Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2024/10
Merge with Category:Palauan FOP cases/deleted where it is more appropriate. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Merged and tagged with speedy as author Юрий Д.К 11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
non latin name, duplicates of other existing categories GioviPen GP msg 13:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you know which categories are being duplicated, please redirect them there, using {{Category redirect}}
- Note Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:偽ロゴアイコン.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
broed vogels 2A02:A461:8492:0:310C:1958:81B6:D7F1 16:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Obviously nothing to discuss. --Achim55 (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
This is found on Commons:Report Special:UncategorizedCategories, lacking parent categories. The description seems nonsensical and I can't make much sense of the other contributions, including confusing moves of file talk pages. Not sure if anything is actually worth keeping, but Disney specialists might want to have a look.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Everything seems to have been cleaned up. Ty
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=450304 Taxon name is outdated. TheTechnician27 (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is empty anyway which means it can be speedily deleted, will tag it. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as empty.-- Túrelio (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 2804:29B8:51D5:4574:5D73:65F8:FE5D:F6D7 16:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
دانلود.سکس.می.کند 2A01:5EC0:2013:952C:8017:DCFF:FEA2:FCE8 12:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to discuss. --Achim55 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Category:1877 in rail transport in Switzerland (plus a few other years since 1840)
[edit]apparently User:L. Beck wants this to be deleted as we only have 1878 yet, not 1877
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- As soon as you have relevant files that can be sorted into these categories, please let us know. But don't create hundreds of empty categories so that they might be filled at some point. Lukas Beck (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- A dozen categories isn't "hundreds". And no, creating them one by one isn't helpful. If you want to delete any of them, please open a CfD.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- A dozen categories isn't "hundreds". And no, creating them one by one isn't helpful. If you want to delete any of them, please open a CfD.
Done: Empty category. --Yann (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
none of the cats exist and it has cat "People people urinating while urinating". Clean up such messed up cats pls. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: revised on 28 January 2024 and caused the mess. Having cleaned up the mess, ready to withdraw this case, please?--Jusjih (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, withdrawn, thanks. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | Do nothing. | |||
Participants | ||||
Notes | Nominator withdrew the discussion. | |||
Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
Diese von mir eingerichtete Kategorie ist leider eine falsch benannte, weshalb ich sie zur richtig benannten weitergeleitet habe. Aus meiner Sicht ist die also die „Category:Östlich von Oelzsch“ zu löschen, wofür ich, ihr Autor, hiermit den Antrag stelle. Huth, Andreas (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment This is an obvious case for a speedy deletion of a badly named category. I have set up a bad name deletion request there, so this is solved here. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Category Md Mofizur Rahaman was created by Commons user Mofizur Rahaman! All the image files are unused pics of Mofizur Rahaman. This is a Commons category that is being used as a Wikipedia BLP written by the subject, along with references and external links. FeralOink (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The question is if he is notable enough or not.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)- @Enhancing999@FeralOink
- Md Mofizur Rahaman is an Editor and Cinematographer.
- proof
- https://www.imdb.com/name/nm16599869/
- https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q130373885
- https://www.themoviedb.org/person/4971621-md-mofizur-rahaman
- https://filmfreeway.com/MdMofizurRahaman
- https://www.omdb.org/en/us/person/309734-md-mofizur-rahaman 103.166.59.63 15:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hang on a sec. How precisely was a man born in 1998 the cinematographer for the 1961 film "Pankatilak"? Is he also a time traveler? Omphalographer (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete all. Blatant self-promotion. Commons is neither your personal free web host nor a vehicle to promote your career. en:Draft:Md Mofizur Rahaman has been rejected 4 times. --Achim55 (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not really, the category description is perfectly reasonable. Notable people are welcome to upload images of themselves to Commons (or even write articles about themselves on German Wikipedia). That an article is rejected on enwiki doesn't really matter. Not entirely convinced though if the threshold of notability is reached.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Commons is not a place for Wikipedia type articles. Also, who says he is notable?! Everyone whose self-authored BLP articles get rejected from Wikipedia should not recreate them on Commons.--FeralOink (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see a Wikipedia type article. Which page are you talking about?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)- I am referring to the Category for this person. Please see my initial proposal for discussion above. It resembles a stub article on Wikipedia. Also, since when have "notable people" been "welcome to upload images of themselves to Commons"? If people are welcome to write self authored BLPs on German Wikipedia, that may be a more appropriate place for this person.--FeralOink (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The text doesn't really go beyond what is expected on a category page. Also, including references is desirable if there is no Wikipedia article on the topic. Fixing formatting doesn't require deletion.
- I think the answer to your other question is likely since inception. How did you get the opposite idea?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh great; he has added another EIGHT photos of himself. He made himself an infobox and everything. That looks like an ersatz Wikipedia article to me. Achim55's points are all valid.--FeralOink (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am referring to the Category for this person. Please see my initial proposal for discussion above. It resembles a stub article on Wikipedia. Also, since when have "notable people" been "welcome to upload images of themselves to Commons"? If people are welcome to write self authored BLPs on German Wikipedia, that may be a more appropriate place for this person.--FeralOink (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see a Wikipedia type article. Which page are you talking about?
