Themes and inspirations). Nevertheless, the category should indeed not be a subcategory after just looking at its contents: things like "Nature photography" or or "Stairs in nature" are entirely out of scope (they may however also be inappropriate there) – instead I'd move the category to Cat:"Human impact on the environment" and Cat:"Human use of natural resources" (which is one layer above "Industries dealing with natural resources" and could be included instead of the latter).
Thanks, @Sbb1413: , this looks like a constructive, well thought out and useful contribution. This is closer to what I understand civilazation is. The subcategories make more sense than the current ones: more clear and more in the top of the category hierarchy (while this category is also such a top category), less complicated. Though: even so-called "uncivilized" people have an economy (they also have to deal with needs, limited means and allocation) and education (not formal education, but children learn how to gather food, hunt, being social, move, get knowledge about what to eat and what not, where good places to stay are, and so on). But maybe we can overlook that disadvantage because at a quick glance, I do not see subcategories that are about them, I see only categories about civilized economies and education.
There is more than one meaning of "uncivilized"; here the first one is meant: Not resembling a civilization, exactly what we are discussing here.
Civilazations interact not only with their environment:
Also so-called "uncivilized" people interact with their environment.
In civilazations people interact for instance also with other people.
I hope you can consider the category structure of Sbb1413 again: is it good as it is, or what should be changed to that structure to meet your criteria?
2. I wasn't saying that. It's just one major aspect/facet of civilizations. 2.1. Yes, that's why the subject is the how etc, not the if. 2.2 not exclusive or key to civilizations. (Key is the resulting systems/structures such as freshwater supply networks)
3. I wouldn't mind if these were direct subcategories; however for accuracy and optimal relational structure I think they should eventually rather be subcategories to some broader and more directly civilization-related category but these may not yet exist and maybe these categories would be better than alternatives. Civilization would be about grand-scale (e.g. overall) impact on nature, history of infrastructure technology, and so on where distant subcategories would be more specific such as about these at a specific time. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot express any opinion on your particular proposal because I do not have enough time to analyze it thoroughly. If I had more experience, I could conclude quickly. My point is that any category should have explicit and thorough descriptions. The descriptions should not be "implied" (implicit). Whichever way you decide, make sure that your reasoning behind a particular decision is explained in the description of the category itself rather than buried in talk pages so that new editors or readers can understand your reasoning on why you categorized this way or another way. Is my opinion useful? If so, please let me know. If my opinion does not add value to the discussion, please also let me know (so there will be no reason to ping me). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Maxim Masiutin: I value your remarks and warning. I agree with you that categories should have an explicit description and that editors and readers should not have to read an extensive discussion to be able to make proper use of a category. JopkeB (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What subcategories and files should be in it and what not? Or: What should the category structure be?
What is the purpose of this category on Commons? What problem(s) does it solve?
Should this category be kept?
Answers:
Description: Organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond spoken language.
The category scheme might be as follows:
World — a broad-concept category, generally covering the planet Earth and all the people in it.
Society — group of people related to each other through persistent relations.
Civilization — organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond spoken language.
Culture — shared aspects of a society's way of life.
The subcatetories of Category:Civilization might be as follows (the list is not exhaustive):
other subcategories that relate directly to the civilizational scale and civilizational subjects and/or that are about how things varied between and throughout different instances of civilizations or things relating to how it may develop going into the future, in what is associated with humans developing a civilization but not yet other animals of Earth
According to Prototyperspective: subcategories and files about agriculture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor; but this is doubtful because these subjects are mentioned in the EN-WP as part of civilization, and it looks logically to add them as subcategories.
About the purpose for the category in Commons: Still no acceptable answer, it looks like this category makes things more complicated rather than simpler, with an extra layer. And as User:Sbb1413 has proven: we can easily do without it.
Additional reason: Commons needs a category that encompasses in its scope both culture and society. But Category:Culture is already a grandchild of Category:Society, so a parent category for both would not be inline with the category structure of Commons.
The links given to external websites only proof that "Civilization" is a concept that we need in general, for instance in Wikipedias, but they do not proof that we need it on Commons. Just because many sources using the term "civilization" does not mean we should keep the category on Commons.
Do you agree with these conclusions? Are these the things we can conclude from the discussion (apart from whether you agree with the outcome or not)?
Is this good enough to know what this category is about, what should be in and what not, and what the purpose of this category is? Would it also be clear enough to an unsuspecting passerby (who does not know about this discussion and only sees the description and the subcategories) looking for images or an editor looking for a correct category to put files into?
How to go on? What procedure should we follow since there is no agreement on keep or delete?
I think we should keep this category with modifications I have proposed. Categories like Agriculture, Infrastructure etc. can also be subcats of Civilization, as they are related. As said before, we can do away with this category, but we can't ignore the importance of the concept. Besides, the category tree of Society can be streamlined using this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be kept. You misrepresented a few things I stated there though – I didn't say things like cat:agriculture shouldn't be in in it, I just said it should be in a broader category that also clarifies how it relates to this category such as cat:"Typical components of Earth civilizations" as just one example. Also this I wouldn't mind if these were direct subcategories; however for accuracy and optimal relational structure I think they should eventually rather be subcategories to some broader and more directly civilization-related category (like the mentioned cat but that's just an example) seems to have been missed.
It was not proven we could do without it and the purpose is as shortly and easily describable as a category for the concept of Agriculture; there are just so many ways and reasons to have it such as enabling things to be put in and found in their appropriate category. Already streamlined cat:Society quite a bit. In general, civilization is of larger scale than society and society is of larger scale than community but all of these three are needed and all of them are a different approach than cat:Humanity. There also is Category:Organization (activity) instead of only cat:Organizations. Further, the purpose is to put and find media where it belongs and to have a place for files about civilization that don't fit elsewhere. If there was a CCBY mini-documentary on the emergence, characteristics, potential future, and Anthropocene issues of civilization, then it would be put/found here.
It can definitely not be covered by cat:Society (not even with difficult inappropriate subcats or lumping things to where they don't fit) and Humanity is a different approach that is not partly but fully different from the Civilization concept. Humans in small groups in caves 100k years ago would be Humanity, the subject of human anatomy, individual humans, and human bodily eating behavior functions would all be in scope of cat:Humanity. Best procedure would be to keep consistent with the WP:RS; there would need to be strong consensus to delete with good arguments for why to delete a cat despite of the RS for a concept this notable containing a reasonable amount of subcats+media. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So (additions and corrections to the Overall conclusions):
This category should be kept, but adjustments should be made as mentioned above (description, category structure and subcategories) AND the categories about agriculture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation and specialization of labor should also be subcategories, as long as there are no categories for them available that are broader and more directly civilization-related.
The purpose of this category is / the category should be kept because:
the concept of it is important
the category tree of Society can be streamlined using this category
enabling people to find media where they belong and having a place for files about civilization that don't fit elsewhere.
I don't know, let other people express their opinion to come to the consensus, I'm not the one involved in this issue. I edited the article, but my edits were technical, so I don't have any position on this particular topic, apart from general consideration on describing categories, which I expressed earlier on this talk page. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Technological advancement' and 'Specialization of labor' are not yet categories and I could not find similar ones, so those were not made subcategories.
Since there were no reactions in almost a month, I propose to merge both. They both link to the same Wikidata item and thus to the same Wikipedia articles, so I guess there is no difference. I suggest to keep Category:Product distribution because that is the most clear name and has already the most subcategories.
If there are no objections on 27 May 2024, I'll implement my proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is only one Wikidata item d:Q1781198 for all three of them (see English synonyms), which for me is an indication that there should only be one category on Commons as well.
So, unless someone with more knowledge than me about this subject (I have no knowledge at all about the subject) has another opinion, I suggest to merge all three of them. I prefer Category:Agricultural scientists to stay because indeed, as a non-native English speaking person, I think that is most clear. Note: the Wikidata item should be adjusted as well.
If they cannot be merged, then clear descriptions should be added for all three of them, showing the differences. JopkeB (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that the term “agronomist” (агроном, pron."agronom" ) in Russia also means a qualified employee (usually with higher education) working in agriculture. It is distinguished from the scientific employee, the fact that he is not engaged in research activities.I would prefer to leave this category, adding a number of clarifications to Wikidata.At least in Eastern European culture, there is a difference between an "agricultural scientist" and an "agronomist".... Miikul (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to check the information in detail....Most likely, what I mean by the word “agronomist” is more correctly called in English “agronomy technician” ...I grew up in an environment where agriculture was active, I heard both expressions (in russian it will be “also”, “агроном-техник”) , but did not attach any importance to the difference.... By the way, it's already on Wikidata. But the data in this qid turns out to be mixed... Miikul (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is next? Are Agricultural scientists and Agriculturalists still duplicates? What would be a good solution for this discussion? Do you have a proposal? JopkeB (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To admit , I don't know how to do better... I propose to combine for now, Agriculturalists and Agricultural scientists categories. Miikul (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and category Agronomists leave it like this for now or just don’t close this discussion, even after combining the first two proposed ones.Perhaps someone can add something else to the discussion.About Agricultural scientists and Agriculturalists , i have no doubt . Miikul (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
description/definition: professional in the science, practice, and management of agriculture and agribusiness (source: EN-WP); in short: someone who studies agriculture as an academic discipline
according to EN-WP an Agrononomist is the same as an Agriculturalist
Wikidata item: d:Q1781198; according to this Wikidata item an agronimist is the same as agriculturalist, agriculturist, agricultural scientist, agricultural researcher
I think now, reading Agronomy in EN-WP, that Agronomists are just studying plants involved in agriculture, and that Agronomy is the plant specialism of Agriculture science. The last one also includes animals, like cattle. My proposal for Category:Agronomists is to:
just add a good description to the Commons category and not merge it; and
Yes, this is my current conclusion. We need to wait for people who are more professional in this, for their expert opinion. Miikul (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that it can take a very long time before an expert comes along, so I'll close this discussion now and I'll implement the proposal. If ever indeed an expert comes along and thinks it should be otherwise, then we'll discuss it again. --JopkeB (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I created this category there were loads of images of the province of Prato with borders that needed to be reuploaded. As of now the great majority of the work has been done, so this category is no longer useful, it could even be deleted. Naioli (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to your surprise: There are people, countries and cultures that consider sheep liver as good food, perhaps even as delicacies. So please respect that and do not offend them by calling it offal, just because you yourself do perhaps not like it. Commons is populated with people and editors from all over the world and that means respect for other people, cultures, cuisines, habits and customs. Please first investigate a judgement before you write it here. JopkeB (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: I'm worried something might have been lost in translation here. "Offal" is a neutral term referring specifically to the entrails and internal organs of a butched animal, to be used as food. It's not a judgement like the word "awful." That said, Category:Offal is a subcategory of Category:Meat, so I don't see any big reason to rename this category, especially given the potential confusion surrounding the term offal. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Themightyquill: , for your explanation. Yes, that might be the case: Google Translate gives the equivalent of waste during slaughter.
