Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05

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


Category:Nations

[edit]

After going through the Wikipedia articles related to nations, it becomes clear that the term "nation" is ambiguous and somewhat complicated. A nation could mean the people of a country or an ethnic group. Since specific categories exist for countries and ethnic groups, I don't think this category is necessary. It can be converted into a disambiguation page linking to Category:Countries, Category:Ethnic groups and Category:Nationalism. The category Category:National institutions is mainly concerned with countries and territories only, so it can be categorized under Category:Countries and territories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some "nations" categories, like Category:Celtic nations and Category:Germanic nations, can be easily recategorized under Category:Cultural regions. Although I had created the Category:Chinese nation category, I have now found that the category is not feasible, as we can put the categories under Category:Han Chinese people, which is overcrowded with the categories of individuals. Those categories on individuals should be moved to Category:Han Chinese people by name. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about nations and ethnic groups, the more I confuse the two terms. However, when I research the Wikipedia articles on Nationalism and Types of nationalism, I realize that nations may or may not be ethnic groups. Still, all ethnic groups can be considered as nations in some way. We can create Category:Stateless nations for nations/ethnic groups without their own countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support @Sbb1413: I couldn't agree more. "Nations" is such a broad term and used for many disparate things, that so long as those things have more specific terms to refer to them (country, ethnic group, etc) your idea for a dab is spot on. Pretty much any large group of people which share a common and identifying element across them can be considered a 'nation'. It is right not to confuse this with countries, which are specific legal entities, though they can be formed around a specific nation. It doesn't help that in English, "national" serves essentially as the adjective form for both nation and country. Josh (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I pointed out on the related discussion the issues arising with the gargantuan concept of sovereign state, which happened to engulf all the terms "nation", "country" and "sovereign state" itself. As I see it, stateless nations may bridge national realities between ethnic groups, categories such as Khoisan, and sovereign states. They are often cross-border national, historic communities. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Desembargadores estaduais from Goiás

[edit]

De que se trata? 186.175.135.50 18:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Se trata de uma categoria de multimídias de desembargadores estaduais (juízes de segunda instância) do estado brasileiro de Goiás, visto que alguns assumiram o governo estadual ou possuem artigos próprios na Wikipédia lusófona. Emerson Júnior GSF (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Debe ser en inglés!.. 186.175.135.50 22:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O nome não possui variável na língua inglesa, portanto, não, não deve ser em inglês, bem como o de São Paulo, o da Argentina e o de Portugal não são. Emerson Júnior GSF (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chi Kung

[edit]

User:SilverStar54 has proposed moving the category to Qigong to be more consistent with the pinyin. Most of the Wikipedia projects use the "qigong" name but since this would be about different romanization standards, this needs discussion before this would be moved. Abzeronow (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be moved and have a desambiguation page with the different romanization standards? Oe show the different standards in the commons page?
Like: pinyin: Qìgōng; chinese simplified: 气功; chinês traditional: 氣功; Wade-Giles: ch'i4 kung1; japanese: kikō (気功?); tailand: ชี่กง TarcísioTS (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with the category page stating the various ways it is written as you suggest. Abzeronow (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technical note: Category:Qigong currently is a redirect to Category:Chi Kung. If the latter is moved, the redirect needs to be deleted and/or retargeted. --R'n'B (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Event venues

[edit]

Can Category:Event venues be a subcategory of Category:Entertainment venues? I think there is a lot of overlap and after merging them, we can clean up both categories. JopkeB (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more like the other way around? a religious event venue is not entertainment? RZuo (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sometimes it is or can be (like religious festivals). But the EN-WP has it indeed the other way around (w:en:Category:Entertainment venues is a child of w:en:Category:Event venues), so I guess you are right.
So the new question is: Can Category:Entertainment venues be a subcategory of Category:Event venues? JopkeB (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think Event venues should redirect to Category:venues. what venue is not an event evnue? RZuo (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a place where people meet for an organized event, for example a concert, sporting event or conference" https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/venue . RZuo (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venues that are not event venues are venues that are not for an organized event, venues you can spontaneously go to, without an appointment, like Category:Leisure venues‎? This category is now a direct subcategory of Category:Venues. JopkeB (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
another dict from usa https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venue says it's "a place where events of a specific type are held".
my proposal is
venues
->entertainment venues
->leisure venues
... RZuo (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions + proposals