- Commons is not a place for Wikipedia type articles. Also, who says he is notable?! Everyone whose self-authored BLP articles get rejected from Wikipedia should not recreate them on Commons.--FeralOink (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Done: Deleted the category and all of the user's uploads (again). It's clear that they are only on Commons for self promotion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
i really looking forward to delete my page Officialzhwan (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Closed: I think you're in the wrong place. Omphalographer (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Given that this is not the only memorial to John T. Williams (there is also the Category:John T. Williams Memorial Totem Pole) I would suggest appending "crosswalk" to the category name. Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure! Or pedestrian crossing? I don't feel strongly, just based on en:Pedestrian crossings in Seattle / en:Pedestrian crossing ("crosswalk" redirects here) -Another Believer (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with "pedestrian crossing". But we need something. @Another Believer: I think we can consider that consensus, since you created the category. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yup! No objection to a move from me. -Another Believer (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with "pedestrian crossing". But we need something. @Another Believer: I think we can consider that consensus, since you created the category. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | move to Category:John T. Williams memorial pedestrian crossing, no redirect needed | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
Category description pages for the following seems to be the same:
- Category:darkclue
- Category:Dark Clue
- Category:darkcluemusic
- Category:Dark Clue Music
- Category:dcmplayer
- Category:DCM Player
This can probably be reduced to 3 or fewer categories.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I condensed it a bit. Seems somewhat spammy.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
cleaned it up.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Schreibfehler in der Kategorie Rigorius (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
many files in here are not about the contents but e.g. about the contributors or readers – please help move them to Category:Wikimedia maps of the world and create new subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- no objection, this was created three years before your suggested replacement, and also before the current subcategories. Older doesn't mean better here. --Enyavar (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | ![]() | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
Duplicate of the parent category and it should be upmerged (including restructuring all the duplicate Demolition/Demolitions subcategories). Normally we have plural category names, but we can consider the term "Demolition" as the activity, so we can leave the parent category as is (see COM:CAT). P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | ![]() | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
I have migrated all of the files that used to be hosted here to new subcategories couched under the Category:Oz (franchise) tag. As such there is no longer a need for this category. SDudley (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @SDudley It seems reasonable to leave this as a redirect as not all may be familiar with the naming of the franchise, do you agree? Josh (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- that makes sense to me! I am totally ok with a redirect instead of straight deletion. good suggestion. SDudley (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | redirect to Category:Oz (franchise) | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Josh (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
we have specific categories now Mateus2019 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | ![]() | |||
Participants |
| |||
Closed by | Josh (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
What are the differences between Category:Men and women and Category:Men with women? If none, downmerge Category:Men and women to Category:Men with women, as the latter is consistent with categories like Category:Female humans with male humans and Category:Boys with girls. Note that Category:Boys and girls redirect to Category:Boys with girls. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- so it shall be done --Mateus2019 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Overdue! Good catch, Sbb1413. Josh (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | ![]() | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Josh (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
Although there are various solid objects resembling water ice (see Category:Ice in science), the term "ice" generally refers to solid water. So I think Category:Water ice should be merged into Category:Ice and other icy solids (like Category:Dry ice, Category:Solid nitrogen) should be removed from Category:Ice in science, thus restricting the Category:Ice category to solid water. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's empty now anyway. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- But someone (maybe the creator) would use it to duplicate the category tree of Category:Ice, just to broaden the definition of the term. However, the corresponding Wikipedia article of water ice is simply ice, consistent with the common usage. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I think Category:Village pounds, Category:Pinfolds, Category:Pinfolds in the United Kingdom, Category:Pinfolds in England, and Category:Town pounds need some amount of reorganization. They're all generally referring to the same thing of a historic animal pound (Wikidata Q4764963 I think). Village pounds is in the "Village structures in England" category (though I haven't confirmed everything in it is actually in England), which makes it weird that it has a subcategory structure of Pinfolds that has Pinfolds in the United Kingdom which in turn has Pinfolds in England. Then Town Pounds seems to mostly be about historic pounds in New England, though there looks to be one entry there from France. I think all of these probably should be moved into a new hierarchy by location under a new "Historic animal pounds" category or something along those lines. But I'm relatively new to Commons and not really sure what the right organizational structure is. It's my understanding that "pinfold" and "pound" are just synonymous terms, with some slight preferences for one or the other in different locations. PeterCooperJr (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to have a concrete proposal as a starting point, here is the current hierarchy:
Animal shelters ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion) └ Animal shelters by location ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion) └ Animal shelters by country ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion) └ Animal shelters in the United Kingdom ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion) └ Animal pounds in the United Kingdom ├ Animal pounds in England │ └ (Categories for specific localities) └ Animal pounds in Wales Enclosures ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion) ├ Enclosures (agriculture) │ ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion) │ └ Village pounds │ ├ (Categories for specific localities) │ └ Pinfolds │ └ Pinfolds in the United Kingdom │ ├ (Categories for specific localities) │ └ Pinfolds in England │ └ (Categories for specific localities) └ Town pounds └ (Categories for specific localities)
And here's a proposed new structure:
Enclosures (agriculture) ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion) └ Historic animal pounds ├ Animal pounds in the United Kingdom │ ├ Animal pounds in England │ │ └ (Categories for specific localities) │ └ Animal pounds in Wales └ Animal pounds in the United States └ (Categories for specific localities)
Which would be implemented using these specific changes:
- Create new Category:Historic animal pounds, with parent category Category:Enclosures (agriculture).
- Update Wikidata Q4764963 to reference that new category instead of "Village pounds".
- Category:Animal pounds in the United Kingdom: remove parent category Category:Animal shelters in the United Kingdom, add parent categories Category:Historic animal pounds and Category:Agricultural buildings in the United Kingdom
- Create new category Category:Animal pounds in the United States, with parent category Category:Historic animal pounds
- Category:Pinfolds in England: Move child categories and files to be in Category:Animal pounds in England (Double-checking that they're all actually in England) instead; then replace the category with redirect to Category:Animal pounds in England
- Category:Pinfolds in the United Kingdom: Move the couple remaining child categories to be under Category:Animal pounds in England, then replace the category with redirect to Category:Animal pounds in the United Kingdom
- Category:Pinfolds: Recategorize images based on their respective location (to Category:Animal pounds in England or Category:Animal pounds in the United States, then replace the category with redirect to Category:Historic animal pounds
- Category:Village pounds: Move child categories and files to be in Category:Animal pounds in England (Double-checking that they're all actually in England) instead; then replace the category with redirect to Category:Historic animal pounds
- Category:Town pounds: Move child categories and files to be in Category:Animal pounds in the United States (or another locality-based category as applicable), then replace the category with redirect to Category:Historic animal pounds
Again, this is all just intended to be a starting point. But as far as I can tell, "Town pounds", "Village pounds", and "Pinfolds" are all the same exact thing, and I think they should be categorized similarly. I could see an argument for having more categories which are each named more based on what they're locally called in each region, but it should be easy for one to find them in a similar-looking place, and right now they're not. --PeterCooperJr (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I rather like pinfold, I've never heard it used for anything other than animals, while you definitely get cars in some pounds. So though I've no great objection to some sort of reorganisation, but maybe with pinfolds as the name for animal pounds. Or if this is one of those English v American English things, maybe we use pounds in the US and Pinfolds in England? WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in the US and have only heard the term pounds for these historic structures, though it also seems to be the preferred term in some parts of England. There was some discussion on the OpenStreetMap wiki on the right term to use for mapping these, which included this color-coded query of the terms that have been used, showing a pretty clear regional distinction. The term "pound" seemed to be the more general term (and is what's currently used in the Wikidata term for whatever that's worth). I have no particular objection to using "pinfold" instead if that's the more generic term, or in keeping them both separate if keeping them distinct is useful. I'm far from being an expert on the subject. Right now, there are pounds labeled as pinfolds and pinfolds labeled as pounds, and I think they're just all really trying to say the same thing. PeterCooperJr (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Rather than choosing between "pound" and "pinfold", would including both in the category names make more sense (at least for the UK where both terms are used)? Something along the lines of
Enclosures (agriculture) ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion) └ Historic animal pounds and pinfolds ├ Animal pounds and pinfolds in the United Kingdom │ ├ Animal pounds and pinfolds in England │ │ └ (Categories for specific localities) │ └ Animal pounds and pinfolds in Wales └ Animal pounds in the United States └ (Categories for specific localities)
? --PeterCooperJr (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Not seeing any objection, I'm going to go ahead with my proposed moves, and using "pounds and pinfolds" as the category name for the UK categories. I'm pretty sure it'll be better, and any further tweaks could still be done if desired. --PeterCooperJr (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
empty category 2A02:810B:581:C300:D871:768A:48C8:79 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted by AntiCompositeNumber. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
There is an identical category about this artist - Category:Borys Romanowski Slider one (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- please add {{Category redirect}} to one of them.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)- Thank you! Added Slider one (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
All of the subcategories only contain a single picture. This doesn't feel like a pattern we should be continuing to use. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete all. This is not a useful or appropriate pattern of categorization. These identifiers would be better represented in structured data. Omphalographer (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete I don't see how this could work out.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Conclusion: Consensus to delete these categories and move their content to Photographs by William Lawrence. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
already exist Category:2 male humans GioviPen GP msg 11:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GiovanniPen:
Keep Almost all English dictionaries define a "man" as an "adult male human" and it does not include boys aged below 18. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | Keep this category. | |||
Participants |
| |||
Notes | Any proposal to merge a "men" category to its equivalent "male humans" category (or vice versa) should be speedily closed, as the distinction between the two categories is well-established. However, there's no prejudice against having a central discussion challenging the current category structure. | |||
Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
I had recreated this category for various reasons:
- To group categories like Category:Children, Category:Young adults, Category:Young musicians and Category:Young and old people.