I think this should not be the main/parent category (as it looks like it is now), but there should be one for the raw vegetables it is made of, which I cannot find yet. They are usually not made of cucumbers we use in salads, but of very small ones, that undoubtfully have another (Latin) name. Can anyone tell me what it should be? Can Category:Gherkins be the parent? JopkeB (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me there is a clear difference between the little ones (raw or still on the plant) that are usually used for pickles (but are not yet pickles) and the large raw ones that are usually used in salads. I would like to have different categories for them. There may be a common parent category for both of them, but for now I am looking for a proper name for the little raw ones, a better parent for Category:Pickled cucumbers. And I think this difference should be made throughout the category structure, starting with Category:Cucumis sativus and/or its parents. But I am not at all familiar with the Latin names, so I hope someone can help. JopkeB (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New definition: Gherkins = small cucumbers, between 3 to 13 cm (1 to 5 inch) in length, often with bumpy skin, which are typically used for pickling (source: EN-WP).
Conclusion: Gherkins may be pickled, but they can also be raw or still on the plant.
Category structure:
Category:Gherkins will become the main category for all small cucumbers (between 3 to 13 cm (1 to 5 inch)), on a plant, raw (for instance for sale on markets) or pickled.
But if we add the description to Category:Gherkins, then it is clear, isn't it? Otherwise people who do not agree should come up with a better name for an umbrella category for those small cucumbers in all their manifestations: stil on plants, raw and pickled. I searched and didn't find it.
The other way round, anyway! The food crop plant is derived from the species, not the species from the crop plant :-) I'll need to check up in case the crop plant is derived from hybrids between C. anguria and other species, or just from the one species. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we agree on proposal 1. (definition) and 2. (conclusion about gherkins). But we need an adjusted proposal for the category structure (green text is new):
3. Category structure:
Category:Gherkins will become the main category for all small cucumbers (between 3 to 13 cm (1 to 5 inch)), on a plant, raw (for instance for sale on markets) or pickled. Though, this is only true for the category names in English; it is not possible to have it as a parent for species, for categories with scientific names.
Can Category:Gherkins indeed stay as a category in which also images of gherkings are that are not picked, that are still on a plant? Otherwise: What can be the parent of gherkins that are on a plant?
@MPF: Since I consider you as the expert here, could you please give your comment on the Adjusted proposal for category structure? JopkeB (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Add proposed descriptions to the categories involved. 2) Create Category:Pickled gherkins. 3) Investigate whether Category:Pickled cornichons is needed and if yes: create it. 4) Make sure the category structure is correct. 5) Create Category:West Indian gherkins. 6) Check whether adjustments should be made in Wikidata. Done
Withdrawn My mistake. I've taken this road literally hundreds of times and it never dawned on me that it wasn't Cote-des-Neiges. I should have checked the first result on G Maps more carefully, as it spat out the much smaller Mcdougall Ave. in Outremont. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VRT ticket confirmed that Kiri Karma is uploader's wife and all the files were reviewed, I don't think this maintenance category is useful anymore A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of, or find, any Minis that aren't automobiles, so Merge would be sensible. Though the next action would be to rename all the "Mini vehicle" sub-categories. Sionk (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It turned out that there still were Mini vehicles that were not automobiles (like trucks and vans), so I kept some of the categories as well --JopkeB (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, other categories have some split about this, see Category:Île-de-France by century, but not in a single one is a definition included, what belongs where and why. When and how have the borders officially changed? Must some content sorted to present-day while other must be contemporary? No explanation. Nobody is supposed to know, it seems. --Enyavar (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current structure looks like it was not created by accident, and I felt unfamiliar with the possibly serious intention behind it, so I felt it was better to discuss beforehand. So far, I see Irish, Dutch and German editors in agreement ♥, but I think some French Wikimedians should look it over and sign off on our reasoning - or explain why they might disagree. I don't think we should do anything in a hurry here. --Enyavar (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there were no objections and no French Wikimedian gave a reaction in nearly half a year, and Cat-a-lot works well again, I close this discussion and I'll implement the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably part of Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12/Category:Kingdom of Denmark, see Talk page (for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, spread over two contintents, this is an emergency solution; perhaps there are other countries with similar problems). Please be patient, Josh is absent for another couple of weeks, I am sure he will try to solve this thereafter. And please, let him just do his thing here on Commons, including creating new categories. JopkeB (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepEstopedist1 states it is not applicable for countries, which is correct, it is for regions (countries should be under Category:Concepts by country). It does appear that the inclusion of Kingdom of Denmark has caused confusion, which I agree with. I would personally have that placed under countries, but I am not the only voice and there appears to be consensus (perhaps temporary, per JopkeB?) to treat them as regions as a result of discussion regarding Countries. Regardless, if there are contents that do not belong here (perfectly valid debate), the remedy is to put them where they belong, not to just delete the category outright. If in the end, there are no categories that belong here then deletion is easy, but while Denmark and Netherlands inclusion may be debatable, it doesn't seem there is any doubt that Latin America, Scandinavia, Central America, etc. are regions, and so this category itself remains valid even if some of its content may be up for debate. Josh (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged As far as scope, it is very easily defined: it is an index category for categories in the form "Category:Concepts of region" (where region is an entity which is categorized under Regions). Josh (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at the whole "concepts" tree structure, the more I think that it should all be deleted. It's nonsense or at best duplication of "academic disciplines" trees. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a consensus to eliminate the categories of concepts by geographical criterion. While Josh has tried to defend the categories, he may have misunderstood the reason of deleting such categories. I have looked into individual categories and found that only the "academic disciplines in [country]" categories (and subnational concept categories) are categorized. Anyway, I have redirected the concerned categories to academic disciplines. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consulted 3 sources today all of which have the aircraft as current. Hardly surprising since aircraft not retiring until tomorrow according to you. Will, of course, delete the 4 cats once confirmation received on aircraft status. Ardfern (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurstsDrewth 04:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurstsDrewth 04:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why somebody would not consider this very useful and extraordinarily missing earlier. That other category is not enough – most of these are about particular activities only or about rather extraordinary events and activities which is what most popular media show instead of just daily life and common experience of a point in time and space. For example, a video summarizing one day of daily life of a normal person fits into this category.
This is for example the subject of Life in a Day (2011 film). Have you thought a bit about this? The key thing in this cat is that it does not contain files about any particular common experiences and activities like sleeping in a bed or going to shopping mall or traveling through a city, rather it shows media that have this as a specific subject or compile many such things into a meaningful summary-style media like the mentioned movie or File:One Day in the life.webm.
There's so many other ways to describe why and how this is useful, I didn't think that would be necessary but I could continue if more explanations are needed or just ask if something is unclear about it – one way to explain is that one may not be that interested in or only interested in things like wars in medieval times – rather I'd be interested how daily life of common people (that is not let's say a king or queen) at the time was like, as done in File:So wohnten die Menschen im antiken Rom (CC BY 4.0).webm which shows how people lived (dwelled) in ancient Rome. Wars and the life of the uppermost 0.001% is not all there is to a time-period. The media describes not any particular activities but provides meaningful information about daily life in a civilization at a time in spacetime such as ours at relatively high resolution but also the Maya civilization and whatnot; just see how few files there are in this category. It's obviously something where media is missing and that is for some reason neglected. It's the orthogonal concept to always showing unusual extraordinary events and it's missing media. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all User:Prototyperspective: please do not act so condescending when I (or someone else) am asking a question I do not know the answer of. On Commons editors often have different backgrounds and values, and we come from different cultures. You might find something totally normal, self-evident or very useful, while it might seem odd to me or someone else. Just be polite and try to be neutral in your answers.
Then my answers and remarks to your reply:
My interpretation of what this category is intended to be about: it is for media showing:
more than one activity, like a video summarizing one day of daily life of a normal person, diagrams showing how people currently spend their time on, and long-duration recordings of environmental sounds at a particular place;
how daily life of common people at the time was like, for instance during the Roman period, the Middle Ages or the Maya civilization; media can be photos, videos, sound recordings or other types.
Is this correct?
If yes, then the key question is: Do we need this category for this kind of media? Can other categories might do the same trick?
For the first intention (more than one activity): perhaps we need another category name that reflects better this intention, something with "multi".
For daily life:
We already have Category:Society of [location/group of people/tribe X]; Category:Culture of [idem], Category:People at work in [location], [period]; Category:Human activities in/by [location]/[people of], [period], etc. You can make any combination you want. What can you not accomodate here? And you can always make a gallery page.
Adding more subcategories, like Infrogmation of New Orleans and Prototyperspective suggest below (and what would make sense), will cause the same kind of trouble as Category:Everyday life caused years ago: "Within subcategories of Everyday life there are subcategories that do not belong to Everyday life. For example ... the Category:Sleeping people. Sleeping in your own bedroom at home is indeed Everyday life. But People sleeping on trains or Sleeping people under tree is not. Are we going to split the Category:Sleeping people (and many others)?"
So I suggest:
Rename this category for media showing more than one activity.
Delete it for the daily life part. Move the subcategories and files to other appropriate categories.
Okay, I don't think I was acting condescendingly but I may need to contain my worry that things may get deleted hastily just because of a combination of misunderstandings and low participation more.
Yes, like videos giving a reasonably rich picture of daily life of a society in a point in time or of an individual or group. That can be compilation videos, documentaries, meaningfully informative videos on common/prevalent components of daily lives, or long-duration/time-lapse videos – probably at best compilations when it comes to videos. That is not videos where the extraordinary things are picked – the ideal/best-in-scope would be showing a realistic accurate depiction of a mundane common day rather than extraordinary unusual things. Other cats are usually structured from the approach 'the more unusual the better' which is orthogonal to this approaches structure. Note that not many long-duration recordings fit here, only those that provide some meaningful content about daily human life in the present so maybe a few city soundscapes.
Exactly. It could also show the daily life of uncommon people such as some nobility but it would need to specify that and still summarize it – this is the case for File:Life aboard the ISS… which provides a meaningful/extensive picture of the daily life at this location / for these people.
No, other categories can't do this, for instance because they use the opposite approach as just mentioned. Files being here doesn't mean they can't also be in other categories like those about a specific culture or the ISS. None of the files here would be category-less if this category didn't exist but that's not the point.
The issue you pointed out is a good point but it's not a problem if it's contextualized as to only relate to this category through the relation "universally common human activities -> biological human functional behaviors" for instance. I'd suggest simply not making these subcategories and most linking a cat see also at the top to for example Cat:Human activities which contains such. An image showing how prevalent sleeping is and how many hours humans sleep on average could still be put here (directly or probably into the Time-use cat).
A hatnote could be added that usually media contained here is about more than one activity; however that doesn't have to be the case so I don't think it would that due since people could just explore the contents and find out that way.
So you want "not making these subcategories" (which I interprete as "not adding subcategories that usually should be added")?
Isn't that odd? So you are not making a proper category structure, like we usually do? How then can you come from categories about sleeping, eating, drinking, cooking, cleaning, and other activities we do daily, to this category?
And what subcategories should be in and which not? What are the limits/borders? Do you decide about that? Would that not be arbitrary?