[edit]
  1. Not every event is about entertainment. Example: Religious events and conferences are usually not entertainment, but a serious matter.
  2. Entertainment is not always an event. Examples (also depending on the definition of an event): attending a performance in a theater.
  3. None of these categories can be the parent category of the other.
  4. They both need good description to know what files and categories should be in one and which in the other. Proposal (Source: Lawinsider.):
    1. Event venues = Places where special occasions or events can be held. Event venues can range from large, spacious convention centers to small, intimate banquet halls.
    2. Entertainment venues = Places for live entertainment events, but not for interactive entertainment that allows consumers to engage with different exhibits and activities. Examples: arena, autitorium, concert hall, stadium, theater. Not: amusement parks, museums, fairs.
  5. If the descriptions are correct, then we also should check whether the subcategories still meet the descriptions, and if not: move them.

@RZuo: Do you agree? --JopkeB (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not agree. New proposal:
@RZuo: What do you think now? What do you agree with and what should be changed? JopkeB (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think that's exactly the same structure i proposed.
i dont think it's necessary now to make these intermediate levels: Category:Venues by funtion, Category:Venues by type. Category:Venues only has a few subcats. RZuo (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RZuo. I'll wait another two weeks to see whether there are different opinions, and if not, I'll close this discussion and make the changes. I'll see whether a new categoy will be necessary. JopkeB (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening this discussion

[edit]

I closed this discussion and I tried to implement the changes, but it turns out that Category:Event venues has:

  • too many subcategories that are not about entertainment or leisure, but for instance about serious matters like meetings, professional trainings or are multifunctional; and
  • too many subcategories by location to change; this is an indication that the concept is widely accepted and used, and should be kept.

So I propose to keep Category:Event venues, give it a good description and a good demarcation between this one and the other two types of venues (for Entertainment and Leisure).

  1. Proposal for definition of Event venues: Places where special occasions or events can be held. Event venues can range from large, spacious convention centers to small, intimate banquet halls. So Venues for events, but not for live entertainment or interactive leisure activities.
  2. Multifunctional venues can have Category:Venues as a parent.

@RZuo: I added already the descriptions to the categories we agreed upon and moved some subcategories according to those descriptions. But I am afraid that I have to ask you again to give your opinion about Event venues. --JopkeB (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not the original proposal.
all venues are event venues. there're no venue that's not an event venue. RZuo (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Indeed, that is not your original proposal. New insights forced me to take this step.
No, not al venues are event venues: there are also Leisure venues‎, which are not venues for a sequence of different events of which the duration of each of them is limited in time (usually just one or a couple of days), like entertainment and event venues, but leisure venues are facilities that are more or less permanently on the same place.
And now I am proposing to keep Category:Event venues for venues that are for organized events/activities that last a short time (at the most several days), like entertainment venues, but are not for live entertainment events.
Otherwise: How would you categorize the subcategories that are now in Category:Event venues? JopkeB (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think you can find any example of a "Leisure venue" that cannot serve as an "event venue". RZuo (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point: that they can serve as an event venue. Their primary purpose of Leisure venues is not to organize events, but to offer the same kind of recreation on a daily basis, from Amusement parks to Zoos. Yes, they perhaps might also organize events as a sideshow, but you can organize events at home, your garden or at your street as well, and you do not call them "event venues" either. JopkeB (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"home, your garden or at your street" might be neither leisure venue nor event venue.
you need to give an example of a "leisure venue" that cannot serve as an "event venue", to justify your differentiation. RZuo (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and also, this argument has nothing to do with the original proposal, which is
event venue = venue
venue
->leisure venue
->entertainment venue
->venue xx (whatever you think that is a venue but not one of the two types above)
the structure you want is essentially
venue
->event venue
-->leisure venue
-->entertainment venue
because you have shown no example of leisure venue or entertainment venue that cannot be event venue.
it's impossible because as i already pointed out, "venue" itself already has the meaning of a place for events, i.e. "leisure venue" = "place for leisure event". RZuo (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, I do not agree: homes, gardens and streets can serve as occasional venues (as long as they are big enough or the amount of guests is limited), for instance for birthday parties, weddings or street barbecues, which are also events. And again, the point is NOT whether leisure venues can (not) serve as event venues, but that their main purpose is something else than that of event venues. Main purposes:
    1. Event venues: to organize a sequence of different events, of which the duration of each of them is limited in time (usually just one or a couple of days)
    2. Entertainment venues: to facilitate live entertainment (for an audience), usually taking some hours per entertainment/performance
    3. Leisure venues: to provide facilities for a range of leisure pursuits, usually interactive: it allows consumers to engage with different activities; the services are roughly speaking the same every day, and usually you can enter/participate every day, dependant on the season and opening hours.
  2. We are not talking about the original proposal anymore, because it turns out that I cannot implement it. Yes, you are right about the structure I want, in which "Venues" is the umbrella term for the other three (and more). And if you do not agree, please look into Category:Event venues and give me an answer to the question: How would you categorize the subcategories that are now in there? Especially the subcategories of Event venues by location‎.
JopkeB (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
leisure venue = venue for "leisure event" = event venue.
entertainment venue = venue for "entertainment event" = event venue.
still you cannot give any examples of leisure venue or entertainment venue that cannot be an event venue.
redirect Category:Event venues by location to Category:Venues by location. period. RZuo (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i wont respond any more when there's no new point.
i'll see what others might say.
otherwise i will conclude this based on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/05/Category:Event_venues&oldid=885267277 . RZuo (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and i just noticed that the text recently added to Category:Entertainment venues is completely illogical.
"Entertainment venues are not venues for interactive entertainment... for amusement parks, museums, fairs and similar leisure pursuits: see Category:Leisure venues."
what the ...?
is the user who wrote this aware that Category:Entertainment -> Category:Recreation -> Category:Recreational areas -> Category:Amusement parks? RZuo (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions so far