- To provide categories for people who look young but are hard to guess whether they are children, teenagers or adults since the transition from adolescence to adulthood is gradual and not always apparent.
- To have a people equivalent of the category Category:Youth, similar to Category:Babies/Category:Infancy, Category:Children/Category:Childhood, Category:Teenagers/Category:Adolescence, Category:Old people/Category:Human old age and so on.
Joshbaumgartner has moved the original categories to Category:Young adults since the categories began to cover only young adults at that point, excluding children and teenagers. A 2010 discussion defined "young people" as adults aged between 18 and 40. Anyway, this CFD is due to Josh objecting to my recreation of the categories, since I'm unable to explain the utility of such categories to him. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would certainly consider children and adolescents "young people", and presuming we are doing this sort of categorization by age contingent at all (which I don't necessarily support), everything Sbb1413 says here sounds reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | None | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
Rename to Category:Female education, as this topic covers female humans in general, not just women. For instance, Category:Female students can be either girls or women. Also consistent with Category:Male education. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Support Makes sense and the cat is mostly about girls, not women otherwise the redlinked cat could become a parent cat and the current cat be about things like lifelong-learning, adult job education, etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- And also Category:Female educators, as they are generally women. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | Rename into Category:Female education. | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
Mostly redundant to Category:Businesswomen, and Category:Female billionaires are not necessarily related to business. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | No discussion | |||
Actions |
| |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
Seems pretty arbitrary and there are many more useful subcategories for direct categorization at Category:Flags by number of stars. I propose getting rid of this category and upmerging as necessary (many of these subcategories and files are already in appropriate and more useful categories). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I guess a parent category by range of values would be helpful. Some people just count 1,2,3,4,5,6,many.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - over-categorisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not really the problem with this category. Josh (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- A few notes on quantity categories:
- Quantity categories, based on the quantity of a depicted subject, should be by exact counted quantity (1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 987, etc.). (see Category:Groups)
- Ranges of quantity (1-5, 10-19, etc.) should be avoided as they are always arbitrary and can lead to unneeded layers of quantity structure.
- Quantities should be represented by numerals, not words, in category names (e.g. "1", not "one").
- Quantity categories should be indexed in the relevant topic by quantity index (in this case at Category:Flags by number of stars exists for this purpose).
- Quantity categories should use a standard numeric sort key (see and use {{Numsort}} if needed).
- "Many" categories are not based on quantity, but instead should be used for images which depict a significant quantity of the subject, but in which the subjects are not individually distinct enough to be reasonably countable. If the individual subjects are countable, exact quantity should be used instead of "Many". e.g. crowd of mingling people vs. group portrait. I'm not aware of any flags which depict stars in an uncountable fashion.
- In conclusion,
Delete Category:Flags with more than twenty stars and upmerge contents into Category:Flags with stars. From there, sort contents into appropriate specific quantity categories if applicable. Josh (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete I have no strong opinion on categories by specific numbers, but I don't see this category is helpful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions |
| |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 |
Is this category even necessary? I don't think anyone in it is known for being in a Tony Hawk game. Let alone is it a defining trait of anyone in here. Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete This is just an egregious case of what is a widespread bad practice of categorizing categories by trivia about the subject vs. categorizing images by what they actually depict. I'd be fine with this category for depicting guest characters as they appear within the series (or on set or whatever), but not for just attaching this category to the main category of every person who has ever been a guest character there. The same applies for all such categories, but there are a number of editors who really enjoy categorizing trivia like this, so what are we to do? Josh (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions |
| |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
There is no need for an intersection category like this. Just put the image in three categories. Jmabel ! talk 08:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Support, as well as for the duos Category:Cosplay of Jubilee and Scarlet Witch, Category:Cosplay of Jubilee and Polaris, and Category:Cosplay of Scarlet Witch and Polaris. But this appears to be a pattern enforced by Category:Cosplay templates like {{Cosplay trio}}; this may need to be a larger discussion. Omphalographer (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete trio and supporting duos. As for the template, in this case, removing the categories removes the template. It may or may not be valid in other combos, for example characters that are related to each other in the given work as a trio, so it may be of interest to depict the trio together. As for whether the steps through duos implemented by the template is valid or not is a good question, so it might be worth opening up a comment on the template page about usage and implementation. I am not steeped enough in cosplay to know which might qualify like that, but in the case of this trio, there is only one image, so it is not really worth the diffusion anyway, so I say just delete the trio and duos for now and raise a CfD on others that might need a look.
- @Jmabel any objection to deleting the duos @Omphalographer posed as well as the trio you nominated? Josh (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: not at all. I have no idea who these characters are, just found this to be ridiculous category splitting. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- They're all characters from Marvel's X-Men comic books, but I'm not aware of any special significance to this grouping - they're not joined at the hips like the Three Musketeers or whatnot. Omphalographer (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: not at all. I have no idea who these characters are, just found this to be ridiculous category splitting. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions |
| |||
Participants |
| |||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
as per Category:2 men, redundance GioviPen GP msg 11:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Male humans includes boys and babies, men do not. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GiovanniPen and Prototyperspective:
Keep Almost all English dictionaries define a "man" as an "adult male human" and it does not include boys aged below 18. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | Keep category | |||
Actions | remove CFD template from category | |||
Participants |
| |||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
which insurgents? seems to miss files and is unclear and has no existing categories set. found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete as there is no Category:Insurgents and thus no need to diffuse it by nationality. Josh (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | Remove contents from cat; delete cat | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
Bitte umbennenen in: Coats of arms of Langen family (Westphalia). Sorry GerritR (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oder einfach löschen. Hab die Kategorie geleert.--GerritR (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | Delete because now empty | |||
Actions | Delete category | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
Category with one file (moved to Category:Unclassifiable music from Incompetech). 2603:7000:B800:F04:C403:C3AE:16A4:FE99 22:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | Delete because now empty | |||
Actions | Delete cat | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
I removed a series of self-categorizations from this and some of the subcategories, but all categories lack English descriptions and the entire structure appears to be circular.