What if existing subcategories are growing and need subcategories, for instance Category:Photos illustrating daily life of tribal people in Visakhapatnam? I guess you want to make subcategories like Photos illustrating working activities of tribal people in Visakhapatnam and/or taking care of children and so on. Shouldn't their parent categories be in this main category as subcategories, like we normally do (see point above)?
No, that is not what I said and I won't copy and paste what I just wrote above. If it's so important to you to clarify whether or not these can be subcategories, then just simply don't add them directly.
It's a proper category structure. Many categories aren't yet 100% completed. If you want to make this category contain everything it could contain then again you'd need to make intermediate categories but that's not needed since the relation of such specific daily activities like eating are just tangential; don't know why you are so fixated on these. You don't need to be able to come from there to here. There may also be some categories that are not part a subcat of Earth even though it relates to that, that doesn't mean either cat shouldn't exist.
I just clarified all that. The cat and its contents are fine as they are right now. People can add or remove stuff but it's fine as is except for all the time spent on this talk page.
I don't why we talk about so many what-ifs. They can both be somewhere in the subcategories, by spatiotemporal and activity, it doesn't really matter but from this approach over-categorization like that is best avoided. This is not ultra-fine-grained categorization so things are near-useless with current UIs like "Cat:1.73m tall women wearing yellow shirts retrieving water in cities in Ghana" – from this starting point it would at most be roughly like "Daily life of women in Ghana" (not portraits or super-fine grained overcategorization).
We talk about the category structure, the subcategories and so many what-ifs, because I expect that there is a clear and well-thought vision about the category structure of it, before you create a category like this (= a similar category has been deleted for good reasons; AND (what we did not discuss yet) it is a category with two subjects, "Daily life" and "common experience", what is not inline with the Commons:Categories#Selectivity principle which says "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided."). I'm trying to find out what that vision is. That is important because a category like this can easily go off the rails, see the discussion of 2014. It would not be good for Commons to make that mistake again. So no, the cat and its contents are not fine as they are right now, because for a category like this, you have to take future expansions into account, by ignorant people who have their own thoughts for this category. Therefor it needs a clear descriptions with the kind of categories that do belong here and which dor not. JopkeB (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so it should be clear by now that there is. The combination of two terms or the use of "and" in the cat-name is a good point – one could change it to just "Daily life" but the latter part makes it clearer that this is specifically about "common experience" of daily lives (such as that of an individual or a group or at some time etc.). It's just there to make it clearer what this is about and not really two different subjects; it's not multi-subject. Future expansions also need to be taken into accoutn for all other categories which is why WMC is a living project that is not done and finished but continuously refined, changed, and maintained – this applies to all other categories like for example "Documentary videos" or "Cat:Videos of sensory systems". Okay, that makes sense and that is why I added a brief clear category description to the top of the page. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly mundane subjects and everyday life are in scope subjects, the question is useful ways to categorize such subjects. As the nomination notes, an earlier similar category was deleted earlier. We have categories for such more specific subsets like eating, sleeping, washing, walking as well as kitchens, bedrooms, offices, sidewalks, people at work, etc etc. I note such things are not subcategories of this category. Alternative suggestions as to how to categorize? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that these become subcategories; simply the broader perspective these are categorized into are from starting at this approach. For example, one could have:
this cat -> universally common human activities -> biological human functional behaviors -> Cat:People eating and Cat:Sleeping people
However, more on topic to this cat and thus in or close to the top layer of it are more general media like for example diagrams showing how people currently spend their time on or a full-day video of a person in time-lapse which could includ sleep. This should also clarify other confusion people had or have about what this cat is about. The top layer is not for random images, I moved some of these that are too relevant to remove outright into a new subcat "Photos illustrating daily life of tribal people in Visakhapatnam" this further illustrates how such issues are resolved: subcategorizing them into how they relate to this concept. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do read the answers to the questions/concerns above. Also pinging a few people who contributed to the WP article of this very notable subject @Pirhayati, Jim.henderson, and David Condrey: . This is a key concept to sociology, the human condition, civilization, people's lives, society, economics, and more and has a translation to many other languages such as "Alltag" with the media contained in this category making it quite clear that this is useful so I don't know what the issue is. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "daily life" and "common experience" are subjective descriptions that could contain everything or nothing. I don't find this to be a useful category tree at at all. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Low-resolution example of what fits here "One Day in the life"Because you have neither read the above explanations nor looked at the contents for longer than 3 seconds. This is one of the most notable subjects there are, with some of the potentially most valuable media on WMC in the future, and all the other categories are structured by the approach "the more unusual the better" while the approach here is the more mundane / common the better, in specific reasonably extensive representations of human daily life (with reference to place, time, long-event, or similar) such as a compilation video of a normal (not extraordinary) week from the view of the individual. You want to ignore not only my explanations but also the presence of this subject in very many Wikipedias as well as the quite well-defined scope.
-
The non-issue you describe applies to roughly half of categories which is why categories are populated and depopulated not just by one user but many and that not with no thought going into it. Nowhere is it implied people should categorize things without giving it some thought. If you're concerned that media relevant to the cat is missing here: these would go into subcategories (really simple so I'm wondering why people do not understand this); intermediate categories may be needed as described above so if you really want to make images of "[not far from] everything [when it comes to photos of humans]" available from here, you can – via appropriate subcategories instead of placing things in here directly (the upper layer is for things that are about that subject explicitly or more extensively than a random photo of daily life like the example or Time-use charts). If you see an issue: improve/change it rather than outright deleting this. The only rationale I can discern in the comment, which as I said indicates low engagement with both the subject / category and prior discussion, is unclarity of scope – but the contents of the cat are fine as they are, the scope is made clear in the cat description, and I just addressed your concern to the extent that it should be resolved. People could speculate long about what may or may not be potential issues of categories in the future, and attempt to decide based on this, when there is no problem in actuality whatsoever.
-
@Media lib, Wheeke, Sturm, Jeanne Angerie, Vahurzpu, Engelberthumperdink, NeverDoING, Piotrus, and Estopedist1: pinging some more Wikipedia article contributors and editors of subcats and two editors who may be interested – do you think this subject is notable/due here? Please glance over the prior discussion such as that subcategories can be created with the upper layer of the cat only for media about the subject like those that are currently there. (Please get some more editors involved in this discussion.) Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what I can say that I did not say at the Everyday life discussion. I think Everyday life should've been kept as a redirect, so interwiki would work, while this is obviously a poorly named fork version of that category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk02:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. While Everyday life is an important encyclopedic and scholarly concept, I can't imagine what photos would go here that would not go into some other category, and indeed, Human activities seems fine. Right now I lean towards assuming Human activities is a Commons equivalent of the encyclopedic everyday life concept. This should be retargeted there. We also need to clean up the weird subcategories here (Category:Everyday Life in Old China etc). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk02:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a fork of it; I didn't even know it existed before and it should have been kept buck then but was deleted because of a failure to understand the concept of subcategories.
I can't imagine what photos would go here I suggest you take a look at the media currently in it, and maybe also the discussion above. Human activities seems fine These are photos of one specific activity each. This category is about the concept, the approach and subject. Again: take a look at the example and files in it.
There even are some films about this concept – see below. The category should not be deleted by people who didn't put any thought in it, don't understand it, go against the clear notability established by countless WP:RS and W-articles across many languages and most importantly don't understand the concept of subcategories which I explained above how they could contain human activities such as this cat -> universally common human activities -> biological human functional behaviors -> Cat:People eating and Cat:Sleeping people even though it's not necessary that the cat contains everything it could like that to be useful and valid.
These films are about this subject and if they would be CCBY they would be in this category rather than only if at all in cat:Human activities; maybe that helps you understand this: Life in a Day (2011 film) "Life in a Day is a crowd-sourced documentary film comprising an arranged series of video clips selected from 80,000 clips submitted to the YouTube video sharing website, the clips showing respective occurrences from around the world on a single day, 24 July 2010." Life in a Day 2020 "Like its predecessor, it comprises a wide array of selected video clips showing things happening in the world on one day: July 25, 2020. [..] Life in a Day 2020 begins at dawn, with a montage of mothers giving birth. Then, morning rises and people awaken, going about their lives"
Why do we need this category on Commons? What benefit does it have? Isn't Category:Human activities enough?
Answers
We need this category because we need a category for media showing:
more than one activity, like a video summarizing one day of daily life of a normal person, diagrams showing how people currently spend their time on, and long-duration recordings of environmental sounds at a particular place;
reaction: this might indeed be so, but then we need another category name, something with "multi" in the name and a hatnote explaining what this category is for.
how daily life of common people at a particular time was like;
reaction: herefor we have already a lot of other categories with in/by [location]/[people of], [period], etc. in the name, like subcategories of Human activities; and because all images in this category (Daily life and common experience) are about specific locations, periods and people, these additives should be in the subcategory names anyhow.
Other remarks
"Daily life" and "common experience" are subjective descriptions that could contain everything or nothing. Therefor it cannot be a useful category tree.
There is no agreement on what subcategories should be in and which not. For instance, normally this category would have a lot of subcategories that reflect daily life and commons experiences (like sleeping, eating, working) and when it is growing, it would have the same kind of subcategories; but that is problematic because subcategories of those subcategories are not all about daily life (sleeping in trains and under trees are not about daily life). Omitting them would cause a rift in the category flow of linking categories about the same subject.
It is hard to imagine what photos would go here that would not go into some other category, Human activities seems fine.
This is a poorly named fork version of the deleted category Everyday life.
Solutions
Rename this category for media showing more than one activity.
Delete it for the daily life part. Move the subcategories and files to other appropriate categories, like subcategories of Category:Human activities.
This will again need quite a bit of text to correct some inaccuracies:
recordings of environmental sounds sounds like random nature soundscapes would be within scope; it's common daily life sound (in general or especially for something specified like "in a modern city" or "city x" or "compilation of sounds at home during day") – the subcategory title and description should make this clear enough. A good nonexisting example would be a sound recording of walking through a big city with subtitles for whatever can currently be heard (like ambulance sounds, children shouting, etc)
The "multi" in the category title is not needed: it's just that the uppermost layer is reserved for such media and everything in it needs to be subcategorized to connect to this approach of media providing comprehensive pictures of daily lives. It could be specified in the category description and/or, like most other categories, needs to be maintained in case people put things in it that either don't fit or (more likely) only fit in some potential or existing subcategory. For the same reason there shouldn't (but currently are btw) photos of random people or similar in the top layer of cat:"Humanity", rather it would need to provide a more fuller picture relating to humans much more broadly or even relate to humanity in specific. For example, an issue with putting "multi" in the cat-title is that individual items in the subcategories don't each need to show multiple things like collages could. They only need to relate to this approach to how they're categorized which is a different conceptual approach as in other category starting points. The cat-description could make this aspect of showing comprehensive pictures rather than isolated individual components clearer if it isn't yet clear enough.
categories with in/by [location]/[people of], [period] Most of the media there doesn't show their daily lives. The media there that does, could go into subcategories here. A see also could also be added (Category:People of the Middle Ages already is a see also). So far, I could only find very few items of that kind that are all mostly in one cat. This is one of the best examples of what this cat is for and why it's useful so I recommend watching this: "This is how people lived in ancient Rome".webm. I wouldn't have a problem with if somebody just subcategorized a broad category to here but sooner or later it should be refined to a subcategory that only includes media providing genuine information about daily life at the time (rather than also emblems, portraits, inaccurate artworks, etc etc). Indeed, the additives would need to be in the subcategory title and this allows accessing them from one place.
are subjective descriptions that could contain everything or nothing I already addressed this above! The short version of the explanations is that if people want to add what you call "everything" it would need to be placed in appropriate relevant subcategories. The cat contents are fine as they are and that can not be called "everything" or overpopulated, rather media is missing and this cat is useful also for highlighting this gap of media. "Nothing" is proven wrong by the current cat contents.
