Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in June 2020.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/06.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2020-06.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Propaganda posters in Germany

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Propaganda posters.

bad category TheMuscovian (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral. We do have Category:Propaganda posters, so it could exist. But I don't see the real benefit over Category:Political posters of Germany. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMuscovian and Themightyquill: theoretically, "propaganda Foo" should be wider concept than "political Foo".--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Please explain. The base category, Category:Government propaganda is a sub-category of Category:Political media and Category:Political communication. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: per enwiki, propaganda is a broad concept. But I see that enwiki en:category:Propaganda is also categorized under "Political communication". So, I would be happy to stand out of this discussion, May become too philosophical :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s redundant, like we already have Category:Nazi posters. We also have Category:Anti-religious propaganda of the Soviet Union and Category:Anti-religion posters of Russia. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Franked Mail Only post boxes in the United Kingdom

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Franked Mail Only post boxes in England.

Recent changes have added small prepaid parcels to the items these boxes can take, and the current terminology seems to be "Business Box". Propose renaming this hierarchy accordingly. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: currently it fits well into the Category:Free standing post boxes in the United Kingdom. The name "business box" seems suspicious. Possible may be "business post box". At the moment no such category name exists in Commons Estopedist1 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PD CIA

[edit]

most cats in Category:PD US Government are named in the format pd us acronymofagency, but why some are not? i think they should be renamed to align with the majority.
that includes DCGov‎, USAID‎, USDA‎, VOA, CIA, NASA, MUTCD. Roy17 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Sounds reasonable, but this category (and other categories without "US") are all hidden categories. And we don't have to very strict with hidden categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:La Croix-Rouge (quarter of Marseille)

[edit]

Devrait être renommée Category:La Croix-Rouge (Marseille), en accord avec les autres catégories de quartiers de Maseille Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauf qu'il y a déjà la Croix Rouge à Marseille qui ne désigne pas le quartier mais l'association (bien plus connue que le quartier), ce qui crée l'homonymie. Certe il y a un trait-d'union ici, mais sur les noms de quartiers, il n'est pas obligatoire non plus (ce n'est pas comme les noms de communes, on voit ces noms de quartiers écrits souvent sans trait d'union y compris les panneaux signalsant les quartiers, ou les noms d'arrêts de transport).
Note: il n'y a pas encore de catégorie pour l'asso de Marseille, mais l'usage pour les antennes nationales ou locale de la Croix-rouge est de les nommer aussi avec le nom de la ville ou la collectivité entre parenthèses.
Enfin il y a plusieurs autres toponymes ou objets à Marseille nommés "La Croix-Rouge", si on n'indique pas ici qu'on désigne le quartier, comment faire la différence? Le noms sans précision répresente l'organisation entière dans sa désignation francophone officielle (dont le siège est à Genève, canton francophone en Suisse; l'asso a aussi des noms différents mais co-officiels, en allemand, en italien, en anglais, et plusieurs autres déposés dans les grandes langues de travail de l'ONU où elle est membre observateur permanent à New York et à Genève, dont aussi l'espagnol, le russe, le chinois ou l'arabe, ou encore le néerlandais à La Haye car elle est aussi membre observateur à la CIJ; elle est observateur aussi dans l'Union européenne, et utilise les langues officielles de l'Union, mais principalement ses langues de travail, elle a donc aussi des noms en bulgare, maltais, portugais, tchèque, slovaque, hongrois, polonais: toutes ces langues sont utilisées pour les associations locales propres à chaque pays, mais dans les pays arabes elle se fait appeler "Croissant-Rouge" pour éviter la confusion du symbole chrétien et montrer qu'elle n'a pas de vision uniconfessionnelle et ne fait pas de présélitisme par ce nom; on trouve aussi d'autres désignations "X Rouge" officialisées pour les assos de certains pays et reconnues par l'organisation internationale...). verdy_p (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
La désambiguation avec "quarter of" est aussi nécessaire pour certains quartiers (dont "Palais de Justice" et "La Timone": le quartier étant plus grand que l'objet connu qui lui a donné son nom et dispose de sa propre catégorie). Tous les quartiers de Marseille n'ont pas besoin de désambiguïsation, seuls certains en ont sans indiquer "(quarter of Marseille)" mais juste "(Marseille)" car la précision est suffisante (pour l'instant) et qu'on n'a pas encore besoin de plus. Mais pour "La Croix-Rouge" il vaut mieux être clair tout de suite, comme pour "La Timone" et "Palais de Justice".
Il n'y pas de convention uniforme sur les désambiguisations à ajouter: on allonge seulement là où c'est nécessaire mais suffisamment pour lever toute ambiguïté
Sinon on se retrouvera avec une catégorie contenant des médias relatifs à toutes sortes d'actions de l'asso à Marseille, sans même que ce soit lié ou situé dans le quartier. verdy_p (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bref: Les 6 quartiers suivants sont suffixés par "(quarter of Marseille)": Opéra, Palais-de-Justice, Préfecture, Hôtel-de-Ville, La Timone, et La Croix-Rouge, car suffixer par "(Marseille)" n'est pas suffisant. Certains autres quartiers sont suffixés par "(Marseille)", et la plupart n'ont aucun suffixe. Je ne vois donc strictement aucune "anomalie".
Il n'y a jamais eu de prétendu "accord" ou "désaccord" avec les autres quartiers (la règle établie sur Commons, comme aussi Wikipédia étant qu'on ne met que les suffixes de désambiguisation nécessaires, et qu'on les met, on les allonge au minimum, ou on les change seulement en cas de conflit, sur ce qui est le plus déterminant pour lever toute ambiguïté). verdy_p (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't translated this French infomassive. @Fr.Latreille@Verdy p: most categories in Category:Quarters of Marseille have disambiguator qualifier "(Marseille)". Is it OK to use "(Marseille)"? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No because "La Croix-Rouge" in Marseille is best known for being local agencies of the Red Cross association (also "La Croix-Rouge" in French, both being alternatively written with or without the hyphen), which is present in many cities in France. The association is MUCH better known in France and in the rest of the world, than the small quarter mostly known only by residents living there or nearby (and not even known by most people living in Marseille, which is a quite large city where people petter identify the arrondissements; there's a similar situation with quarters in Paris where most people only locate the arrondissements and very few quarter names, instead they locate some places or services, or street names).
And there are other subjects named "Croix-Rouge" in Marseille, including the cross monument whose location gave the name first to a Christian parish and a local church, then to the quarter, then various services located there... including a local agency of the Red Cross association. The qualifier "(Marseille)" is insufficient, not disambiguating anything... verdy_p (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so, I give up. (It was not neccessary to be so long, explain international names of Red Cross, etc.) Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christians by nationality