Title | Page ID | Namespace | Size (bytes) | Last change |
---|---|---|---|---|
ⵉⴱⵔⵉⵔ | 141486700 | 14 | 249 | 20241010230840 |
ⵢⵏⵏⴰⵢⵔ | 141487137 | 14 | 255 | 20241010230824 |
ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ | 141487215 | 14 | 249 | 20241010230514 |
ⵎⴰⵕⵚ | 141487243 | 14 | 243 | 20241010230836 |
ⵢⵓⵏⵢⵓ | 141487341 | 14 | 249 | 20241010230843 |
ⵢⵓⵍⵢⵓⵣ | 141487397 | 14 | 255 | 20241010230847 |
ⵎⴰⵢⵢⵓ | 141487434 | 14 | 249 | 20241010230851 |
ⵖⵓⵛⵜ | 141487484 | 14 | 243 | 20241010230854 |
ⵛⵓⵜⴰⵏⴱⵉⵔ | 141487501 | 14 | 267 | 20241010230858 |
ⴽⵟⵓⴱⵕ | 141487543 | 14 | 249 | 20241010230902 |
ⵏⵓⵡⴰⵏⴱⵉⵔ | 141487647 | 14 | 267 | 20241010230906 |
ⴰⵢⵢⵓⵔ | 141488443 | 14 | 374 | 20231127181046 |
ⴷⵓⵊⴰⵏⴱⵉⵔ | 141488594 | 14 | 267 | 20241010230910 |
ⵉⵔⵏ | 141488632 | 14 | 403 | 20241010225006 |
ⴰⴽⵓⴷ | 141488648 | 14 | 374 | 20231127181353 |
ⴰⵙⴰⴽⵓⴷ | 141488651 | 14 | 426 | 20231127181555 |
Category:ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ appears to be the only one containing a file. I'd rename this to Category:ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ (text)] and delete all other ones.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete all. The single image in Category:ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ is already categorized sufficiently in Category:Tamazight calendar cards (image set). These categories are Amazigh names for months, as well as a few words related to the calendar (e.g. ⴰⵢⵢⵓⵔ = "month"); categories for these topics already exist with English names. I'm also taking steps to address some overcategorization on images in that set (e.g. all of them were categorized as Category:Day). Omphalographer (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I want to link here this earlier discussion of a similar category: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:ⵡⵉⴽⵉⴱⵉⴷⵢⴰ Deleting is still the best option, because of commons guideline/policy for using latin letters and/or English in category naming. --Velma (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that discussion. Apparently the consensus there was to delete them, but this hadn't been implemented. Let that be.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that discussion. Apparently the consensus there was to delete them, but this hadn't been implemented. Let that be.
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | Delete listed categories | |||
Participants |
| |||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
Empty category 2A02:810B:581:C300:D871:768A:48C8:79 19:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | Delete because empty | |||
Actions | Delete category | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
Bitte zwecks besserer Spezifizierung vereinigen mit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_M%C3%BChlen_family_(Vogtland) - es könnte noch weitere Familien mit dem Namen geben GerritR (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ich habe die Bilder verschoben und einen Redirect angelegt. Wenn mal eine andere Familie dazukommen sollte, kann man daraus eine Begriffsklärung machen. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | merge | |||
Actions | merged as indicated | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
It's not really clear what the difference between this category and Category:All Saints church (Sosnovka, Ozyorsky District) is. But one of them should probably be deleted. Although I'm not really sure which. There's no point in having two categories for the same church and images though. Pinging @GennadyL: as the creator of both categories. Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- These are two different temples standing close to each other. Therefore, each of them should have its own category, as well as its own article! --GennadyL (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's obviously two churches in this ensemble (one is made of stone and looks good and another is made of wood and almost ruined), and there are different images in each category, so I think that noone can find a reason to delete one of these categories. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- As You wish! --GennadyL (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | keep both | |||
Actions | remove CFD template from cat | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
sexual intercoarse 49.197.167.237 11:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep — Valid category for videos showing copulation. Commons is not censored, unless it involves juveniles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | keep -- no reason stated for deleting | |||
Actions | Remove CFD template from cat | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
empty category Akul59 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | Delete cat | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
Uncategorised and not really defining. Rathfelder (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe "mottos"? More for that can be found: Special:Search/Fronti nulla fides.
- The Wikidata item it's currently connected with and the resulting infobox seem unrelated (work by G. Bruno) and doesn't have any content at Commons.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC) - @Lotje this merge seems to be problematic.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)- Hello Enhancing999, apologies for the late reply. Maybe ad the images to the Category:Latin mottos? Lotje (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. The connection at Wikidata should be fixed.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. The connection at Wikidata should be fixed.
- Hello Enhancing999, apologies for the late reply. Maybe ad the images to the Category:Latin mottos? Lotje (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Commented out the infobox. I guess we can close this.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | All necessary actions already done -- just remove CFD template from cat | |||
Participants |
| |||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
Kategorie bitte löschen, der Inhalt befindet sich inzwischen in der korrekten Kategorie Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 08:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | delete | |||
Actions | Delete cat | |||
Participants |
| |||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
Should this be renamed to Drosera dilatatopetiolaris? That is the correct spelling and currently some of the links on the templates are broken because they point to the hyphenated version, which doesn't exist everywhere. Yummifruitbat (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it shoud be renamed to Drosera dilatatopetiolaris. The botanical code § 60.11. states: "The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen". The original spelling was 'dilatato-petiolaris', and the correction has been done by IPNI and other databases. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | Rename | |||
Actions | Move cat to correct name over redirect, redirect left behind | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Auntof6 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC) |
Confused Paseo Bulnes in Santiago de Chile with Bulnes, a commune in Chile. Brunnaiz (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Both categories are distint now and they are both populated, so I'm closing this discussion, Brunnaiz. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. There are two churches in Yeghipatrush. Kareyac (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Done. It's an ambiguous name, so I requested it be deleted. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. There are two churches in Yeghipatrush. Kareyac (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Done. It's an ambiguous name, so I requested it be deleted. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. There are two churches in Yeghipatrush. Kareyac (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Done. It's an ambiguous name, so I requested it be deleted. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Empty category (except for infobox and link to creator template) and not likely to be filled as copyright doesn't expire till 2050. Mbch331 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- in the meantime, there is a file.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The category is not empty, so I'm closing this discussion, Mbch331. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
No content which is not already in Category:Women's health Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Women is plural for "woman".