[edit]
  • New question after the reopening of this discussion: Can Category:Event venues be kept because the many subcategories by location indicate that this concept is widely accepted and used?
  • Two opposite answers:
    • RZuo says no. "Venues" is already about events, so it would not make sense to keep the category Event venues.
    • JopkeB says yes: let's be practical, stay close to what is widely accepted and make Category:Venues the main/parent category for (at least) the three subcategories about different types of venues: Event venues, Entertainment venues and Leisure venues.
  • Since it looks like there is a stalemate, it is useless to continue this discussion with only the two of us. We'll wait until there is someone else who can bring new light into this discussion.

--JopkeB (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there has never been any question about keeping both "event venues" or "venues", because one of them doenst exist.
"what is widely accepted" is there is only 1 cat tree on this topic. currently it's named "event venues".
for the subcats of Category:Event venues by country for example, the corresponding "venues in country xx" is either non-existent or very recently created (in 2024). Category:Venues by country was created on 22 may, 2 weeks after this cfd started!
maintaining both cat trees "venues" and "event venues" is redundant.
the sensible approach is to move everything to "event venues in xx" because it's bound to have users creating them as parent cats of "event venues in xx".
Category:Event venues in Canada‎ Category:venues in Canada‎
Category:Event venues in Chile‎ Category:venues in Chile‎
Category:Event venues in China‎ Category:venues in China‎
Category:Event venues in Colombia‎ Category:venues in Colombia‎
Category:Event venues in Croatia‎ Category:venues in Croatia‎
Category:Event venues in the Czech Republic‎ Category:venues in the Czech Republic‎
Category:Event venues in Denmark‎ Category:venues in Denmark‎
Category:Event venues in Egypt‎ Category:venues in Egypt‎
Category:Event venues in El Salvador‎ Category:venues in El Salvador‎
Category:Event venues in Estonia‎ Category:venues in Estonia‎
Category:Event venues in Finland‎ Category:venues in Finland‎
Category:Event venues in France‎ Category:venues in France‎
Category:Event venues in Georgia‎ Category:venues in Georgia‎
Category:Event venues in Germany‎ Category:venues in Germany‎
Category:Event venues in Gibraltar‎ Category:venues in Gibraltar‎
Category:Event venues in Greece‎ Category:venues in Greece‎
Category:Event venues in Guyana‎ Category:venues in Guyana‎
Category:Event venues in Hungary‎ Category:venues in Hungary‎
Category:Event venues in India‎ Category:venues in India‎
Category:Event venues in Indonesia‎ Category:venues in Indonesia‎
Category:Event venues in Ireland‎ Category:venues in Ireland‎
Category:Event venues in the Isle of Man‎ Category:venues in the Isle of Man‎
Category:Event venues in Italy‎ Category:venues in Italy‎
the same can be seen at en:Category:Venues, which was created only in 2022, and contains nothing other than en:Category:Event venues. they are synonymous.
alternatively, i have no problem of a 2nd solution either: redirecting everything to "event venues in xx".
but given there are users who are so confused as to creating all kinds of trivial differentiation to invent something like "a venue that cannot be an event venue", the 1st solution is preferred over this 2nd solution. RZuo (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rallying