[edit]

this category to be deleted and subcategories to be moved as follows:

Category:Expatriates by nationality

[edit]

to be deleted. We have category:Expatriates by country --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed people by nationality

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Executed people by country.

to be deleted. Whenever possible, we avoid "by nationality" categories. We already have category:Executed people by country Estopedist1 (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Country of the executed person's nationality (maybe "Executed people of <country>")
  • Executions performed by <country>
  • Executions performed in <country>
Although maybe the last two could be combined if there's no meaningful difference. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the less the better; I am not saying for this case but such sensitive categories are being used by some people to add one over another against their countries of choice (I mean negative choice). Do not ask me for examples, walk around "social" cats and you will find out. Some of these cats are used even in a ridiculous manner, for example as in the case of slaves (see another discussion I opened recently). Summary: Less cats, less subjectivity and less discussion. E4024 (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like Auntof6's proposal. It's clear. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need both "Executions performed by <country>" and "Executions performed in <country>". Executions performed in a state are also performed by that state, otherwise they are not executions but extra-judicial murders. So keep the latter but rename to "People executed in <country>". Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like "executions" or "executions performed" since it would conflate categories-of-people-who-happened-to-be-executed and images depicting executions. If it's proper English, I'd prefer "People executed in..." ("Executed people in") to gather the first ones, and "Executions in..." the later ones. ("what "country" killed this guy? Spain?"). I'd try to avoid the "performed by". With regard to the "by nationality" ones... TBH not much interested on those ethnic categories, but if they float someone else's boat... Strakhov (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious oppose - obviously you do need both since they are mutually exclusive concepts. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed people by country

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Executed people by nationality.

to be deleted? or to be revised? Compare eg category:People executed by Germany vs category:People executed in Germany Estopedist1 (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1, Laurel Lodged, Strakhov, and E4024: Can we close this to centre discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Executed people by nationality? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: no objections--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plaques to Christabel Pankhurst

[edit]

If there are no plaques to Christabel Pankhurst outside the UK, might we delete this category? Themightyquill (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - also has a rubbish / inappropriate parental categoryIcarusgeek (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: you mean Category:Plaques to Christabel Pankhurst in the United Kingdom which should be deleted? Estopedist1 (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking Category:Plaques to Christabel Pankhurst. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of Islamic religious territories

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Christian distribution maps.

It is unclear what maps the category is meant to contain. In my understanding, it is about the territorial application of the authority of Islamic institutions, such as the Islamic Community of Kosovo, the Islamic Community of Montenegro and the Islamic Community of Serbia, which are all state institutions. The Nigerian map shows the application of sharia law in some of the northern states, so that too is institutionalised. So I removed all files that did not comply to that, but I'm not actually sure. Either way, the current title doesn't make it clear enough. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gertrudiskerk, Lichtaard

[edit]

wrong name the correct name is "Petruskerk, Lichtaard", see the website of the owner of the church (Stichting Alde Fryske Tsjerken) https://aldefrysketsjerken.nl/index.php?saftid=saft%7C82674d11-f9f8-433c-9040-8d3b65d70e4a Gouwenaar (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gouwenaar: we already have Category:Petruskerk, Lichtaard. But is "Gertrudiskerk" previous or alternative name of "Petruskerk"?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Gertrudiskerk" is an incorrect name. The owner of the church refers to two publications by Herma M. van den Berg from 1972 and 1988 in which she showed that Peter was the patron saint of the church and not Gertrudis. There would be a confusion with the Gertrudiskerk in Lutkewierum. Gouwenaar (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newark, Nottinghamshire