"Daily life" and "common experience" are two concepts in one No, it's one but the way it's phrased may be unclear – it's that contents shouldn't be about daily life but Common daily life for a set of humans. This daily life could be common to people aboard the ISS (small set), peasants throughout history, or humans in some country (large set). Experience in the title makes clear that the subject is the experience of people; maybe that part is redundant but I think it makes it clearer.
subcategories of those subcategories are not all about daily life This is why I would suggest simply not adding them as subcategories this broadly. Before adding things should be refined. If you look at any other major category, you'd see lots of subcategories that ideally or at some point should also be refined such as cat:Environment in cat:Society which I just removed to leave only Cat:"Environment and society" (there's many more examples). The category/ies about activities could be linked as see also and this is currently not a problem except if you're absolutely particularly keen on making sure that this category in specific contains all the subcategories/media that it could contain right from the start. Solving the non-issues you bring up requires thought that could be done at a later point when somebody wants to actually add such a subcategory (usually category-creators don't need to flesh out the whole subcategory tree right from the start): here's a way to solve the unconventional sleeping issue: make a new category like "Photos of people sleeping conventionally" or similar (e.g. by type of bed and time) and only add that to a category that is then made a subcategory here. When people lump overly broad things in a cat this doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be removed but that another option is to at a later point refine things for example like that. Currently there is no problem there; aware of this issue, just add categories as you see fit.
If it is to be renamed/moved, then please suggest alternatives but I think it's fine as is and clearer than alternatives. Cat:Society should also not contain images that depict one particular social activity or social subject, instead these go into subcategories that relate to this approach and the more distanced from the top-layer, the more specific they probably are, with the top-layer category not being renamed to sth like "Comprehensive pictures of societies and society as a subject". It should be common sense and in the cat-description to only allow for the latter to be added or kept at the top-level. "Human activities" is structured after isolated specific activities which is orthogonal to this approach even though it's a cat-tree very useful to this cat.
@Prototyperspective: Your responses remain unconvincing to me mostly because I'm having trouble imagining how they would work. I can see the value a category for "one day in the life" video or photo collages, but "one day in the life" may not represent "daily life" at all. 1) Could you give some examples of subcategories you imagine will solve the problems laid out above? 2) What would you imagine should go in Category:People sleeping conventionally that would not be better sorted into Category:Sleeping people and its existing subcategories? -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does one particular media in other categories represent the full category subject? For example, does any particular file in Category:Buildings have to represent all buildings there are such as all types of buildings?
The one day in life thing was just one example of how people may approach the subject but there are many ways. And it as well as other approaches would only show aspects of daily life or the attempted representation of daily life of one specific individual, spatiotemporality, or group. For example, a video could be about and try to show the diverse daily life of human children in some particular region in the 21st century or the daily life of people across particular professions and so on. There's not that many things that would go into the top-layer as most would go into subcategories that specify how they relate to the subject. That can clarify how for example the subject is approached and as said there can be very different approaches from time-lapse videos to statistics or documentary videos that largely summarize daily life like the video about daily life in ancient Rome.
In addition, Category:Buildings does not contain all media files that show buildings on WMC and that is not necessarily a problem and certainly doesn't mean the top-layer category needs to be deleted. The more close to the top-layer the more likely that "building" (such as 'building construction' 'statistics relating to buildings' 'sustainable building' and so on) are the primary subject etc. Going deep down into subcategories makes it less informative about the overall subject and is more specific such as a photo showing one particular building instead of a video showing many different types of buildings and explaining how and when each building-type or -style emerged or similar.
1) The category now already has good subcategories and I named multiple potential subcategories earlier. One example that I already named twice is this cat -> universally common human activities (explains the relation to daily life in that these are included in many daily lives or in daily life a lot) -> biological human functional behaviors (explains the relation that they are relatively common because they are biological functions) -> Cat:People eating and Cat:Sleeping people. Issues like ones mentioned are rarely all solved at the outset of major categories but get solved over time and a category doesn't have to include all potential subcategories right from the start (so this one doesn't have to include lots of Cat:Human activities subcats and could just link to it with a See also). 2) The discussion about sleeping people is a bit off-topic since it's not important to this category and just a minor accuracy issue of some potential subcat that doesn't even have to be included to begin with and could be sorted out at a later point. The redcat doesn't have to exist but if it does it would show people sleeping in ways that are conventional for them. If a person or set of people such as people in first world countries in the 21st century overall usually sleep in beds than that would be included there; also included there could be people sleeping in tents, at work, in trenches, or wherever else as long as the subcat clarifies for whom this is "conventional" sleeping. The cat would imply that subcat clarify how they relate to it. But again, this is a subject of how some subcats are structured or included, not about the overall category discussed here. The user doesn't need to be able to find pictures of sleeping people from this as a starting point for this to be a valid, important and useful category, especially as there could be a See also. If it should be there right away then I think this solution would work.
Support deleting the category and any similar subcats. This whole thing really just seems like an attempt to throw a bunch of barely (if at all) related concepts together into one parent category. The whole thing is totally nonsensical and to vague to be useful in any meaningful though. Plus the whole "and" thing kind of inherently goes against the guidelines about how to name categories anyway. In general any "subject X and subject Y" type categories are going to needlessly convoluted. It's not like the subjects are even related to each in this case anyway. Daily life (whatever that is) isn't the same as common experience (again, whatever that is) to begin with. Or conversely, they are just synonyms of each other. Neither one justifies this category though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Adamant1, for your contribution. Do you know a way to close this discussion properly, since clearly one participant does not and will not agree with the others nor with the proposals? Normally I would close such a discussion with "unresolved" and make no changes. But this category name is clearly not according to the Commons principles and therefor cannot stay as it is. JopkeB (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this category should be deleted. There are only two files in this category which are just different scans of the same image. It also doesn't accurately describe the content of the category. There is only one flag of White Plains, New York, which was adopted in the 20th century. The flags depicted on this stamp are of the United States and a battle flag used by American forces at the Battle of White Plains and other battles in the American Revolutionary War. You can read more here. At the very least, this category would need to be moved to "Flag of the Battle of White Plains on stamps." Denniscabrams (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of these "Flags of" categories being created by @אוריאל כ: are totally unnecessary. As well as just wrongly named to begin with. Which seems to be their MO. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly defined categories created by the same editor - "surrounding area" is unnecessary because, commonly, pictures of the immediate surrounding area are already included in village categories. I suggest the contents of these categories are merged into the main village categories. --Sionk (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why somebody would not consider this very useful and extraordinarily missing earlier. That other category is not enough – most of these are about particular activities only or about rather extraordinary events and activities which is what most popular media show instead of just daily life and common experience of a point in time and space. For example, a video summarizing one day of daily life of a normal person fits into this category.
This is for example the subject of Life in a Day (2011 film). Have you thought a bit about this? The key thing in this cat is that it does not contain files about any particular common experiences and activities like sleeping in a bed or going to shopping mall or traveling through a city, rather it shows media that have this as a specific subject or compile many such things into a meaningful summary-style media like the mentioned movie or File:One Day in the life.webm.
There's so many other ways to describe why and how this is useful, I didn't think that would be necessary but I could continue if more explanations are needed or just ask if something is unclear about it – one way to explain is that one may not be that interested in or only interested in things like wars in medieval times – rather I'd be interested how daily life of common people (that is not let's say a king or queen) at the time was like, as done in File:So wohnten die Menschen im antiken Rom (CC BY 4.0).webm which shows how people lived (dwelled) in ancient Rome. Wars and the life of the uppermost 0.001% is not all there is to a time-period. The media describes not any particular activities but provides meaningful information about daily life in a civilization at a time in spacetime such as ours at relatively high resolution but also the Maya civilization and whatnot; just see how few files there are in this category. It's obviously something where media is missing and that is for some reason neglected. It's the orthogonal concept to always showing unusual extraordinary events and it's missing media. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all User:Prototyperspective: please do not act so condescending when I (or someone else) am asking a question I do not know the answer of. On Commons editors often have different backgrounds and values, and we come from different cultures. You might find something totally normal, self-evident or very useful, while it might seem odd to me or someone else. Just be polite and try to be neutral in your answers.
Then my answers and remarks to your reply:
My interpretation of what this category is intended to be about: it is for media showing:
more than one activity, like a video summarizing one day of daily life of a normal person, diagrams showing how people currently spend their time on, and long-duration recordings of environmental sounds at a particular place;
how daily life of common people at the time was like, for instance during the Roman period, the Middle Ages or the Maya civilization; media can be photos, videos, sound recordings or other types.
Is this correct?
If yes, then the key question is: Do we need this category for this kind of media? Can other categories might do the same trick?
For the first intention (more than one activity): perhaps we need another category name that reflects better this intention, something with "multi".
For daily life:
We already have Category:Society of [location/group of people/tribe X]; Category:Culture of [idem], Category:People at work in [location], [period]; Category:Human activities in/by [location]/[people of], [period], etc. You can make any combination you want. What can you not accomodate here? And you can always make a gallery page.
Adding more subcategories, like Infrogmation of New Orleans and Prototyperspective suggest below (and what would make sense), will cause the same kind of trouble as Category:Everyday life caused years ago: "Within subcategories of Everyday life there are subcategories that do not belong to Everyday life. For example ... the Category:Sleeping people. Sleeping in your own bedroom at home is indeed Everyday life. But People sleeping on trains or Sleeping people under tree is not. Are we going to split the Category:Sleeping people (and many others)?"
So I suggest:
Rename this category for media showing more than one activity.
Delete it for the daily life part. Move the subcategories and files to other appropriate categories.
Okay, I don't think I was acting condescendingly but I may need to contain my worry that things may get deleted hastily just because of a combination of misunderstandings and low participation more.
Yes, like videos giving a reasonably rich picture of daily life of a society in a point in time or of an individual or group. That can be compilation videos, documentaries, meaningfully informative videos on common/prevalent components of daily lives, or long-duration/time-lapse videos – probably at best compilations when it comes to videos. That is not videos where the extraordinary things are picked – the ideal/best-in-scope would be showing a realistic accurate depiction of a mundane common day rather than extraordinary unusual things. Other cats are usually structured from the approach 'the more unusual the better' which is orthogonal to this approaches structure. Note that not many long-duration recordings fit here, only those that provide some meaningful content about daily human life in the present so maybe a few city soundscapes.
Exactly. It could also show the daily life of uncommon people such as some nobility but it would need to specify that and still summarize it – this is the case for File:Life aboard the ISS… which provides a meaningful/extensive picture of the daily life at this location / for these people.