[edit]

rallying can refer to election rally etc. RZuo (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Agreed, but I think this name is fine as-is. You can add a {{Cat see also}} to alert and redirect those that may arrive there thinking it was something else. Josh (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Rallying&title=Special:MediaSearch
quite many photos of demonstrations. RZuo (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autonomous aircraft

[edit]

As far as I know, many modern airplanes can fly autonomously using the so-called "autopilot" mode. So, I doubt whether a category for autonomous aircraft is useful. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An autonomous aircraft is one both capable of and intended to fly on its own without human intervention. In aviation, there is no confusion between autonomous aircraft and automation on aircraft such as an autopilot. No airliner, for example, is intended to operate without any humans in the cockpit. While it is true that the systems on a modern Airbus or Boeing are capable of amazing levels of automation relieving the pilots of many flight tasks such as level keeping and so forth, none is capable of safely and reliably completing flights without pilots at the controls and so no, I would not say that 'modern airplanes can fly autonomously'. The word 'autonomous' itself maybe can be used for varying levels of automation in other settings, but in aviation it is clearly distinct from 'automated' systems such as autopilots. Josh (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US cities

[edit]

As of this writing, there is no Commons:Templates for discussion, so I am using Commons:Categories for discussion to minimize turnaround time and maximize the number of people who see this. Per [1] User:Birdie wants to change the scope of {{US cities}} to include those "that were in the top 100 and are now over 100 000".

Template history

[edit]
  • 2009: Created with 19 cities
  • 2012: Expanded to 20 cities
  • 2016: Expanded to 22 cities
  • 2019: Expanded to current day 100 most populous cities of the United States, included link to List of United States cities by population to establish template scope and to provide an easy verification of scope. Template:US cities/doc created, providing the first documentation of how to use the template.
  • 2022: Updated for 2020 US Census
  • 2024: Expanded to 109 cities, nine of which are claimed to be former 100 sometime in the past and over 100000 population as of the latest population estimate. Verification as to whether this designation is correct and complete is left to people other than the editor who changed the scope.

Note that this Wikidata SPARQL query reports 11282 current and former cities in the United States.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Limit to 100 cities — Although I'm not so familiar with the US cities, I know from my common sense that 100 cities are enough for navigation between the most populous cities of a given country. I have made {{Cities of India}} based on this template and listed 50 most populous metro cities (excluding satellites and other suburbs) and 39 sub-national capitals of India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose the scope change for the following reasons:
  • Up until the scope change, the scope of the template had been "cities in the United States as of the present day" since the time of its creation and for the past five years, that scope has been explicit as demonstrated by the linked List of United States cities by population which itself provides the exact dated reference ("July 1, 2022" as of this writing) to the source US Census Bureau population estimates.
  • As noted in Template:US cities/doc#Note, there are plenty of state-specific alternatives for smaller cities, plus a template for state capitals, plus another template for independent cities, all of which could be used for inspiration to create other state-specific templates.
  • When I examine the 1000 edits before the scope change and the 1000 edits after the scope change, I find that it was really applied to only 16 categories for only two of the nine ">100 (former top 50 and still over 100.000)" cities and no evidence that the modifier verified that the added cities are the complete list that meets the criteria change. It's as if the scope changer took the most short-sighted, least effort approach to shoehorn these nine cities into a preexisting template rather than consider what navigation boxes for past 100 most populous cities should look like.
  • The editor making the undiscussed scope change belatedly discovered that there are verified "100 most populous cities of the United States" lists in the English Wikipedia articles on the United States censuses (for example 1900 United States census#City rankings) which suggests that had he or she done his research, he would have concluded that he or she should have created decade-specific {{US cities in 1850}}, {{US cities in 1900}}, {{US cities in 1950}}, etc. instead of modifying {{US cities}}.
  • If the scope modifier's change is allowed to stand, it invites others to tack on still more changes. Why limit the list to 100 cities? Why not include all 11282 current and former cities in the United States? Why stop at cities? Why not add every last possible populated place in the United States? Why not add every neighborhood in every populated place? Why stop at the United States? Why not include every place outside the United States named for a place within the United States? The long-term effect of letting the scope change stand is that the navigation box will eventually dwarf the media and subcategories in the category for which it is providing navigation.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big cities