[edit]

per talk page:

Category Structure

Is there a reason for having both a category Newark, Nottinghamshire and Newark-on-Trent? I suggest making Newark-on-Trent the main category, having the Newark disambiguation page direct to Newark-on-Trent, and having Newark, Nottinghamshire redirect to Newark-on-Trent. Kognos (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kognos: enwiki redirects en:Newark, Nottinghamshire to en:Newark-on-Trent. We should do the same. But our category:Newark should stay a disambiguation page Estopedist1 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: I've made the changes to match enwiki, and moved the three files in the Newark, Nottinghamshire category. Looks OK. Do you want to check and close the discussion? Kognos (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could be moved to Category:Newark (civil parish), I merged it but it was re created, the reason why is although the town is called "Newark-on-Trent" the parish is simply called "Newark". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National World War I Museum

[edit]

from the header:

{{Merge|Category:Liberty Memorial}}

This above template was placed here by a Wikidata script because I have identified duplicate Wikidata items for the Museum but cannot merge them because of conflict in other languages of Wikipedia. Also compounding the problem the over lapping of categories on Commons. So to whoever made this so freaking cumbersome should be the one to fix it. /s/ Senator2029

@Senator2029: to be merged with category:Liberty Memorial? Enwiki uses the name en:National World War I Museum and Memorial Estopedist1 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hirai Ōhashi Bridge

[edit]

problematic (?) requested move:

{{move|Hirai Bridge|"Hirai Ohashi Bridge" is a redundant term since ''ohashi'' means "great bridge" in Japanese|2020-05-10||Japan|}}

@Yasu: But we also have other bridge category: category:Kami-Hirai Bridge. Maybe category:Hirai Bridge should be disambiguation? Also note that we have Category:Horai Bridge and category:Horai Bridge (Shimada) Estopedist1 (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment IMHO Horai Bridge needs to be turned into a disambig page, as the name is identical. But Hirai Bridge is not the case. Yasu (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The pronunciation of "Ōhashi/Ohashi(大橋, おおはし)" in Japanese language should be "OOH HA SHE", not "OH", beacause "OOH" should be the prolonged sound. So I created the category by using "Ōhashi" letters. And "Ōhashi" is often translated into English by as "Grand Bridge" or "Great Bridge".("大" means "big", "grand", "great", and "橋" means "bridge".)The translation of "Ōhashi" is not only one word, so I used "Ōhashi" directly.
About Category:Horai Bridge(I am not so familiar with this bridge, but also this should be "Hōrai" not 'Horai', I think), this bridge do not equal "Hirai Ōhashi Bridge", but they should be disambiguation if prefer. LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I reply as a Japanese native speaker. I do NOT think the category should be moved because the category name has no problem. I have no idea why the move request has been proposed. LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 11:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: What do you think is the problem? Do we need a disambig page? Or should the category be left as is? Yasu (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yasu and LERK: I don't know Japanese language, but I sugggest that Category:Hirai Ōhashi Bridge should be kept as suggested by user:LERK. And Category:Hirai Bridge will be a disamb page--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To date the Mefuki Bridge, Akita Bridge, Bando Bridge and many more categories have been renamed for the very same reason and you still think it is inappropriate to move this category? Any compelling reason, please? Yasu (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure if this is the case here, but sometimes we do have propper nouns which are descriptive, a mountain can be called "Big Mountain", a river "Rapid River", and a bridge can be titled as a "Great Bridge". At least it is not something like "University College London", which is not classified as "University College". ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to Big Mountain or Rapid River or whatsoever. Problem is that if we can accept the redundancy of Ohashi Bridge, which translates as "Great Bridge Bridge". At least I have never heard of someone who says, like, "Mount Mont Blanc". Yasu (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the phrase "Town of Kingston" in almost all Engsh speaking countries which have a town named like that. "Kingston" is "King's Town". ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder to me, as here in Japan we have Mount Omine (Omine means excactly big mountain in Japanese). The reason why “Town of Kingston” and “Mount Omine” are allowed is that Kingston and Omine are proper nouns, whilst ohashi is not. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the bridge is called in Japanese Hirai Ohashi (meaning "Hirai Great Bridge"). There is absolutely no need to append another Bridge to make the name redundant as a whole. If you dare to do it nevertheless, then Ohashi has to be eliminated. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender and transsexual women of Dresden

[edit]

hint from talk page:

It is not official. It's not an insult to be LGBT either. But there were many transsexuals in Dresden and a clinic for it. --SamsonBVB (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SamsonBVB: to be deleted, content to be merged. Unique category, subjective? Estopedist1 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pro: 17 pictures, one included extra category (Lili Elbe) in that are a reason for an extra category. Notice that a transwoman is a born woman for state offices and the old Dresden, during the time of the kingdom. Until today, you will never have seen a id card where you can read "trans woman/trans man". It is an important category to battle fake news by rightwing persons in the future. The German Empire was protectionistic but not exactly a Third Reich. I want to show that they had seeds for a cultivated society/ groups wihtin of openness. In that time of those pictures taken, Dresden was been a very lucrative city not to be compared with today. It was the richest city within of Germany. And you can show how they looked as potential victims of the shoa, later in the Third Reich. These photos are showing them here in dignity. --SamsonBVB (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All groups within a country have the same right to have the same rights of an own category of qualtiy on Wikimedia Commons. The right meant to have the same status for a own category. That they are not a side note. --SamsonBVB (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of the files in the category and none has any discernible relation to transsexuality. Lili Elbe, the only subcat, has no relevant ties to Dresden (she died there, but did neither lived nor worked in the city). As none of the elements belongs in the category, it should be emptied and deleted as empty. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Don't know why we should keep such a category which is also a sort of unicum because the main category itself is not extremely populated. Transgender women of Germany fits perfectly. -- Blackcat 22:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basketry by country of production

[edit]

subcat titles should be united. i prefer basketry. Roy17 (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I consider this a useful category.Hiart (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiart: As I read it, Roy17 is suggesting that the subcategories are named both "Basket weaving in X" and "Basket making in X" while this parent category is "Basketry in". Is there a way to make them all the same? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)`[reply]
@Roy17, Hiart, and Themightyquill: two proposals:
  1. Category:Basketry by country of production to be moved (with suppression) to Category:Basketry by country. Reason: Name part "country of production" is unique in Commons database (the second one is this redirect)
  2. all subcategories to be renamed to "Basketry" (not "Basket making" or "Basket weaving"). Why "basketry" and not "en:basket weaving" is already another CFD if needed--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: We do have Category:Art by country of origin and subcategories like Category:Paintings by production area and Category:Paintings by country of origin. "Basketry by country" is ambiguous - is it the country of origin or current location? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: } are you sure that "Basketry by country" is unacceptable? See eg subcategories in Category:Crafts by country (Weaving by country, Carving by country etc).--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a lot of ambiguous categories on Commons. =) But your link pointed out to be that we have Category:Baskets by country. Am I wrong that "Basketry" could be "people making baskets" OR just "baskets" ? Maybe a move to Category:Basket weaving by country would make more sense. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: } "Basketry" is not a very common word in English. "Basket making" or "Basket weaving is more intuitive". Krok6kola (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: I'm not sure what you mean my "not a very common word." A google search of "basket making" yields 869,000 results. A google search for "basketry" yields 3,750,000 results. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: }I guess I was thinking of those whose English is not their primary language. Krok6kola (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that "basket making" is more intuitive. =) -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template was placed four years ago, has a decision already been made? Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ankara 1939-1960

[edit]

Arbitrary division and not very helpful. "Ankara by decade" is better and enough. Seeing a photograph of "Ankara in 1930s" in this cat is strange; it would be more appropriate to say that the pic is from 1939... E4024 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete category:Ankara by decade or category:Ankara by year do the job--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horeca Diever

[edit]

The title of this page is in Dutch. A good translations could be 'Restaurants/cafés in Diever'. Note that 'horeca' doesn't mean 'restaurants' but the only files in here are files depicting restaurants or cafés. NeoMeesje (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NeoMeesje: "horeca" seems to be Dutch-specific word. Also not translated in enwiki, see en:horeca--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Yes, that's true, but the fact that it's a Dutch word makes me worry that this page will be difficult to find or understand for users that don't speak Dutch, hence my suggestion to change the category name. NeoMeesje (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the existing images to the new categories Category:Cafés in Diever and Category:Restaurants in Diever in stead of this obscure category, which in my opinion can be deleted.

Note that there are quite a lot of similar categories (all missing a common parent category), such as Category:Horeca Breda, Category:Horeca Schijf, Category:Horeca Boxtel, Category:Horeca Havelte, Category:Horeca Udenhout, Category:Horeca Heeze, Category:Horeca Loon op Zand, and Category:Horeca Lierop. Fransvannes (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dappled light and shadow by country

[edit]

This category and its subcategories are poorly connected to the category tree. Any ideas where "dappled light and shadow" fits within the "by country" category tree? Themightyquill (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: what about category:Natural phenomena by country? Estopedist1 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it would fit under Category:Shadows of trees by country however the majority of countries do not have a category for that. MarbleGarden (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:הרב מנחם קאליש

[edit]

here is needed Hebrew to English transcription Estopedist1 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

any objection to rename this Category:Rabbi Menachem Kalish?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Menachem Kalish of Amshinov is the best. Son of Joseph Kalish of Amshinov (Q11728331). -- Geagea (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:הרב יחזקאל דרברמדיקר