A woman is an adult female human. Before adulthood, a female child or adolescent is referred to as a girl.
per Woman. Alsoan adult female person
per this.an adult female human being
per thisan adult female human
per thisan adult female person. Compare man ( def 1 ), girl ( def 1 ).
per this. Accuracy does matter here. Many files and categories relate not just to adult women's health but also and in some cases only to other human females' health. For example, genital mutilation is usually done before the female is a woman and thus has special characteristics such as the person having limited ability to prevent this getting done to them and various vaccinations are usually or only administered during childhood or infancy and various diseases also largely affect female children. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)- @Rathfelder:
Weak keep. As Prototyperspective has pointed out, almost all English dictionaries define a "woman" as an "adult female human" and it does not include girls aged below 18. However, I'm aware that "women" as a topic may also cover various aspects of female humans in general, not just adult females. Unfortunately, the category Category:Women more often focuses on individual adult females than on women topics, for which I use Category:Female humans instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete Category:Women's health -- and move all content into Category:Female humans' health. Obvious dupe. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I think there should be a {{Cat see also}} in Category:Women's health, if it is kept, to clarify that there is a general female-humans category too? Sinigh (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- There are no cat see also links to categories that are direct parent categories. If there are two categories, then Female humans' health would be a cat set on Women's health and the user can go there. I have configured categories to show at the top so readily see them. Another option would be some sort of navigation template (for health cats) similar to e.g. those on the right of Category:People cycling. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment this category name is a clumsy phrase that I have literally never heard anyone use. "Women's health" is the normal term, and is usually extended to girls insofar as their health issues are at all gender-specific. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Females' health or Female health is a better term for colloquial use and could redirect there. Female health is a widely used term. As explained above with sources, Female health isn't only about women. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel and Prototyperspective: I agree with Prototyperspective here, as "female" and "male" adjectives are usually applied to humans unless there are animal topics for which such female/male dichotomy is needed. If there's a need to cover female animal health separately from male animals, we can use Category:Female human health (without the "clumsy" possessive, as "human" is originally a Latin adjective before being used as a noun in English). However, since I don't see the need, sticking with Category:Female health is the best approach for female humans. Note that I have !voted "weak keep", because (as Jmabel has pointed out) some "women" topics can be extended to include girls, which may render this category pointless. Still, accuracy matters per the Selectivity Principle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be completely OK with "female health" or "women's health". - Jmabel ! talk 11:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- You wont find "Female humans' health" in medical literature. The term used is womens health, regardless of age. Rathfelder (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please see the above discussion, mainly this. You may have wrong assumptions. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- What assumptions do you think I am making? I am reporting on medical literature, of which I have quite extensive acquaintance. Our categories should, if possible, correspond to the terms used in the outside world. Searches for Female health are redirected by Google to Womens health. That is the term used by the World Health Organisation for both women and girls. Rathfelder (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The assumption that you're making is that widespread use of an inaccurate term is more important than the accuracy of the term / category scope/title. Another assumption you seem to make in your comment is that your opinion what categories should correspond is shared. I don't use Google but DuckDuckGo an when I search for "Female health" it shows lots of results including from WHO. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- [1] - Women and girls. Rathfelder (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you have read my reply or at least it seems like so. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- WHO uses the term Womens health. Our categories should reflect usage in the real world, not someones idea about accuracy.
- Stop making personal comments please. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not making any personal comments. I don't think your comments are constructive since you ignored the points raised and just continue to comment based on your personal opinion without addressing or considering earlier input. The WHO also uses Female health and again it doesn't matter as much as falsehood. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- My comments are about the WHO. Your comments are about me. Any more and I will be referring you to the admins. And your reference is not in point. Its about Female health workers, not about female health. Rathfelder (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not making any personal comments. I don't think your comments are constructive since you ignored the points raised and just continue to comment based on your personal opinion without addressing or considering earlier input. The WHO also uses Female health and again it doesn't matter as much as falsehood. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you have read my reply or at least it seems like so. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- [1] - Women and girls. Rathfelder (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The assumption that you're making is that widespread use of an inaccurate term is more important than the accuracy of the term / category scope/title. Another assumption you seem to make in your comment is that your opinion what categories should correspond is shared. I don't use Google but DuckDuckGo an when I search for "Female health" it shows lots of results including from WHO. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- What assumptions do you think I am making? I am reporting on medical literature, of which I have quite extensive acquaintance. Our categories should, if possible, correspond to the terms used in the outside world. Searches for Female health are redirected by Google to Womens health. That is the term used by the World Health Organisation for both women and girls. Rathfelder (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please see the above discussion, mainly this. You may have wrong assumptions. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- You wont find "Female humans' health" in medical literature. The term used is womens health, regardless of age. Rathfelder (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be completely OK with "female health" or "women's health". - Jmabel ! talk 11:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Taylor 49, Jmabel, Prototyperspective, and Rathfelder: It seems like the term "women" can also refer to non-adult female humans, not just adults. However, virtually all dictionaries define the term "woman" as an "adult female human", as opposed to "girl". But considering the term "women" is widespread in discussions related to feminism and women's rights, both of which may involve non-adults, I think the whole Category:Female humans tree should be merged into Category:Women. A new category tree Category:Adult women can be created specifically for adult female humans. Similarly, the whole Category:Male humans tree should be merged into Category:Men, with a new category tree Category:Adult men specifically for adult male humans. The Wikipedia articles of man/woman say, "The plural (wo)men is sometimes used in certain phrases such as (wo)men's studies to denote (fe)male humans regardless of age." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose No, sometimes colloquial language is false and this is a case and it may change in the future but either way correct use is widespread in scientific literature and the truth and accuracy are more important than popular colloquial language. Men are adults; women are adults and I provided sources for this fact above. Yes, the quoted sentence from the WP article is correct. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
No, sometimes colloquial language is false and this is a case and it may change in the future but either way correct use is widespread in scientific literature and the truth and accuracy are more important than popular colloquial language. Men are adults; women are adults and I provided sources for this fact above.
- Commons is not a place to decide which one to consider "formal" or "colloquial". Rather, we consider what is "widespread" in many languages, not just English. Yes, I agree that virtually all dictionaries define these terms as adult humans. But it is also true that terms like "people" are not appropriate for very young humans like Category:Babies, yet we still categorize babies under people categories. The "widespread scientific literature " often disregard age while using these terms while focusing on gender, like men's studies/women's studies, men's rights/women's rights, men's health/women's health, and so on. Unless you're talking about constructed languages, natural languages are not always precise, be in formal or colloquial situations. Some terms are more unambiguous than others, but it does not mean that there should not be any ambiguity. We can abandon the terms Category:Men/Category:Women if they are ambiguous on whether they cover children, instead using Category:Adult male humans/Category:Adult female humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Rather, we consider what is "widespread" in many languages, not just English.
Source?which one to consider "formal" or "colloquial".
it's not about formal vs colloquial; it's about true vs false.yet we still categorize babies under people categories.
I thought so as well but actually people is also used for babies, it's just that it rarely is used to refer to babies in specific; e.g. people say there's 10 dead people including 3 dead babies but rarely is the term "people" used to refer to babies in specific since then the term babies is used. Nothing actually suggests the term would not refer to babies while I gave clear sources that confirm that women refers to adult humans.Category:Adult male humans/Category:Adult female humans
No problem with changing these cats to that since they wouldn't be false.
- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Although the articles man and woman define the terms as adult males and adult females respectively, the article themselves are talking about male humans and female humans in general respectively. In particular, the paragraph in the "Education" section of man says,
Men traditionally received more education than women as a result of single-sex education. Universal education, meaning state-provided primary and secondary education independent of gender, is not yet a global norm, even if it is assumed in most developed countries. In the 21st century, the balance has shifted in many developed nations, and men now lag behind women in education.