No, other categories can't do this, for instance because they use the opposite approach as just mentioned. Files being here doesn't mean they can't also be in other categories like those about a specific culture or the ISS. None of the files here would be category-less if this category didn't exist but that's not the point.
The issue you pointed out is a good point but it's not a problem if it's contextualized as to only relate to this category through the relation "universally common human activities -> biological human functional behaviors" for instance. I'd suggest simply not making these subcategories and most linking a cat see also at the top to for example Cat:Human activities which contains such. An image showing how prevalent sleeping is and how many hours humans sleep on average could still be put here (directly or probably into the Time-use cat).
A hatnote could be added that usually media contained here is about more than one activity; however that doesn't have to be the case so I don't think it would that due since people could just explore the contents and find out that way.
So you want "not making these subcategories" (which I interprete as "not adding subcategories that usually should be added")?
Isn't that odd? So you are not making a proper category structure, like we usually do? How then can you come from categories about sleeping, eating, drinking, cooking, cleaning, and other activities we do daily, to this category?
And what subcategories should be in and which not? What are the limits/borders? Do you decide about that? Would that not be arbitrary?
What if existing subcategories are growing and need subcategories, for instance Category:Photos illustrating daily life of tribal people in Visakhapatnam? I guess you want to make subcategories like Photos illustrating working activities of tribal people in Visakhapatnam and/or taking care of children and so on. Shouldn't their parent categories be in this main category as subcategories, like we normally do (see point above)?
No, that is not what I said and I won't copy and paste what I just wrote above. If it's so important to you to clarify whether or not these can be subcategories, then just simply don't add them directly.
It's a proper category structure. Many categories aren't yet 100% completed. If you want to make this category contain everything it could contain then again you'd need to make intermediate categories but that's not needed since the relation of such specific daily activities like eating are just tangential; don't know why you are so fixated on these. You don't need to be able to come from there to here. There may also be some categories that are not part a subcat of Earth even though it relates to that, that doesn't mean either cat shouldn't exist.
I just clarified all that. The cat and its contents are fine as they are right now. People can add or remove stuff but it's fine as is except for all the time spent on this talk page.
I don't why we talk about so many what-ifs. They can both be somewhere in the subcategories, by spatiotemporal and activity, it doesn't really matter but from this approach over-categorization like that is best avoided. This is not ultra-fine-grained categorization so things are near-useless with current UIs like "Cat:1.73m tall women wearing yellow shirts retrieving water in cities in Ghana" – from this starting point it would at most be roughly like "Daily life of women in Ghana" (not portraits or super-fine grained overcategorization).
We talk about the category structure, the subcategories and so many what-ifs, because I expect that there is a clear and well-thought vision about the category structure of it, before you create a category like this (= a similar category has been deleted for good reasons; AND (what we did not discuss yet) it is a category with two subjects, "Daily life" and "common experience", what is not inline with the Commons:Categories#Selectivity principle which says "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided."). I'm trying to find out what that vision is. That is important because a category like this can easily go off the rails, see the discussion of 2014. It would not be good for Commons to make that mistake again. So no, the cat and its contents are not fine as they are right now, because for a category like this, you have to take future expansions into account, by ignorant people who have their own thoughts for this category. Therefor it needs a clear descriptions with the kind of categories that do belong here and which dor not. JopkeB (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so it should be clear by now that there is. The combination of two terms or the use of "and" in the cat-name is a good point – one could change it to just "Daily life" but the latter part makes it clearer that this is specifically about "common experience" of daily lives (such as that of an individual or a group or at some time etc.). It's just there to make it clearer what this is about and not really two different subjects; it's not multi-subject. Future expansions also need to be taken into accoutn for all other categories which is why WMC is a living project that is not done and finished but continuously refined, changed, and maintained – this applies to all other categories like for example "Documentary videos" or "Cat:Videos of sensory systems". Okay, that makes sense and that is why I added a brief clear category description to the top of the page. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly mundane subjects and everyday life are in scope subjects, the question is useful ways to categorize such subjects. As the nomination notes, an earlier similar category was deleted earlier. We have categories for such more specific subsets like eating, sleeping, washing, walking as well as kitchens, bedrooms, offices, sidewalks, people at work, etc etc. I note such things are not subcategories of this category. Alternative suggestions as to how to categorize? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that these become subcategories; simply the broader perspective these are categorized into are from starting at this approach. For example, one could have:
this cat -> universally common human activities -> biological human functional behaviors -> Cat:People eating and Cat:Sleeping people
However, more on topic to this cat and thus in or close to the top layer of it are more general media like for example diagrams showing how people currently spend their time on or a full-day video of a person in time-lapse which could includ sleep. This should also clarify other confusion people had or have about what this cat is about. The top layer is not for random images, I moved some of these that are too relevant to remove outright into a new subcat "Photos illustrating daily life of tribal people in Visakhapatnam" this further illustrates how such issues are resolved: subcategorizing them into how they relate to this concept. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do read the answers to the questions/concerns above. Also pinging a few people who contributed to the WP article of this very notable subject @Pirhayati, Jim.henderson, and David Condrey: . This is a key concept to sociology, the human condition, civilization, people's lives, society, economics, and more and has a translation to many other languages such as "Alltag" with the media contained in this category making it quite clear that this is useful so I don't know what the issue is. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "daily life" and "common experience" are subjective descriptions that could contain everything or nothing. I don't find this to be a useful category tree at at all. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Low-resolution example of what fits here "One Day in the life"Because you have neither read the above explanations nor looked at the contents for longer than 3 seconds. This is one of the most notable subjects there are, with some of the potentially most valuable media on WMC in the future, and all the other categories are structured by the approach "the more unusual the better" while the approach here is the more mundane / common the better, in specific reasonably extensive representations of human daily life (with reference to place, time, long-event, or similar) such as a compilation video of a normal (not extraordinary) week from the view of the individual. You want to ignore not only my explanations but also the presence of this subject in very many Wikipedias as well as the quite well-defined scope.
-
The non-issue you describe applies to roughly half of categories which is why categories are populated and depopulated not just by one user but many and that not with no thought going into it. Nowhere is it implied people should categorize things without giving it some thought. If you're concerned that media relevant to the cat is missing here: these would go into subcategories (really simple so I'm wondering why people do not understand this); intermediate categories may be needed as described above so if you really want to make images of "[not far from] everything [when it comes to photos of humans]" available from here, you can – via appropriate subcategories instead of placing things in here directly (the upper layer is for things that are about that subject explicitly or more extensively than a random photo of daily life like the example or Time-use charts). If you see an issue: improve/change it rather than outright deleting this. The only rationale I can discern in the comment, which as I said indicates low engagement with both the subject / category and prior discussion, is unclarity of scope – but the contents of the cat are fine as they are, the scope is made clear in the cat description, and I just addressed your concern to the extent that it should be resolved. People could speculate long about what may or may not be potential issues of categories in the future, and attempt to decide based on this, when there is no problem in actuality whatsoever.
-
@Media lib, Wheeke, Sturm, Jeanne Angerie, Vahurzpu, Engelberthumperdink, NeverDoING, Piotrus, and Estopedist1: pinging some more Wikipedia article contributors and editors of subcats and two editors who may be interested – do you think this subject is notable/due here? Please glance over the prior discussion such as that subcategories can be created with the upper layer of the cat only for media about the subject like those that are currently there. (Please get some more editors involved in this discussion.) Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what I can say that I did not say at the Everyday life discussion. I think Everyday life should've been kept as a redirect, so interwiki would work, while this is obviously a poorly named fork version of that category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk02:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. While Everyday life is an important encyclopedic and scholarly concept, I can't imagine what photos would go here that would not go into some other category, and indeed, Human activities seems fine. Right now I lean towards assuming Human activities is a Commons equivalent of the encyclopedic everyday life concept. This should be retargeted there. We also need to clean up the weird subcategories here (Category:Everyday Life in Old China etc). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk02:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a fork of it; I didn't even know it existed before and it should have been kept buck then but was deleted because of a failure to understand the concept of subcategories.
I can't imagine what photos would go here I suggest you take a look at the media currently in it, and maybe also the discussion above. Human activities seems fine These are photos of one specific activity each. This category is about the concept, the approach and subject. Again: take a look at the example and files in it.
There even are some films about this concept – see below. The category should not be deleted by people who didn't put any thought in it, don't understand it, go against the clear notability established by countless WP:RS and W-articles across many languages and most importantly don't understand the concept of subcategories which I explained above how they could contain human activities such as this cat -> universally common human activities -> biological human functional behaviors -> Cat:People eating and Cat:Sleeping people even though it's not necessary that the cat contains everything it could like that to be useful and valid.
These films are about this subject and if they would be CCBY they would be in this category rather than only if at all in cat:Human activities; maybe that helps you understand this: Life in a Day (2011 film) "Life in a Day is a crowd-sourced documentary film comprising an arranged series of video clips selected from 80,000 clips submitted to the YouTube video sharing website, the clips showing respective occurrences from around the world on a single day, 24 July 2010." Life in a Day 2020 "Like its predecessor, it comprises a wide array of selected video clips showing things happening in the world on one day: July 25, 2020. [..] Life in a Day 2020 begins at dawn, with a montage of mothers giving birth. Then, morning rises and people awaken, going about their lives"
Why do we need this category on Commons? What benefit does it have? Isn't Category:Human activities enough?
Answers
We need this category because we need a category for media showing:
more than one activity, like a video summarizing one day of daily life of a normal person, diagrams showing how people currently spend their time on, and long-duration recordings of environmental sounds at a particular place;
reaction: this might indeed be so, but then we need another category name, something with "multi" in the name and a hatnote explaining what this category is for.
how daily life of common people at a particular time was like;
reaction: herefor we have already a lot of other categories with in/by [location]/[people of], [period], etc. in the name, like subcategories of Human activities; and because all images in this category (Daily life and common experience) are about specific locations, periods and people, these additives should be in the subcategory names anyhow.
Other remarks
"Daily life" and "common experience" are subjective descriptions that could contain everything or nothing. Therefor it cannot be a useful category tree.
There is no agreement on what subcategories should be in and which not. For instance, normally this category would have a lot of subcategories that reflect daily life and commons experiences (like sleeping, eating, working) and when it is growing, it would have the same kind of subcategories; but that is problematic because subcategories of those subcategories are not all about daily life (sleeping in trains and under trees are not about daily life). Omitting them would cause a rift in the category flow of linking categories about the same subject.
It is hard to imagine what photos would go here that would not go into some other category, Human activities seems fine.
This is a poorly named fork version of the deleted category Everyday life.
Solutions
Rename this category for media showing more than one activity.
Delete it for the daily life part. Move the subcategories and files to other appropriate categories, like subcategories of Category:Human activities.