[edit]

here is needed Hebrew to English transcription Estopedist1 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

any objection to rename this Category:Rabbi Yehezkel Derbermediker? Or is "rabbi" redundant word/title in here? Possible knowers @Yuval CT and Tomer T: --Estopedist1 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Yechezkel Derbaremdiker seems to be ok. See also Yechezkel Derbaremdiker (Q109615507). -- Geagea (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the word Rabbi in the title. Tomer T (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hugo Gerard Ströhl

[edit]

Delete to make room for move: Category:Hugo Gerhard Ströhl should be moved to this title, but since this redirect occupies the title, it cannot be done without first deleting this page. R'n'B (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R'n'B, Themightyquill, and Túrelio: easy overwriting is needed here to match Wikipedias--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@R'n'B: actually the move is not obvious, because both name variants are widely used. Any objections for harmonizing to one name variant (ie to enwiki Hugo Gerard Ströhl)--18:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: harmonizing is the goal. Wikidata prefers the "Gerard" variant, and lists "Gerhard" as an "also known as" in English. Whatever the outcome, it should ideally be consistent across Commons, Wikipedia(s) and Wikidata. --R'n'B (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sneakers (footwear)

[edit]
see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Sports shoes

to be moved to category:Sneakers. Reason: logical mistake. In case, I mention that en:sneaker is DAB page Estopedist1 (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a dab page at Category:Sneakers might make sense, though I'm not sure what else it could link to at this point. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1, Crouch, Swale, and Themightyquill:
Added link to another CfD related to this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Sports shoes. Josh (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Sneakers (footwear) to Category:Sneakers - In lieu of any other "sneakers" categories that we need a dab to, I support the simple name. Is there some other use of "sneakers" that would cause improper use of this category were it simply named Sneakers? Josh (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other uses at w:Sneaker (disambiguation) and the dictionary meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1, Crouch, Swale, and Joshbaumgartner: I think we should close this discussion with no actions to take, especially as the term "sneaker" refers to several different topics? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I think we should go ahead and dab Category:Sneakers instead of its current redirect, per the point by Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs). Josh (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner I agree. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files with all upper case file names

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Files with two question marks in the filename.

to be deleted. Category:Files with bad file names do the job. No need to massively fix file names with uppercase letters. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do the job - but IMHO not so well. The file names (often too very long names) are difficult to read, often the descriptions are also in all uppercase. This maintenance category triggered some users to fix file names.
Commons has a lot of other bad file names, e.g. numbers without sense, where a descriptive file name would be much more better. IMHO massive fixes are helpful. -- sarang♥사랑 06:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarang: actually it is not allowed (?) to correct the file name which has "all upper case", because see COM:FRNOT (criterion 2). However, it is correct that "File names written with all uppcase letters are difficult to read" (my comment: it depends on how long is the file name!). Care to comment, @Mosbatho, Richardkiwi, Buidhe, and MGA73: ? --Estopedist1 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that COM:FRNOT is sufficiently precise with this. Uppercase letters are not a reason to move a file. --Mosbatho (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are hard to read and arguably it's worth moving them if the title is particularly long or difficult. However, my understanding is the rules don't currently allow this. Buidhe (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is not thought to change the file names; but it may be useful to ask the uploaders to select in future another name system? That depends mainly users as e.g. Rodrigo.Argenton or the (not anymore contributing) {{Ut|Renan Garcia Tamayo-1)).--05:38, 18 November 2021‎ Sarang

  •  Delete We should not rename files just to make the names look more pretty COM:FRNOT (criterion 1). Also "hard to read" is not a valid reason because I find Chineese, Japaneese, Korean etc. names hard to read so if we use that as a criterion then we could rename all files in those languages. --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete it's technically allowed to use all caps filenames.--RZuo (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Concur that COM:FRNOT (criterion 1) is not a reason to rename. Also, this has been open for over three years. Do we have a consensus on how to proceed? Epolk (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files with two question marks in the filename

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Files with all upper case file names.

to be deleted. No need to specify the type of bad file name. Category:Files with bad file names does the job. Also should be precedent if there will be categories like "Files with two exclamation marks", "Files with bad prefixes/suffixes" etc Estopedist1 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete not all filenames with two or more ? are bad filenames. it could be intentional. RZuo (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category I'd support renaming it to Filenames with potentially meaningless question marks as a better name. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 16:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People swimming

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Topless male swimmers.

This category contains Category:Competitive swimmers, which contains images of people who are swimmers, but who are not swimming in the image. Therefore, it is incorrect to describe them as “people swimming”. It is correct to describe them as “swimmers”, and you would expect them to be in Category:Swimmers, but Category:Swimmers redirects here. Brianjd (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal:
--Auntof6 (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Category:Competitive swimmers shouldn't be in Category:People swimming, not was it when I created it. It should be in Category:Sports competitors by sport and Category:Competitive swimming. I think that, plus some links in the headers, is enough. Recreating Category:Swimmers will result in another mix of images there. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely and obviously sensible proposal, with 'Competitive swimmers' and 'Swimmers' not subordinate to 'People swimming'. ̴̴Acabashi (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't think we need Category:Swimmers as it's rather confusing. "People swimming" is clear. "Competitive swimmers" is clear. "Swimmers" could be either. What is a swimmer who is neither a competitive swimmer but who is not swimming? But I'm fine with removing Category:Competitive swimmers from Category:People swimming. Many images could go in both, but not all. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with #c-Auntof6-2020-06-22T01:17:00.000Z-Brianjd-2020-06-21T12:00:00.000Z in principle.
Category:Runners is a similar case. RZuo (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Auntof6 has this right. - Jmabel ! talk 12:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-choice and pro-life categories