- Which is applicable to both school children and university students. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- No it isn't. There they were talking about men retrospectively – what an adult man has had an education during childhood. It doesn't refer to children with "men" (and even if that was the case that source wouldn't change much). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm inviting @Joshbaumgartner: here, since he has contributed a lot on people categories, and may help us give insights regarding this issue. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is specifically about health and we should be guided by usage in health literature. Different considerations may apply in other fields. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay (assuming that is the case and I largely agree).
- "How Can Sport-Based Interventions Improve Health among Women and Girls? A Scoping Review" [1]
- "Mental health needs among pregnant and parenting adolescent girls and young women in South Africa: A scoping review" [2]
- "Female sexual health and female sexual dysfunction (FSD) are usually poorly diagnosed and treated because of…" [3]
- "The Gut Microbiome and Female Health" [4]
- "Is Female Health Cyclical? Evolutionary Perspectives on Menstruation" [5]
- "Learning about menstrual hygiene and health is essential for adolescent girls' health education to…" [6]
- "…interventions could improve women's and girls' health and well-being." [7].
- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not one of which uses the phrase "female humans' health" or even the word "human". I'd have no problem with "Women and girls' health" or just "female health". - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the human health literature "human" is implied/implicit and would just makes the title longer, the former is not the case on WMC. "Women and girls' health" or just "female health" would also be fine. I do think the current title is best but clarifications could also be in the category description. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not one of which uses the phrase "female humans' health" or even the word "human". I'd have no problem with "Women and girls' health" or just "female health". - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay (assuming that is the case and I largely agree).
- @Sbb1413 There is no Category:Human health, and while there is a Category:Animal health, other than that, Category:Health appears to be exclusive to human health. I don't see a need here to impose the Universality Principle on human terms in this field, since diffusion should follow more scientific medical rationale. Our standard age/gender breakdown is more aligned to cultural/social norms, which is fine for most categories, but not necessarily here. Typically, health is broken down into children's, men's and women's with overlap where dictated by biology (see mensruation comment above. Of course biology doesn't provide a clean universal line between a girl and a woman the way society can with law and customs, so again, I wouldn't impose our standard cultural/social standard on this topic. Josh (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I'll create Category:Human health for things exclusively related to humans. Anyway, you're right that the terms "men's" and "women's" are not dictated by age when it comes to biology, but it is true for many cases. If I'm not wrong, the terms "women's rights" and "men's rights" actually refers to rights of males and females respectively, regardless of age. I've created the redundant categories Category:Male rights and Category:Female rights to follow the standard human stages of development ({{Category navigation/people/sidenote}}), and we have Category:Boys' rights and Category:Girls' rights. Anyway, in this case, the division of health into children's, men's, and women's is more sensible. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
the division of health into children's, men's, and women's is more sensible
Not sure what you mean by that. Please consider what has been said earlier.Of course biology doesn't provide a clean universal line between a girl and a woman the way society can with law and customs, so again, I wouldn't impose our standard cultural/social standard on this topic
Agree. That is exactly one more reason why there needs to be children's health, female health and male health. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I'll create Category:Human health for things exclusively related to humans. Anyway, you're right that the terms "men's" and "women's" are not dictated by age when it comes to biology, but it is true for many cases. If I'm not wrong, the terms "women's rights" and "men's rights" actually refers to rights of males and females respectively, regardless of age. I've created the redundant categories Category:Male rights and Category:Female rights to follow the standard human stages of development ({{Category navigation/people/sidenote}}), and we have Category:Boys' rights and Category:Girls' rights. Anyway, in this case, the division of health into children's, men's, and women's is more sensible. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is specifically about health and we should be guided by usage in health literature. Different considerations may apply in other fields. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- either merge with women's health or
Delete per Rathfelder. The medical field is just not called that. The category name is deeply weird and sounds like aliens trying to decide whether they should abduct 'female bovines' today or 'nubile bipedals in nocturnal garments'. "Female humans" are called "women", "women's health" pertains to all fields of medicine that cannot be generalized to all genders. I do understand that there is a whole category tree behind "Male/female humans", but a lot of that parent category also just weird. Sure, replace "human" with another noun, and it is a fine distinction (i.e. "Female singers" and "Male actors" are fully okay with me), but I don't ever want to read about "Male human's sports", "Olympian tabletennis competition among female humans", "human businessfemales" and "human salesmales". Weird!
- I'd argue that "fe/male humans" is not a superior category name compared to "wo/men". You may get the clarification that babies and girls are also included given how some definitions exclude "boys" from "men". But go one step deeper, and most of these categories are directly distinguishing between "men" and "boys" anyway, as well as "women" and "girls". And then you have to start to painstakingly categorize images by people's age, and you can't know that in a lot of cases, especially with old photos and paintings. In case you know all the dates, you have to creepily distinguish between "Adolescent girls of <country> in 2018" who eventually become "Young women of <country> in 2021" halfway through the year, because human infant individuals tend to grow into human adult individuals. The ageist categories also depend entirely on arbitrary definitions: Category:Women of Benin gives 7 age classifications, and these classes clash with the 9 age classifications from Category:Girls of Benin. Both get their definitions from en-WP's articles about the human development, but they don't even agree if you stop being a baby at 2 or 4 years old. Note in that context also Category:Men of Benin, where their exact age appears to be totally unimportant.
- Most cases don't require that granularity, in my opinion: "Women" (= female humans) includes principally all ages. There can still be "girls" subcategories where "woman" and "child" overlap. --Enyavar (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
"Female humans" are called "women"
objectively false. I'll copy paste from above:- Women is plural for "woman".
A woman is an adult female human. Before adulthood, a female child or adolescent is referred to as a girl.
per Woman. Alsoan adult female person
per this.an adult female human being
per thisan adult female human
per thisan adult female person. Compare man ( def 1 ), girl ( def 1 ).
per this. Accuracy does matter here. Many files and categories relate not just to adult women's health but also and in some cases only to other human females' health. For example, genital mutilation is usually done before the female is a woman and thus has special characteristics such as the person having limited ability to prevent this getting done to them and various vaccinations are usually or only administered during childhood or infancy and various diseases also largely affect female children. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)- And when is this adulthood reached? You give definitions, but not one of them is able to give a guideline that is able to make the "obvious" distinction when a person stops being a girl and begins being a women. The most common globally accepted definition might be 18+, but that is a generalization and regulated by law. Biological adulthood (what your definitions reference) is entirely individual, and most teenagers reach biological adulthood before 18+. To complicate matters, in many jurisdictions, full adulthood is reached at 21+ or even later.