This will again need quite a bit of text to correct some inaccuracies:
recordings of environmental sounds sounds like random nature soundscapes would be within scope; it's common daily life sound (in general or especially for something specified like "in a modern city" or "city x" or "compilation of sounds at home during day") – the subcategory title and description should make this clear enough. A good nonexisting example would be a sound recording of walking through a big city with subtitles for whatever can currently be heard (like ambulance sounds, children shouting, etc)
The "multi" in the category title is not needed: it's just that the uppermost layer is reserved for such media and everything in it needs to be subcategorized to connect to this approach of media providing comprehensive pictures of daily lives. It could be specified in the category description and/or, like most other categories, needs to be maintained in case people put things in it that either don't fit or (more likely) only fit in some potential or existing subcategory. For the same reason there shouldn't (but currently are btw) photos of random people or similar in the top layer of cat:"Humanity", rather it would need to provide a more fuller picture relating to humans much more broadly or even relate to humanity in specific. For example, an issue with putting "multi" in the cat-title is that individual items in the subcategories don't each need to show multiple things like collages could. They only need to relate to this approach to how they're categorized which is a different conceptual approach as in other category starting points. The cat-description could make this aspect of showing comprehensive pictures rather than isolated individual components clearer if it isn't yet clear enough.
categories with in/by [location]/[people of], [period] Most of the media there doesn't show their daily lives. The media there that does, could go into subcategories here. A see also could also be added (Category:People of the Middle Ages already is a see also). So far, I could only find very few items of that kind that are all mostly in one cat. This is one of the best examples of what this cat is for and why it's useful so I recommend watching this: "This is how people lived in ancient Rome".webm. I wouldn't have a problem with if somebody just subcategorized a broad category to here but sooner or later it should be refined to a subcategory that only includes media providing genuine information about daily life at the time (rather than also emblems, portraits, inaccurate artworks, etc etc). Indeed, the additives would need to be in the subcategory title and this allows accessing them from one place.
are subjective descriptions that could contain everything or nothing I already addressed this above! The short version of the explanations is that if people want to add what you call "everything" it would need to be placed in appropriate relevant subcategories. The cat contents are fine as they are and that can not be called "everything" or overpopulated, rather media is missing and this cat is useful also for highlighting this gap of media. "Nothing" is proven wrong by the current cat contents.
"Daily life" and "common experience" are two concepts in one No, it's one but the way it's phrased may be unclear – it's that contents shouldn't be about daily life but Common daily life for a set of humans. This daily life could be common to people aboard the ISS (small set), peasants throughout history, or humans in some country (large set). Experience in the title makes clear that the subject is the experience of people; maybe that part is redundant but I think it makes it clearer.
subcategories of those subcategories are not all about daily life This is why I would suggest simply not adding them as subcategories this broadly. Before adding things should be refined. If you look at any other major category, you'd see lots of subcategories that ideally or at some point should also be refined such as cat:Environment in cat:Society which I just removed to leave only Cat:"Environment and society" (there's many more examples). The category/ies about activities could be linked as see also and this is currently not a problem except if you're absolutely particularly keen on making sure that this category in specific contains all the subcategories/media that it could contain right from the start. Solving the non-issues you bring up requires thought that could be done at a later point when somebody wants to actually add such a subcategory (usually category-creators don't need to flesh out the whole subcategory tree right from the start): here's a way to solve the unconventional sleeping issue: make a new category like "Photos of people sleeping conventionally" or similar (e.g. by type of bed and time) and only add that to a category that is then made a subcategory here. When people lump overly broad things in a cat this doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be removed but that another option is to at a later point refine things for example like that. Currently there is no problem there; aware of this issue, just add categories as you see fit.
If it is to be renamed/moved, then please suggest alternatives but I think it's fine as is and clearer than alternatives. Cat:Society should also not contain images that depict one particular social activity or social subject, instead these go into subcategories that relate to this approach and the more distanced from the top-layer, the more specific they probably are, with the top-layer category not being renamed to sth like "Comprehensive pictures of societies and society as a subject". It should be common sense and in the cat-description to only allow for the latter to be added or kept at the top-level. "Human activities" is structured after isolated specific activities which is orthogonal to this approach even though it's a cat-tree very useful to this cat.
@Prototyperspective: Your responses remain unconvincing to me mostly because I'm having trouble imagining how they would work. I can see the value a category for "one day in the life" video or photo collages, but "one day in the life" may not represent "daily life" at all. 1) Could you give some examples of subcategories you imagine will solve the problems laid out above? 2) What would you imagine should go in Category:People sleeping conventionally that would not be better sorted into Category:Sleeping people and its existing subcategories? -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does one particular media in other categories represent the full category subject? For example, does any particular file in Category:Buildings have to represent all buildings there are such as all types of buildings?
The one day in life thing was just one example of how people may approach the subject but there are many ways. And it as well as other approaches would only show aspects of daily life or the attempted representation of daily life of one specific individual, spatiotemporality, or group. For example, a video could be about and try to show the diverse daily life of human children in some particular region in the 21st century or the daily life of people across particular professions and so on. There's not that many things that would go into the top-layer as most would go into subcategories that specify how they relate to the subject. That can clarify how for example the subject is approached and as said there can be very different approaches from time-lapse videos to statistics or documentary videos that largely summarize daily life like the video about daily life in ancient Rome.
In addition, Category:Buildings does not contain all media files that show buildings on WMC and that is not necessarily a problem and certainly doesn't mean the top-layer category needs to be deleted. The more close to the top-layer the more likely that "building" (such as 'building construction' 'statistics relating to buildings' 'sustainable building' and so on) are the primary subject etc. Going deep down into subcategories makes it less informative about the overall subject and is more specific such as a photo showing one particular building instead of a video showing many different types of buildings and explaining how and when each building-type or -style emerged or similar.
1) The category now already has good subcategories and I named multiple potential subcategories earlier. One example that I already named twice is this cat -> universally common human activities (explains the relation to daily life in that these are included in many daily lives or in daily life a lot) -> biological human functional behaviors (explains the relation that they are relatively common because they are biological functions) -> Cat:People eating and Cat:Sleeping people. Issues like ones mentioned are rarely all solved at the outset of major categories but get solved over time and a category doesn't have to include all potential subcategories right from the start (so this one doesn't have to include lots of Cat:Human activities subcats and could just link to it with a See also). 2) The discussion about sleeping people is a bit off-topic since it's not important to this category and just a minor accuracy issue of some potential subcat that doesn't even have to be included to begin with and could be sorted out at a later point. The redcat doesn't have to exist but if it does it would show people sleeping in ways that are conventional for them. If a person or set of people such as people in first world countries in the 21st century overall usually sleep in beds than that would be included there; also included there could be people sleeping in tents, at work, in trenches, or wherever else as long as the subcat clarifies for whom this is "conventional" sleeping. The cat would imply that subcat clarify how they relate to it. But again, this is a subject of how some subcats are structured or included, not about the overall category discussed here. The user doesn't need to be able to find pictures of sleeping people from this as a starting point for this to be a valid, important and useful category, especially as there could be a See also. If it should be there right away then I think this solution would work.
Support deleting the category and any similar subcats. This whole thing really just seems like an attempt to throw a bunch of barely (if at all) related concepts together into one parent category. The whole thing is totally nonsensical and to vague to be useful in any meaningful though. Plus the whole "and" thing kind of inherently goes against the guidelines about how to name categories anyway. In general any "subject X and subject Y" type categories are going to needlessly convoluted. It's not like the subjects are even related to each in this case anyway. Daily life (whatever that is) isn't the same as common experience (again, whatever that is) to begin with. Or conversely, they are just synonyms of each other. Neither one justifies this category though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Adamant1, for your contribution. Do you know a way to close this discussion properly, since clearly one participant does not and will not agree with the others nor with the proposals? Normally I would close such a discussion with "unresolved" and make no changes. But this category name is clearly not according to the Commons principles and therefor cannot stay as it is. JopkeB (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can this category get a proper description? Because the Wikidata item does not seem to match the subcategories. What should be in it and what not? Now it seems to be a grab bag of all kinds of subcategories. What is the purpose of this category on Commons? JopkeB (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a high-order cat, like and similar to Category:Earth. Don't really know what you're asking about but I'll add a cat description and an issue may be that it's overlapping a lot with its subcat Category:Civilizations – a difference is that this cat is also about the concept (e.g. media about the concept as a subject) as well as the contemporary civilization as one civilization which a minority may distinguish by subcultures that they consider to be different civilizations and/or as in the work "Clash of civilizations". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of your description is certainly an approvement. But I still am stuck with questions:
What is the purpose of this category on Commons? Remember: Commons categories are for organizing files and to make it easier to find files you need. For any other purpose we have Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. In my view Commons category structures should be as simple and clear as they can be. And I wonder how this category fits into this view.
What kind of subcategories should it contain? Is any country (assuming that any country is a complex society) part of a civilization, are countries part of a civilization while they started a war and murder civilians, are there any qualification to be part of a civilization, like striving for sustainability and/or "progress", or being a democracy? The answers to these questions may determine which subcategories this category can/should have.
The category purpose is basically the same as for any other category, organizing files and making them easy to find etc. There just are few media at the top-level so far but there are some which show which files would fit there and a prime subcategory is Time-use that is also about how current (theoretically also past) civilization(s) spend their time on. Other things relate to the concept and subject of civilization collapse, where I added subcat Global catastrophic risks. Media relate to integrate into large-order Big history and the civilizational scale. "Humanity" is too broad and "Earth" is just the place of it. There could and indeed should be more files there.
The kind of subcategories it contains relate directly to the civilizational scale and civilizational subjects. In today's world all countries are part of one civilization because of the high interrelations. Indigenous peoples that are fairly isolated or even North Korea may be debatable in regards to some aspects or to some but that doesn't mean we need to adopt the view that these are different civilizations. Since they make up only a very small percent of the human population, it's a quite niche detailed subject with not that much relevance here. In general, in the current world, which is only a tiny slice of spacetime, countries are part of a civilization but differ in cultural aspects, economic aspects, and so on and are (could be) different cultures or different societies. "Countries" may not necessarily be the most interesting/relevant scope in this aspect by the way where this is subject of the aforementioned book. Civilization is a layer above 1) culture, 2) society, and 3) socioeconomic system (and probably more). @Sbb1413: just proposed another cat that is a layer above society and culture – maybe you could give some input here?
As for specific criteria, these may be the subject of sophisticated works but that's not needed here since these distinguish between civilizations in history, not in regards to whether something is part of current civilization or are about the subject of indigenous peoples which could simply be put in a subcat where there is no need to specify if, which and why they are or aren't part of contemporary human civilization. Also I think you're confusing civilized behavior with civilization. Sustainability here refers to the endurability of the current ordered world system as opposed to collapse. (To clarify: if a medium-sized asteroid hits Earth, civilization may collapse with spatiotemporal variability depending on the size etc even if humanity doesn't go extinct.) Sustainability here does not refer to as an ideal, goal, or ethical value but simply sustain-ability (endurability) at the large-scale where I don't know why it's often considered some kind of idea rather than pragmatic imperative.
To clarify: society and culture shouldn't be subcats here though if it seemed like I was saying that. It's just a layer above these which was previously missing. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you extensive explanation. I can see now the benefits of this category. Further remarks and questions about the subcategories:
So you mean "sustainability" as a neutral term, the extend to which a society is sustainable, no matter whether the results of policies are good or bad for the environment?