[edit]

I'd like to propose that Category:Pro-choice movement be moved to Category:Abortion-rights movements, that Category:Pro-life movement be moved to Category:Anti-abortion movements, and that all subcategories using either of those terms be moved to match. The main reason for the move is that the current names are non-neutral. Abortion-rights activists are not "anti-life", as the name "pro-life" implies, and anti-abortion activists aren't "anti-choice". These names are self-promotional terms used to advocate for each side of the debate, but Commons should remain neutral.

This is already how these topics are named on English Wikipedia, as well as in many of the subcategories. The AP Stylebook, followed by most major news outlets, has this entry for 'abortion': "Use the modifiers anti-abortion or abortion-rights; don't use pro-life, pro-choice or pro-abortion unless they are in quotes or proper names." –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Support That seems like a well reasoned argument for a move. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Though I would think Category:Abortion rights movements (no hyphen) is more correct. English doesn't use hyphens in other, similar names (womens' rights movements, animal rights movements, etc). – BMacZero (🗩) 20:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi and Themightyquill: I was going to do this but I noticed the suggestion also changes the category from singular (referring to the broad umbrella movement) to plural (implying, to me, a {{Catcat}} only for named organizations concerned with that position). I think singular is more useful here because it also captures images that are related to the ethical position but don't concern a specific named group. Thoughts? – BMacZero (🗩) 18:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: I didn't notice your comment before, but I agree - I don't see any reason to switch to plural. @IagoQnsi: Any thoughts on this? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --Franzekafka (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Otobashi Bridge

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Hirai Ōhashi Bridge.

problematic (?) requested move:

{{move|Oto Bridge|"Otobashi Bridge" is a redundant term since ''bashi'' means "bridge" in Japanese|2020-05-23||Japan}} Estopedist1 (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Renan García Tamayo

[edit]

category name and its content is not correct. Seems to be an user category, like "Files from User:Renan Garcia Tamayo-1 " Estopedist1 (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silence is consent, but just in case noticing the creater user:Jmarchn--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For there was no reaction, seems ok to erase this cat. RenaatPeeters (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secretários e Dirigentes do Ministério da Cultura na Gestão de Juca Ferreira: Francisco Bosco

[edit]

superfluous: there's already a category for Francisco Bosco —capmo (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This "photo call / photoshoot" was specifically the "official photo session" of the Secretaries and Directors of the Ministry. Like, "Official portraits" of them. That's why I thought it would be a good idea to create a category just for those photos. Minerva97 (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then maybe we could just rename the category to something more meaningful and generic, following the standard at Category:Official portraits of the United States, for instance. What do you think of Category:Official portraits of Francisco Bosco or Category:Retratos oficiais de Francisco Bosco? —capmo (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Category:Official portraits of Francisco Bosco" is a good idea. I noticed that there is no category named Category:Official portraits of Brazil. I can work on it. Minerva97 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Capmo: Can I move already Category:Secretários e Dirigentes do Ministério da Cultura na Gestão de Juca Ferreira: Francisco Bosco to the new name Category:Official portraits of Francisco Bosco?? Minerva97 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your offer. I went ahead and made the move for you. —capmo (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Capmo@Minerva97: the nominated category is a redirect. I suggest to delete this redirect, because it is misleading, and redundant as well Estopedist1 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Estopedist1, I see no problem in deleting this redirect. —capmo (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books from the United Kingdom by year

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Buildings in the United Kingdom by year of completion.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Books from Great Britain by year and Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Books published in London by year.

Per Kaldari's comment at the Village Pump on June 24, can this category be merged with Category:Books from Great Britain by year? I would like to move Books from Great Britain into Books from the United Kingdom and delete the former, but I'm not knowledgeable about the difference between the terms if any. I would think any difference wouldn't matter in this context anyhow. If this is acceptable I'll go ahead and do the task. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kingdom of Great Britain:

The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially called Great Britain, was a sovereign state in Western Europe from 1 May 1707 to 1 January 1801.

Before 1707, England and Scotland were separate countries, located on the island of Great Britain.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a sovereign state that existed between 1801 and 1922. After that the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was established.

The Kingdom of Ireland was a client state of England and then of Great Britain that existed from 1542 until 1800.