[edit]

How does one define “big cities” (population? 100000 seems rather small; how about area?). Unless a clearer guideline is provided I see no point in this and all subcategories. (They seem to be the sole work of User:Sbb1413 modified by User:Verdy p). Qualitätssicherung (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — Cities are generally defined by population (or population density) and not by area, unless you are talking about countries where "city" is just an honorific of an urban settlement. In India, cities are defined as urban settlements with a population above a lakh (100,000). German towns with a population above 100,000 are also called cities. So, the category Category:Big cities might be useless for countries whose minimum city population is 100,000. However, it might be useful for countries where "city" is just an honorific of an urban settlement, like the UK. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is based on the Wikidata item on big cities, which is widely used in different city items. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also based on the classification used in OpenStreetMap. The criteria is effectively not the area but the population, but it is dependent of countries: within very populated countries, the criteria of population for distinguishing "big cities" from others is higher, but they tend to merge to a common criteria based on world population data. Strictly speaking, it is not referring to "administrative units" (whose land area which changes over time by splitting/slicing/merging them), but on urbanisation criterias whose evolution is much slower and independent of administrative units ever changing due to local politics or laws (for example, where do you define the limits of London, Paris, Shangai, or New york City to count "their" population? The "municipal" population is not relevant here for geographic classification, urban and environmental planning, communications...). verdy_p (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since all big cities in that category are in country-sub-categories could changing the parent-category definition/description to something like "big cities as per the definition of the respective countries" solve the problem? Instead of using a random number for population like 100,000 or some sort of area parameter, just say "a big city in the US is whatever the US define to be a 'big city'" and if Italy uses a different measure then that's perfectly fine because it's their right to have their own understanding of what constitutes a "big city" - be it population or area. Nakonana (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This is a mushy category that doesn't offer a particularly valuable distinction. We can of course adopt the 100k line as an arbitrary boundary, but that won't necessarily comport with what a lot of users may be looking for if they are looking for "big" cities. The discussion over what constitutes a 'city' and how to measure its size is immediately apparent if one starts researching cities by population or any other measure. Also, cities and their populations are constantly changing. In the end, I'm not sure of the value of sorting images based on the population of a city, but if we are going to do it and use arbitrary lines, we should name the category accordingly, so rename this one to Cities with over 100000 residents or something clear like that, not just "big". Josh (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete this and the related Category:Small cities. I had created this category since the classification is present in Wikidata and OSM. However, as Josh has pointed out, it is unnecessary to sort files based on the population of a city, which changes constantly. Also, "big" and "small" are problematic terms to use in Commons. I will propose my settlement hierarchy in an upcoming CFD. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in (Macedonian municipal seat)

[edit]

Duplicate categories. I propose to delete these or redirect them to Category:Villages in X Municipality:

--Upwinxp (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the categories are duplicates because the town has only one municipality (e.g. Category:Villages in Berovo is a duplicate of Category:Villages in Berovo Municipality). However, there are towns that include more than one municipality (e.g. Category:Villages in Bitola is greater than Category:Villages in Bitola Municipality because it includes the villages in the municipalities of Mogila and Novaci, which are also categorised in Category:Villages in Mogila Municipality and Category:Villages in Novaci Municipality). I suppose Raso mk’s primary goal when creating the categories of the type ‘Villages in X’ was to provide a better overview of the villages belonging to different towns.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response Kiril Simeonovski. I didn't know about towns existing as a separate administrative unit, larger than municipalities (save for Skopje). Do you think the categories should be kept? If the "town" borders overlap with municipal, we could also place the municipal categories inside the town ones. --Upwinxp (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Past