Because there are plenty of governments, businesses and business people who prefer short term economic profits above long term endurability (or have other priorities), and their countries still are considered to be part of current civilization.
But can we not judge/investigating/laying along the yardstick of sustainability also those societies that are not part of civilization (like hunter/gatherers)? So is it really part of civilazation or just of humankind?
Shouldn't other subcategories be added, like the ones mentioned in the second paragraph of w:en:Civilization: agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, a currency, taxation, regulation, and specialization of labour (and perhaps many more) or their parents?
1. Yes, that's also why not the entire category falls into the scope of this large-scale category...only sustainability relating to or at the scale of civilization falls into its scope.
(I think it generally refers to that though when discussed for societies – it's just that sustainability is made up of so many small parts so it's used more in the sense of an adjective referring to different degrees of some specific small part as in what is either more or less matching what would be sustainable if implemented at large scale.) –– The thing is, whether actions or policies are good or bad for the environment doesn't really matter to sustainability itself, that's a misconception that's probably not important to correct: if there were only a million people living on Earth they could both extract more resources and pollute the environment more than two average Americans and Chinese combined and it would still be sustainable. Since we can't and certainly shouldn't quickly reduce population size like that, the subject sustainability is the change of societal/civilizational patterns so as to be continuable for some forseeable/meaningful amount of time (btw which duration is where subjectivity could come from). Continuation refers to both the sustainance of the civilization as well as more ethics-related aspects such as the amount of early deaths (e.g. years of potential life lost), suffering, risks, reduction of freedoms in the future, reductions of well-being in the future, and so on.
1.1. Nowhere is there any implying that societies or entities that currently aren't sustainable, or aren't moving towards sustainable practices, or are actively obstructing moving towards sustainable patterns aren't part of civilization. It's just that here it's considered from the whole-civilization approach, just like the Carbon Budget studies do: these studies e.g. calculate how many years at the current level of GHG emissions there are left for the climate goals to be missed with a 50% likelihood at the level of civilization. One could also say at the level of humanity, but the former is about the modern society-aspects of it like economics, culture, state structures, and so on.
1.2. …and as you said, some isolated hunter-gatherer tribal societies are part of humanity but not necessarily of civilization – within scope here would be those that aren't fully isolated or the interface of modern civilization with these. For example, if they get somehow rewarded from elements of modern civilization for protecting rainforests then not only are they not fully isolated but the interface would be of special relevance here.
1.2. Yes, that's a subcategory. It relates to large-scale sustainability in specific within scope here (either directly or in the sense of being a research subject and/or trial-like smaller-scale testing/drafting).
2. It's not simple to (properly) populate/structure this category and the top-level of its subcategories – yes, these could be subcategories but I think they shouldn't be lumped into it directly but would need some intermediate subcategory/ies like Typical components of Earth civilizations->Land management->Agriculture instead of cat:Agriculture. Note that the paragraph states "Civilizations are often characterized by additional features as well, including…". Alternatives to "cat:Typical components…" could be "Societal management" or "Civilizational management" which could include methods of/large-scale "Land management". Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that on Commons we have categories for organizaing files, not for having a complete reconstruction of humankind? To me it looks rather complicated to build in all those extra layers (and thus extra clicks which nobody likes), let alone for ordinary people who are just searching for images and who are not familiair with the Commons category structure. If you have so much to explain in a discussion about what subcategories exactly should be in it and why, how can passersby, other editors and people looking for files, then understand that without having to read this discussion? One of my mottos is: "Keep it simple" (at least as simple as possible); I do not think this category construction meets this motto. So: can you make it more simple, without extra layers? JopkeB (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not complicated; maybe I shouldn't have taken the time to answer you in detail so it seems more complicated than it is, it's really simple and this is a major concept of utmost importance and notability with the cat being perfectly fine as it is. I don't have much to explain, you asked a lot and maybe I just shouldn't answer with precision – again this is a big concept with lots of books written about it. To make it simple: the category contents, scope and contents/subcategories are fine exactly as they are right now (except that more media like compilation videos would be good but isn't on WMC yet). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: To you it is not complicated (please speak for yourself). And I can handle details, but in discussions it may help to be compact and only add details when people ask for more explanation.
No matter how many books are written about a subject, how much scientific literature there is, that all is not relevant when it is about organizing media. Then we only need literature when we want to give a good description or want to tell the difference between two or more concepts.
There are other uses like the film and series so its possible this could be a DAB though the generic meaning is likely the primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These other uses are named referring to this concept. We don't make a DAB out of cat:Earth just because some board games or films or called like that (likewise referring to that concept). There already is a note about For other uses, see… in the cat description and if there are too many other uses of that name, there could be a subcat for these. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB and Prototyperspective: I think this category should be redirected to Humanity, and the subcategories should be dealt as follows:
Not sure if this is supposed to argue for deleting/redirecting this category but if it does, it contains absolutely no explanation or argument as well as ignores everything that has been explained above.
The concept of civilization is broader than particular instances of civilizations and the target categories is not where these cats would be recategorized into. I elaborated above specifically what the difference to humanity is. As an illustrating example:
an individual of an isolated uncontacted tribe is currently part of biological humanity but isn't really part of contemporary civilization,
civilization is about things like infrastructure and activities with spatiotemporal reference rather than biological species,
and one may be interested in how things varied between and throughout different instances of civilizations or in things relating to how it may develop going into the future, in what is associated with humans developing a civilization but not yet other animals of Earth, or how such may look like on other planets and so on
I favor having comprehensive descriptions for each category on Wikipedia, including high-level categories such as "Civilization" and "Earth". I believe that a well-defined description is not just a "nice to have", but a "must-have" for each category. The primary reason for this is to avoid ambiguities in categorization. A clear, thorough description helps editors understand the scope and intent of the category, thereby ensuring that articles are categorized correctly. Unambiguous classification of articles is particularly important for broad categories, where the risk of misinterpretation is higher. The imperative to have categories defined exhaustively is a prerequisite to avoid conflict in editing or misunderstanding between editors on tossing the categories, which leads to conflict between editors.
Moreover, a well-defined category description can guide editors, helping them decide whether an article fits into a specific category or a more general one. Clear guidelines in the category description can help editors make these decisions.
If a category cannot be defined exhaustively, it may be a sign that it is too broad or ambiguous and should, therefore, be reconsidered or even deleted. Categories should be distinct and meaningful to aid not only in the organization but also in the retrieval of articles since the reader is the principal user of Wikipedia rather than the editor. Clumsy or broad categories that are hard for the reader to fathom how they unite articles, especially if they are not uniform, are the worst thing.
What makes sense? There is no explanation in the comment that could make sense as far as I can see. I have elaborated specifically why Civilization should not redirect to Humanity and your comments seem to show how you two want to decide on a subject you don't understand and without considering such explanations. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What subcategories and files should be in it and what not?
What is the purpose of this category on Commons? [Addition:] What problem does it solve?
Answers so far:
(about the description) [Added to the category by Prototyperspective, before this discussion was closed, not discussed here:] A civilization is any organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond natural spoken language such as writing systems. It usually includes agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor. This category is about the broad general concept as well as the concept of modern civilization as one interconnected global civilization.
What should be in: subcategories and files:
that relate directly to the civilizational scale and civilizational subjects;
about agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor;
about how things varied between and throughout different instances of civilizations or things relating to how it may develop going into the future, in what is associated with humans developing a civilization but not yet other animals of Earth.
What should not be in: countries.
(about the purpose) Still no acceptable answer, it looks like this category makes things more complicated rather than simpler, with an extra layer. And as User:Sbb1413 has proven: we can easily do without it.
Is this good enough to know what this category is about, what should be in and what not? Would that also be clear enough to an unsuspecting passerby looking for images or an editor looking for a correct category to put files into?
No, about agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor should not be in this category. Subcategories like "Origin of architecture" or maybe categories that contain multiple of these like especially Category:Industries dealing with natural resources could be there.
In addition, see the files and subcategories that are currently contained here to get a better sense of what fits here. I spelled that out in explanations above but maybe concrete examples are more easily understood.
An "acceptable" answer has been provided in regards to purpose. It could be that you don't understand it which is fine but then please don't delete categories just because you don't understand them. The purpose is as for any other category on notable subjects of WMC, making things discoverable, organizing things, and so on. See the category description you quoted. Sbb1413 even asked for a category that encompasses in its scope both culture and society and did not provide any explanation whatsoever. Do not delete categories on obviously very notable subjects with Wikipedia articles in a large number of languages just because you based on misunderstandings and ignorance of explanations vote (that is: not argue based on rational explanations) against their presence. And I don't know why you mention "unsuspecting passerby" users.
If this is still not clear here are some WP:RS sources that prove this is a notable major subject that should not be deleted despite of that by a small handful of users who don't provide any good reasons; these all back up what I've been explaining above: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].
Yes, it should be kept and these sources ^ should be enough in regards to this question.
I think the concept behind the Civilization category can be easily covered in Society. Although there are uncontacted tribes that are considered to be outside of the global civilization, the number of images we have for such tribes is few, and it is logically so. Therefore, having a category on civilization just to exclude the uncontacted tribes doesn't make any sense to me. The entire global society should be considered to be synonymous to the global civilization. I'm withdrawing my proposal for a category covering both culture and society, as culture is an inherent part of society. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't. This comes from a fundamental understanding what Civilization refers to. It is much broader than Society; nobody would say there is a global society, rather it is a global civilization which encompasses many societies. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't. This comes from a fundamental understanding what Civilization refers to. It is much broader than Society;
This is why the category should be disambiguated instead of being kept.
nobody would say there is a global society, rather it is a global civilization which encompasses many societies.
1. Void of any reason to properly address. Should Cat:Humanity be deleted as well because there already is a cat:"People by name"? Or Cat:Food because there already is Cat:Nutrition?
2. This is about a) international relations between b) countries. If anything it could be a subcat here. Both a) and b) as well as several other things like scope (again civilization is broader than society) are different. Society is a kind of generic term applied to different scales etc, I was referring to one firm society. You could make it a subcat but the cat's contents are problematic.
Also I think this is becoming another case of a wall of text disincentivizing further editors to participate while ignoring the explanations made and especially the refs provided which should override such objections. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the word "civilization" in sources cited by Prototyperspective can be easily replaced by "humanity" or "society" depending on context. Just because many sources using the term "civilization" does not mean we should keep the category. Instead of redirecting to somewhere else, I think the Civilization category should be converted into a dab page with links to Civilizations, Humanity, Society and World. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they can't. I suggest you simply don't comment when you don't understand something. To pick an example I already used earlier for illustration: humanity may not and probably would not go extinct with some of the ten threats of source [7] however civilization may collapse worldwide. I already elaborated in length what the difference to humanity is before so I suggest you read that instead. Humanity is also a much different scope, it's about a biological species while civilization about higher-level social structures and so on. Do not flout these high-quality sources with your personal layman assessment that finds the concept to be superflous. Civilization is a notable subject which encompasses historic civilizations and does not refer to Humanity, Society, and World. If these are the terms you most closely associate with it that's all fine just like it's fine when a person thinks Cat:"Animals on flowers" to be redundant because there already are categories "Insects on flowers" and "Insects on leaves". Prototyperspective (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I still believe the Civilization category can be done away with, I can't totally ignore how the sources use the term. The scope of the category is broad and based on what JopkeB and Prototyperspective have said and what I have analysed, the category scheme might be as follows:
World — a broad-concept category, generally covering the planet Earth and all the people in it.