Then there's Wales... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to categorize books by landform. No books prior to 1707 or after 1801 should be categorized as "from Great Britain" - Themightyquill (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Pigsonthewing: The problem is the entire Category:Great Britain tree is about the island, not the Kingdom of Great Britain. Should Category:Books from Great Britain by year be moved to Category:Books from the Kingdom of Great Britain by year? Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Providing it is only used for works published in the relevant period, that would work for me; but Category:Books from Great Britain by year currently includes categories up to and including Category:1934 books from Great Britain Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: Definitely. As a subcategory of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain. I would suggest opening a new discussion about Category:Great Britain by year with the same idea. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one user EncycloPetey is leaving messages on my talk page about this issue and doesn't want to join this discussion, so I'm trying to transfer his main jist here out of courtesy; so I think what he wants is for books in 1801 and after to be in Category:Books from the United Kingdom, and books from 1707 to 1800 to be in Category:Books from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and books prior to 1707 to be in Category:Books from England, Scotland etc. Could someone confirm what format we want these categories in? And it would be most helpful if that user EncycloPetey could come share his thoughts with the rest of you instead of picking one me personally when I'm trying to accomplish a very large task in a way that is most correct and suits everyone. I have volunteered to do this work, but I'll leave it for someone else to do if I'm going to have anyone riding my ass. Aint got time for that. Thank you! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems to still be a work in progress:  Oppose! Hey, look. I'm coming from a very different angle here: I see the main purpose of the category of Category:Books from the United States by year (and yes, there is already room reserved even for those before 1776!) as the way to make a distinction from Category:Books from Great Britain by year and Category:Books from Australia by year, just to name a few globally distinct places. It is very evident that the Anglophone world is much more diverse than the Francophone world, where the distinction between "Book from France" and "French-language book" can be important in a few special cases, but practically matters very little in the majority of all cases. Sure, French-language books from Canada are a thing, but the publishers of Paris drown the Quebecois in paper, especially in the matter of "old books" like we have here. It goes similarly with Category:Books from Canada in Ukrainian. Those are outliers, most Ukrainian-language books were made in Ukraine. Same goes with Russian and Swedish literature. English is the weird language that has two really major publication centers with the printers of NY and London (and then a few more of course), which results in the outcome that at best only half of all "English books" are "from England".
Hence I think we should all split as few hairs as possible when designing categories. "Books from Great Britain" is a fine parent-category for all books ever published on the British Isles, no matter if they were published in Glasgow, Cardiff, London, Dublin or Belfast and no matter who ruled those places at the particular time in question. The users matter, and that means people who either quickly assign categories, or who use the cat tree to look things up. We users shouldn't be bothered with the exact formal distinctions that until 1707 you need a completely different name than after 1708; and then a new name again after 1801, and again after 1922 and 2038. It is totally fine if some specialized categorizers want to play with name-of-kingdom-at-the-moment-categories, and distinguish Irish/Scottish/English literature etc., but please in the form of sub-categories of a broadly-defined main parent-category that doesn't change every century on a whim. Say again: "from Great Britain" is my preference, while "from the UK" is a fine and very respectable subcategory.
We don't distinguish German and Italian kingdoms either, just for example: Publications from Naples, Venice, Rome, Milano are (to my knowledge) generally "from Italy", no matter if the unification already happened at that time. Similarly, a book from Cologne, Munich, Leipzig or Berlin goes as "from Germany", even 1492 books! Of course, there are a few grey areas like publications from Triest, Danzig or Königsberg. But such details are not the topic here. --Enyavar (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is quite complicated. Please, ignore my previous brash rant above; When I rushed to oppose this CfD, I hadn't yet realized that User:Ruff tuff cream puff had seemingly given up midway on restructuring all the books; and also I hadn't fully recognized the huge challenge yet. Ricky here is the first I know who noticed any of the changes I made since last autumn.
  • Many if not most digitized books on Commons are not yet categorized by country, which means that many work-years are likely to be spent on merely cataloguing what is already here. And while we're at it, it's clearly even more important to categorize by authors and subjects, not by geography of publication. A lot of the hundred-thousands of books are only classified by the library that digitized them.
  • For the time after 1801, Ricky suggested to bring all of the United Kingdom together, and split them up beforehand. I'm not a fan because I like some sort of uniformity and practicality. Even now I still had to look up whether or not 1801, 1804 or 1807 was the correct date where the whole setup would change.
  • I strongly support Ricky's proposed division between the realms of Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland (and after the 1920s, Northern Ireland). Scotland was a different kingdom until 1707, and we don't yet know about its future in or outside the United Kingdom. Yet, books published in Edinburgh or Glasgow will always be "Books from Scotland", no matter if they were written/printed in the 17th, 19th or 21st century. Similarly, London and Manchester were always part of England since printing was invented. No major border changes mean that this makes a very stable structure. The name of the whole kingdom however changes roughly every ~110 years.
  • There are very scant pre-1800s books not printed in London. I've found a few from Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, but those are one to four a year. Even as late as the year 1889, I count 59 books in London and 11 from the rest of Great Britain, including unknowns. For 1899, that score is 67:12 for London. (But keep in mind my first point, most stuff isn't yet categorized by place of publication!).
    • That is my main argument to keep the "Books from London by year". Also, "1907 books from London" needs a single category. "Books published in London"+"1907 books from England" needs two.
    • We could introduce decade-categories for the other three realms, with the option to split them up later: "1790s books from Scotland/Wales/Ireland".
    • We could introduce a much larger parent category, geographically: "1795 books from the British Isles", with London as the main sub, but that's not my preferred option, see above.
  • If we keep the structure of "Books from Wales/Scotland/England/(Northern) Ireland" on the lower level, it makes no longer a difference that the parent category (British Isles; Great Britain; United Kingdom) changes names.
  • The structure proposed here can not be copied blindly onto other countries, for pretty obvious reasons. (I don't think we have enough digitized material yet, but I shiver when thinking about "1860s books from Strasbourg", "1880s books from Straßburg", "1920s books from Breslau" and "1950s books from Wrocław". Those bridges will need to be crossed eventually, but unless someone has a brilliant idea already, I don't want to think about that stuff too much.) --Enyavar (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of fleshing out decades first and then moving things down to individual years if it makes sense. @Pigsonthewing@Themightyquill Is my discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Books from Great Britain by year literally the same issue? I think that should be closed as related to this discussion but I tried to focus on the very limited post-1801 categories. I still think an England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland breakdown as a priority is better to keep the pre-1707/1707-1801/post-1801 categories the cleanest. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have certainly enough books per year (from London) to have by-year-categories as the standard for London. For the rest of England, Scotland, etc, I'd also prefer to first test out the decades. --Enyavar (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this category is cleared, Cfd will be removed anro (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male cameltoes