- That is why I think this is an unnecessary can of worms. --Enyavar (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- The solution is simple: no distinction needed with "Female health". Prototyperspective (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: Replacement of "women's" with "female"
[edit]@Enyavar, Prototyperspective, Joshbaumgartner, Jmabel, and Rathfelder: Seems like the main problem here is that "woman" is defined as an "adult female human" in all English dictionaries, while the possessive form "women's" is commonly extended to female children (i.e. "girls"), like "women's health", "women's rights" and "women's studies". Although Enyavar is right that categorizing people by age is getting too much, the categorizing scheme is widely adopted partly due to the presence of myriads of categories using "men" and "women", and all dictionaries restrict these terms to adults. But Prototyperspective wants to maintain consistency in Commons categories more stringently, interpreting "women's" as a mere possessive form of "women" and not as a separate word. So I think the only way forward is to ditch terms like "women's" in topics inclusive to all ages (or not associated to a particular age group). So we can use Category:Female health, Category:Female rights and Category:Female human studies, replacing "women's" with "female" (or "female human"). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- We have a large and well developed category tree in Category:Women's health. You want to rework it? That needs a much wider discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Category:Women's hospitals should be moved to Category:Female hospitals. But Category:Violence against women can be categorized under Category:Violence against female humans, which itself would be a subcat of Category:Female health. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Women's hospitals is the term used in the outside world. I dont think you will find the term Female hospital used anywhere. Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- You need to start more discussions if that is what you want to do. Rathfelder (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Don't know if moving that cat would be needed; I think these are really only for women, not girls. There also are e.g. Chicago Hospital for Women and Children or Mater Women's and Children's Hospital that specify it's also for children and those those that aren't seem to be for female adults only (or nearly only) as (nearly) only adult women give birth. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Women's hospitals is the term used in the outside world. I dont think you will find the term Female hospital used anywhere. Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Category:Women's hospitals should be moved to Category:Female hospitals. But Category:Violence against women can be categorized under Category:Violence against female humans, which itself would be a subcat of Category:Female health. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging @Jarble: , who has apologized in many category discussions for creating "redundant" categories like Category:Male humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Sbb1413 In general, I support this effort to apply the Universality Principle, and so several of the examples you raise would be good to change. However, there are some cases where the UP does not apply, or at least doesn't mean we should change the name. In cases where the word "women's" is part of a complete term, versus just an adjective we build into a category name, we can stick with the term as it is styled in actual usage. This is certainly true of proper names, such as those @Prototyperspective listed above, but it is also true for a term such as 'women's hospital', as that is a complete term used widely in the field to identify a certain class of facilities, and not just a Commons construction trying to name a category of all hospitals which serve (primarily) women. In this case I would leave Women's hospitals named as is. Josh (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Once again, this is newspeak purism and linguistic nitpicking at its finest. I concede that there are multiple instances where it makes sense to use "Female (humans)" instead of "women". Like our fully self-made term of "Female lawyers", meant to clearly distinguish "Women lawyers" (and their associations) from the many "Girl lawyers" that are undoubtedly also out there. Oh, it's just the one?. Seriously, what I witness here, is picking apart grey zones of the English language, for no other purpose as to make the arbitrary distinction between 17-year old "boys" and 18-year old "men" (in order to exclude boys from men, and justify "male" as the supercategory). And on the other hand, once we establish that "Males"/"Females" is the chosen term and we can do away with men and women entirely, then we have to distinguish "human male" from "animal male". Yes, in most cases.
Say, Category:Violence against women is easily understood. Yet Category:Violence against females includes mistreatment of female cattle, and yes there sure are images. Which makes Category:Violence against female humans the only acceptable term again? Same with Category:Female health, it again includes animals. Sure, there is only limited media about treatment of female cattle diseases, but yes there sure is some. And since we are here to establish our own terminology because the specific terms commonly used in medicine are not specific enough for Commons, we need OUR fabrication to be entirely specific, since nobody uses it but us. Which would mean that the "human" qualifier enters again, creating the monstrous "Female human's health". And that just because of the claim "girls are exclusively not women - cuz not adult enough". Now tell that to anyone who has to deal with a teen pregnancy. It's patently absurd.
And what's the next target on the agenda? Category:Women at work in Kazakhstan? Category:Men of Italy by name? This whole nitpicking endeavor looks to me like a misguided activity that does not even benefit the project in any way... Um, besides pointing out a categorical inadequacy of the English language (and most other Western languages). To show a contrary position: Chinese & Japanese declare in their articles about "Womanhood" (女性 in both cases) that a woman (女) is the term for the female (雌) human: womanhood as opposite to manhood. And yes, "underage women" are also mentioned, to be "girls" (女孩). These languages on the other way around, use the word "female" (雌性) never in sociology but exclusively as a biological term, i.e. to clearly determine the sex of animal and plant species. In Chinese, the notion of "female singers" means that they'd only be able to biologically reproduce with their male counterparts. And oh, funnily enough, even the English Wikipedia only has e:Category:Women singers. Including all the girls in them, what were they thinking? I really rubbed my eyes here: people claimed above that we take our definitions from en:WP, yet most professions are "Women" not "Female", in Wikipedia!
--> Like we have also seen recently in the US culture wars: Having arbitrary definition problems about women is a choice. --Enyavar (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Enyavar: That's a good insight. In childhood, I was taught that "man" means a "male human" and "women" means a "female human", thus "people" would mean "men and women collectively" (of course, I came to know about third gender later in my life). Later in my adolescence, my parents used to say that I would become a "man" in a couple of years, which implies that "man" means an "adult male human", as opposed to "boy". However, I briefly forgot the "adult" definition of the words "men" and "women" when I began contributing to Commons. It was only in 2022 when I came to know about the human stages of development, where the terms "man" and "woman" were explicitly defined as humans aged 18 or above. Not only that, but I have also consulted every single contemporary English dictionary, print or online, and all define a "man" as an "adult male human" and a "woman" as an "adult female human". We commonly use the 18 as the threshold age of adulthood in Commons, which has to be common in most countries. However, since these terms are ubiquitous in Commons categories, we also create "adult humans", "male humans" and "female humans" in order to be consistent with the consensus age groups, no matter whether there are categories like "children", "boys" or "girls". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is simply accuracy and the avoidance of misinformation. Nothing more, nothing less. Language has changed over and over so many times and WMC is not limited to English so we should use the accurately descriptive term not some colloquial common English name which can still be in the category description. Category:Women at work in Kazakhstan shows adult women only and is for these only Category:Men of Italy by name is for adult men only. Not using clear terms also means things people will confuse things or be uncertain about the scope like you just were.
funnily enough, even the English Wikipedia only has e:Category:Women singers. Including all the girls in them, what were they thinking?
Interesting, will address that at one point and move all the singers who aren't women or rename the category. I could not find one so I can't verify there are some nonadult singers in that cat. However, we're on WMC right now and this discussion is about a WMC cat.Same with Category:Female health, it again includes animals
That's why I suggested Female human health at first. However, if you followed the discussion: that humans are meant could be inferred from the parent category placement that serve as context. The category does not have to be unambiguous if that ambiguity is cleared in the cat description, it just has to be not false. "Women's health" would also be in the category description. No need to make a problem out of this. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Arbitrary section
[edit]@Rathfelder, Prototyperspective, Taylor 49, Sinigh, Jmabel, Enyavar, and Joshbaumgartner: As I have become increasingly neutral regarding the issues with the terms "men" and "women", I have summarized the arguments related these issues at User:Sbb1413/Men and women. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | Keep this category as a result of no consensus. But rename it to Category:Female human health to follow the proper grammar, and also the fact that "female" can also refer to any female animals. | |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC) |
There seems to be a couple of issues with this category, and not that I know what to do about them, but I feel like they at least need to be discussed and/or clarified.