Society — group of people related to each other through persistent relations.
Civilization — organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond spoken language.
Culture — shared aspects of a society's way of life.
The subcats of civilization might be as follows (the list is not exhaustive):
The brief description are useful for illustration but it should probably be mentioned that they aren't accurate as is, for example the relations do not need to be persistent and it can also revolve even more loosely around common fictions like cultural aspects.
I do not see how Education and Knowledge could directly be subcategories here. They could maybe become part of this cat tree through some intermediate categories that connect them to it, maybe via Category:Knowledge-based sector (it's the same as with Cat:"Industries dealing with natural resources").
The adjective "uncivilized" referring to "uncultured" or "barbarous" behavior in contemporary language does not refer to the same concept of Civilization as organized society; it refers to behavior and this can sometimes be confusing. For example multiple historic civilizations could be considered to have acted in quite uncivilized ways and the same applies to groups and individuals who are part of some civilization.
This is a subcategory because it relates fundamentally to civilizations as in how civilizations interact reciprocally with their environments. This is a concept that can be compared throughout and between civilizations that is characteristic to civilizations and doesn't imply there are people not involved in nature, the subject is how they inevitably are (e.g. see Classic Maya collapse#Drought theory or Avatar (2009 film)#Themes and inspirations). Nevertheless, the category should indeed not be a subcategory after just looking at its contents: things like "Nature photography" or or "Stairs in nature" are entirely out of scope (they may however also be inappropriate there) – instead I'd move the category to Cat:"Human impact on the environment" and Cat:"Human use of natural resources" (which is one layer above "Industries dealing with natural resources" and could be included instead of the latter).
Thanks, @Sbb1413: , this looks like a constructive, well thought out and useful contribution. This is closer to what I understand civilazation is. The subcategories make more sense than the current ones: more clear and more in the top of the category hierarchy (while this category is also such a top category), less complicated. Though: even so-called "uncivilized" people have an economy (they also have to deal with needs, limited means and allocation) and education (not formal education, but children learn how to gather food, hunt, being social, move, get knowledge about what to eat and what not, where good places to stay are, and so on). But maybe we can overlook that disadvantage because at a quick glance, I do not see subcategories that are about them, I see only categories about civilized economies and education.
There is more than one meaning of "uncivilized"; here the first one is meant: Not resembling a civilization, exactly what we are discussing here.
Civilazations interact not only with their environment:
Also so-called "uncivilized" people interact with their environment.
In civilazations people interact for instance also with other people.
I hope you can consider the category structure of Sbb1413 again: is it good as it is, or what should be changed to that structure to meet your criteria?
2. I wasn't saying that. It's just one major aspect/facet of civilizations. 2.1. Yes, that's why the subject is the how etc, not the if. 2.2 not exclusive or key to civilizations. (Key is the resulting systems/structures such as freshwater supply networks)
3. I wouldn't mind if these were direct subcategories; however for accuracy and optimal relational structure I think they should eventually rather be subcategories to some broader and more directly civilization-related category but these may not yet exist and maybe these categories would be better than alternatives. Civilization would be about grand-scale (e.g. overall) impact on nature, history of infrastructure technology, and so on where distant subcategories would be more specific such as about these at a specific time. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot express any opinion on your particular proposal because I do not have enough time to analyze it thoroughly. If I had more experience, I could conclude quickly. My point is that any category should have explicit and thorough descriptions. The descriptions should not be "implied" (implicit). Whichever way you decide, make sure that your reasoning behind a particular decision is explained in the description of the category itself rather than buried in talk pages so that new editors or readers can understand your reasoning on why you categorized this way or another way. Is my opinion useful? If so, please let me know. If my opinion does not add value to the discussion, please also let me know (so there will be no reason to ping me). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Maxim Masiutin: I value your remarks and warning. I agree with you that categories should have an explicit description and that editors and readers should not have to read an extensive discussion to be able to make proper use of a category. JopkeB (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What subcategories and files should be in it and what not? Or: What should the category structure be?
What is the purpose of this category on Commons? What problem(s) does it solve?
Should this category be kept?
Answers:
Description: Organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond spoken language.
The category scheme might be as follows:
World — a broad-concept category, generally covering the planet Earth and all the people in it.
Society — group of people related to each other through persistent relations.
Civilization — organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond spoken language.
Culture — shared aspects of a society's way of life.
The subcatetories of Category:Civilization might be as follows (the list is not exhaustive):
other subcategories that relate directly to the civilizational scale and civilizational subjects and/or that are about how things varied between and throughout different instances of civilizations or things relating to how it may develop going into the future, in what is associated with humans developing a civilization but not yet other animals of Earth
According to Prototyperspective: subcategories and files about agriculture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor; but this is doubtful because these subjects are mentioned in the EN-WP as part of civilization, and it looks logically to add them as subcategories.
About the purpose for the category in Commons: Still no acceptable answer, it looks like this category makes things more complicated rather than simpler, with an extra layer. And as User:Sbb1413 has proven: we can easily do without it.
Additional reason: Commons needs a category that encompasses in its scope both culture and society. But Category:Culture is already a grandchild of Category:Society, so a parent category for both would not be inline with the category structure of Commons.
The links given to external websites only proof that "Civilization" is a concept that we need in general, for instance in Wikipedias, but they do not proof that we need it on Commons. Just because many sources using the term "civilization" does not mean we should keep the category on Commons.
Do you agree with these conclusions? Are these the things we can conclude from the discussion (apart from whether you agree with the outcome or not)?
Is this good enough to know what this category is about, what should be in and what not, and what the purpose of this category is? Would it also be clear enough to an unsuspecting passerby (who does not know about this discussion and only sees the description and the subcategories) looking for images or an editor looking for a correct category to put files into?
How to go on? What procedure should we follow since there is no agreement on keep or delete?
I think we should keep this category with modifications I have proposed. Categories like Agriculture, Infrastructure etc. can also be subcats of Civilization, as they are related. As said before, we can do away with this category, but we can't ignore the importance of the concept. Besides, the category tree of Society can be streamlined using this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be kept. You misrepresented a few things I stated there though – I didn't say things like cat:agriculture shouldn't be in in it, I just said it should be in a broader category that also clarifies how it relates to this category such as cat:"Typical components of Earth civilizations" as just one example. Also this I wouldn't mind if these were direct subcategories; however for accuracy and optimal relational structure I think they should eventually rather be subcategories to some broader and more directly civilization-related category (like the mentioned cat but that's just an example) seems to have been missed.
It was not proven we could do without it and the purpose is as shortly and easily describable as a category for the concept of Agriculture; there are just so many ways and reasons to have it such as enabling things to be put in and found in their appropriate category. Already streamlined cat:Society quite a bit. In general, civilization is of larger scale than society and society is of larger scale than community but all of these three are needed and all of them are a different approach than cat:Humanity. There also is Category:Organization (activity) instead of only cat:Organizations. Further, the purpose is to put and find media where it belongs and to have a place for files about civilization that don't fit elsewhere. If there was a CCBY mini-documentary on the emergence, characteristics, potential future, and Anthropocene issues of civilization, then it would be put/found here.
It can definitely not be covered by cat:Society (not even with difficult inappropriate subcats or lumping things to where they don't fit) and Humanity is a different approach that is not partly but fully different from the Civilization concept. Humans in small groups in caves 100k years ago would be Humanity, the subject of human anatomy, individual humans, and human bodily eating behavior functions would all be in scope of cat:Humanity. Best procedure would be to keep consistent with the WP:RS; there would need to be strong consensus to delete with good arguments for why to delete a cat despite of the RS for a concept this notable containing a reasonable amount of subcats+media. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So (additions and corrections to the Overall conclusions):
This category should be kept, but adjustments should be made as mentioned above (description, category structure and subcategories) AND the categories about agriculture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation and specialization of labor should also be subcategories, as long as there are no categories for them available that are broader and more directly civilization-related.
The purpose of this category is / the category should be kept because:
the concept of it is important
the category tree of Society can be streamlined using this category
enabling people to find media where they belong and having a place for files about civilization that don't fit elsewhere.
I don't know, let other people express their opinion to come to the consensus, I'm not the one involved in this issue. I edited the article, but my edits were technical, so I don't have any position on this particular topic, apart from general consideration on describing categories, which I expressed earlier on this talk page. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Technological advancement' and 'Specialization of labor' are not yet categories and I could not find similar ones, so those were not made subcategories.
I had created this category and its subcats, with the reason provided in the description. However, after understanding the principles of COM:NCR, I have decided to delete these categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, the contents are not impressive, I wonder if they should just be transferred to Science in Antarctica, and leave it at that. making this a redirect? Broichmore (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please change the name of this category to "Category:Sasa Hanten-Schmidt" to match the name of her Wikipedia pages. Thanks in advance. 109.78.51.15617:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lets just do it the other way around (REDIR “QR codes” to “Quick response codes”). I'd like a world of precise namings (no to gallery pages or categories using abbrevations such as PJ, USA, NATO, etc.). Sincerely, --Mateus2019 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC) P.S. Your input (except this one) is very valuable and keep this up. I notice your edits daily.[reply]
Support. same reason as the reasons above. I'm not a native speaker but I doubt most natives know the meaning of "QR code" or even care in this case, as this is not Wikipedia. Juwan (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With 6 supporting (including the nominator) and 1 opposing vote, there's a general consensus to move/rename "Quick response" to "QR" in category names. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Now the category has been deleted: please close this discussion, see Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion for an instruction. JopkeB (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete Its been almost 4 years since the protests so its unlikely to get many images now. Geograph doesn't appear to have any images keeping in mind User:GeographBot hasn't got to 2020 yet. If we do later get some this could be recreated or they could just be added to a new category Category:George Floyd protests in Warwickshire which even doesn't exist. It doesn't seem like a village is likely to have had a significant number of these protests. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do, accidental creation. --Achim55 (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete Given the author has requested anyway and the title is implausible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep Not a valid reason. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Done! Please check if everything is OK now. --JopkeB (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Support Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment @Sbb1413: {{Country category}} has been updated to no longer add 'current' categories. Once this has filtered through, most of this category and its subs will be empty and can be deleted. Josh (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Question @Laurel Lodged: Is there a specific reason why this category is not simply included in the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:Current countries? It would seem only one discussion for all of these is needed. Josh (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Action Merge Category:Distribution (business) into Category:Product distribution and give it a redirect. 
Merge to Antarctic agencies. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
Oppose Lets just do it the other way around (REDIR “QR codes” to “Quick response codes”). I'd like a world of precise namings (no to gallery pages or categories using abbrevations such as PJ, USA, NATO, etc.). Sincerely, --Mateus2019 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC) P.S. Your input (except this one) is very valuable and keep this up. I notice your edits daily.