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Male cameltoes.

Also:

Per Category talk:Male cameltoes#Merge categories (a.k.a. Deal with redirects), there are contradictory redirects between these categories and their talk pages. We should agree on one category name (I agree with Red-back spider’s suggestion of Category:Male cameltoes) and fix the redirects accordingly.

Pinging @Jarble, Kendoujerov, Hggggttt66. Brianjd (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let’s make one category instead. —Red-back spider (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Wrocław

[edit]

I nominate that category for deletion, because we have category: Hoym Palace, Wrocław, it is exact building Gower (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are the building and the Institute the same thing? Have always been so? --E4024 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are definetely two different things. The building exists since the 19th century, whatever it had been used for until 1945. I am quite sure that Poland's National Institute of Meteorology and Water Management did not use the building before 1945. Nevertheless: I have had a look at Category:Hoym Palace, Wrocław. As of now there seems to be only media concerning the building, not the Institute. Therefore I put a redirect from the Institute category to the building category and suggest to keep it like this. There is definitely no need to delete the Category:Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Wrocław as it is not unlikely that some user will look for this category again as she or he might not know the name Hoym Palace. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Current solution (the nominated category being a redirect) seems to be acceptable. If we will have specific files for this institute, we can change the nominated category into the standalone category--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings in the United Kingdom by year of completion

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Books from the United Kingdom by year.

Is there any reason to have overlapping sub-categories of UK and GB. e.g. Category:Built in the United Kingdom in 1777 and Category:Built in Great Britain in 1777? Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presumably because GB is the island while UK is the sovereign state. Maybe though we don't need this distinction and note that not all of England is part of GB so indeed I'm not sure if this overlap is particularly helpful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the UK categories for 1700-1807. As I stated in the other CFD, we do not have a parent category for Category:1777 in the United Kingdom nor for people and it makes no sense for books and buildings to have separate category that do not have an ultimate parent for this period. Better to make it clear to everyone that this period is covered under Great Britain for everything rather than half-complicated measures. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude women, bare feet apparent, soles exposed

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Barefoot female, sole exposed.

Why do we need so detailed subcats for nude women cats? Probably because our archives are more than full with so many nude images or there is something more logical about all these sutile cats? IMHO we do not need this and many other similar cats. (BTW we also do not need "several" of those images, but that is another issue.) Delete or merge it somewhere. E4024 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep
w:What about:

Category:Nude women wearing high-heeled shoes
Category:Nude women wearing boots
Category:Nude or partially nude women wearing Converse shoes
Category:Nude or partially nude women wearing red shoes
Category:Nude or partially nude women wearing flip-flops
Category:Nude smoking women
Category:Nude women smoking cigarettes
Category:Nude women with bow tie

Also, many layers of subcats exist for other files: why not this; and just because a file might appeal to non-educational interests doesn't negate its educational value (if any—and how many millions of files on Wikicommons have questionable educational value?).   DMBFFF (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Long views (more than one temple) of Aihole

[edit]

from talk page:

It's hard to categorize a photo that has more than one subject, but here's my attempt. Michael D. Gunther (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be unique name and also suspicious category's name? Comments? Estopedist1 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete nonsense. RZuo (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ba'athists who became Nasserists

[edit]

We do not have Category:Ba'athists but we do have this. Peculiar categorization, to say the least. E4024 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Ba'athists and more specific categories for regional parties, but I agree Category:Ba'athists who became Nasserists doesn't make sense. If someone was a member of two parties, categorize them accordingly in each. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/06&oldid=801077679"