1. This is in Category:Monuments and memorials by subject, which happens to be a child of Category:Art by subject. Although a lot of "cultural heritage monuments" aren't art.
2. Per the description of Category:Monuments and memorials "imposing structure created to commemorate a person or event, or used for that purpose." Then just to go along with that the definition of a monument on Google is "a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event." Although it also gives the definition of "a building, structure, or site that is of historical importance or interest." But it's pretty clear that by "monument" Commons is refer to the former, not the later. I. E. "structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event." The problem is that a lot of things in this category weren't created commemorate a person or event and categories are only suppose to be about a single subject and not be ambiguous in the meantime. So it seems wrong to have categories for "monuments", where said "monuments" don't actually fit the definition of the term for similar categories.
Adamant1 (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1:
- Move Category:Monuments and memorials by subject from Category:Art by subject to Category:Architecture by subject, as we don't have Category:Structures by subject. Almost everything in Category:Cultural heritage monuments are works of art, as "works of art" are not just paintings, creative photos, and sculptures. There are architecturally significant buildings, which can be considered as "works of art".
Support As you've pointed out, the term "monument" has two primary definitions; Category:Monuments and memorials uses the former definition, and Category:Cultural heritage monuments and Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) use the latter. However, as per the Selectivity Principle, "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." So, we should restrict Category:Monuments and memorials for structures to commemorate people or events (maybe rename to simply Category:Memorials, thus getting rid of the ambiguous term "monuments"). Therefore, Category:Cultural heritage monuments should be renamed to Category:Heritage structures, and the Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) programme should replace "Monuments" with something else (maybe "Heritage", as it often focus on heritage structures). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article monument says, "A monument is a type of structure that was explicitly created to commemorate a person or event, or which has become relevant to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, due to its artistic, historical, political, technical or architectural importance. Examples of monuments include statues, (war) memorials, historical buildings, archaeological sites, and cultural assets." Even this article covers two different definitions, for which we should have separate categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Sbb1413: On the first thing, my main issue is with buildings that get designed as "Cultural heritage monuments" after the fact. I don't think this building is art just because the Ukraine government decided that it has historical importance. Although of course some architecture can be art, but everything in a sub-category of Category:Art has to be. You can't have a sub-category of Category:Art where only 1 out of 10 images or whatever are actually of art or artistic architecture.
- Your suggestion to rename things sounds reasonable. "Wiki Loves Monuments" always sounded a little wrong to me anyway. Good luck getting them to change the name at this point though. But we can still rename things on our end to be better aligned with the guidelines even if they don't follow along. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
On the first thing, my main issue is with buildings that get designed [sic] as "Cultural heritage monuments" after the fact. I don't think this building is art just because the Ukraine government decided that it has historical importance. Although of course some architecture can be art, but everything in a sub-category of Category:Art has to be. You can't have a sub-category of Category:Art where only 1 out of 10 images or whatever are actually of art or artistic architecture.
- @Adamant1: Now things are getting into the more subjective level. TBH whether a piece of architecture is art often depend on personal taste. In Commons, we consider all pieces of architecture as art, since Category:Architecture itself belongs to both Category:Engineering and Category:Visual arts. So, the building you've shared is indeed a work of art, despite being too common to be considered an art in the personal level, as it is a house with a gable roof. It would be better if we have Category:Structures by subject, as it would be a better parent cat for Category:Monuments and memorials by subject than Category:Architecture by subject, since they are all structures after all. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, I've created Category:Structures by subject and put Category:Monuments and memorials by subject under it, thus resolving any confusion regarding its relations to art and architecture. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to belabor it but per Category:Art art is a "field of work focused on creating expressive work intended to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power. I wouldn't say specific buildings are a "field of work" or are "created with the intent to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power." Sure, some are but that goes for every product created by a human. Yet most categories for products aren't subcats of Category:Art. I agree with your suggestion to create Category:Structures by subject though. That mostly resolves things. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1, on that note, there was a discussion over Category:Art and it was agreed to break it into Category:The Arts and Category:Works of art. However, "... in art" categories still represent "works of art of ..." and there is not an appetite to change the name even though they should go under Works of art, not Art. Obviously, the whole project is a big one and hasn't made a lot of progress, so Category:Art remains for now, but most of its contents belong in The arts or Works of art. We've been pretty lax in applying any real artistic threshold to what does or does not go under an 'in art' category. I think in general, whether something is art or not is down to the individual work, so it will always be problematic to consider an entire medium to be art. For example, we put Photographs under art, but of course not all photos are art, and to rectify this there was an attempt to limit Photographs to only artistic ones, but this failed generally, as it is difficult to convince users that they should not put photographs in Category:Photographs. Josh (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to belabor it but per Category:Art art is a "field of work focused on creating expressive work intended to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power. I wouldn't say specific buildings are a "field of work" or are "created with the intent to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power." Sure, some are but that goes for every product created by a human. Yet most categories for products aren't subcats of Category:Art. I agree with your suggestion to create Category:Structures by subject though. That mostly resolves things. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, I've created Category:Structures by subject and put Category:Monuments and memorials by subject under it, thus resolving any confusion regarding its relations to art and architecture. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your suggestion to rename things sounds reasonable. "Wiki Loves Monuments" always sounded a little wrong to me anyway. Good luck getting them to change the name at this point though. But we can still rename things on our end to be better aligned with the guidelines even if they don't follow along. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | Partially resolved | |||
Actions |
| |||
Participants | ||||
Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC) |
I doubt the usefulness of this category. It seems to simply embrace religions that call themselves "orthodox", but I see no reason to believe that having "orthodox" in the name of your religion means anything much about whether or not you adhere to your beliefs (the meaning of the linked Wikidata item). Jmabel ! talk 14:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Maybe we should change the scope of this category to cover other denominations or religious communities considered orthodox. For instance, Category:Sunni Islam is considered "orthodox Islam", as it adheres to correct or accepted beliefs related to Islam. Similarly, Category:Theravada is considered the orthodox school of Buddhism, Category:Sanatana Dharma the orthodox version of Hinduism, and so on (by the way, "sanātana", literally "ageless", is often used to mean "orthodox" in many Indo-Aryan languages). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Sbb1413: Certainly a step better, but I'm not sure I like the implication that (for example) Roman Catholicism or Shia Islam are heterodox, or that everything within a capital-O "Orthodox" Church is necessarily "orthodox." E.g. the Old Believers and the mainline Russian Orthodox each consider the other heterodox. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Re-purpose as a disambig page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Agreed. "Orthodoxy" is a concept that perhaps can be depicted somehow, but current contents appear to be Category:Religions named after orthodoxy, so I think it can be deleted or perhaps dabbed as Laurel_Lodged suggests. Josh (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, make into a disambiguation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consensus | ![]() | |||
Actions | Convert Category:Orthodox into a dab page with Category:Orthodoxy redirecting to it. | |||
Participants |
| |||
Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC) |