[edit]

Merge it to Category:History. We generally don't maintain the distinction between past and history, and the Category:History category is already used for anything related to the past. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep History is the systematic study and documentation of the human past. The period of events before the invention of writing systems is considered prehistory. I didn't know the category does contain some categories I thought it wouldn't contain somewhere in its subcategories but that is despite this being inconsistent with definitions of "History". So even if it stays like that so that the category doesn't really match what "History" refers to, the Past category is complementary to it.
For example, Paleontology, Early Earth (not just geologically but e.g. relating to the origin of earthly life), and prehistory anthropology are all well in the scope of Past but not in the scope of History per its definition. Also history is kind of like narrative stories or chronicling but there's more to the past than that such as Interactive virtual past‎ where the past, not historical events are recreated. There's no good reason to merge this broader concept into the much narrower unfitting one into which a few unfitting categories have been crammed into. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For further clarification and as noted at the Wikidata item:
Past and present
The issue is that "Past" here does not refer to 'one particular subdivision of time':
  1. it is one subdivision of time in that all time until the latest planck second is "past" from some perspective (what some people in this discussion seem to have thought this cat only refers to)
  2. it is also various subdivisions of time in that some times until some recent time is past depending on the scale...for example when talking about biological evolution "present" may refer to the current millennia or even larger time-scales or when plate tectonics is the subject 'the present' would refer to a quite long time-scale that includes many recent years – so for these subdivisions the meaning varies
  3. (largely related to the second point or sub-aspects of it:) there are different ways one can relate things to the past: for example History, Paleontology, Memory, Nostalgia – all of these are somehow linked to the human concept of "Past" (and like for other categories they can be found together as subcategories here which is appropriate, reasonable and useful)
In short, the misconception I think people had to some extent is that this category is only about #1 instead of all of these three. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I was going to agree with deletion or merge, as just about everything on here is depicting the past. I am uploading pictures from my museum trip only a few days ago, but a few days ago is still the past. But we do have images that depict at least visions of the future, or illustrate the concepts of past, present, and future as divisions of time. Thus, I think that as a period of time, it makes sense, and since we also have its colleagues Category:Present and Category:Future, I think it is warranted to keep this category.
I do think it is ripe for mis-use, as a lot of broad concept categories are, and it will require regular patrolling to keep on point. Josh (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this category will be kept, can both categories (Past and History) get clear descriptions showing the difference? What kind of subjects should be in one and which in the other? JopkeB (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Overly vague, can include everything from the Big Bang and earlier to 1 microsecond ago. I went through the category to see what could go into better categories, and wound up emptying this one. (About the only thing I was unsure of was Category:Nostalgia, but as it was already in Category:Time in life that seemed covered ok.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, an informative description would be good, agree with JopkeB on that. History has an infobox which defines it as "past events and their tracks or records" and also see the quote from the ENWP article which is the more accurate outlining and what most contents in the History cat relate to.
    • Your unilateral undiscussed mass removals are problematic and you should have discussed them here before. Many of these were problematic, for example you moved Category:Origins, which relates to past broadly, to Category:Prehistory but origins aren't only or characteristically about prehistory. I'll undo your problematic edits which are most of them while trying to keep things in subcats of this cat where possible.
    • Differences for example I think people conflate History (the study of humans' past and historical events) and Past (no focus on the study/education of it, not just historical events but also e.g. daily life and developments/trends more than in the context of History (discussion about the history cat).
    • Your point has been discussed earlier. You didn't even leave Time in life in the cat which isn't only about Past but also about other things so this point also doesn't make sense. You also didn't leave cats clearly referring to this particular concept Category:Videos of past, it shouldn't be removed from here until it is moved if it is and then some category above it needs to be in this cat. Instead of some of the files directly being in this cat, it probably would be better to have some cat they're in be located in here (like "History" containing "Paintings depicting life in the past" where the whole relation now is missing from this example), but you only removed things. Please change things more carefully or better discuss them here before since this is an ongoing discussion. Let's first discuss how to move or keep files and subcats or finalize this discussion which is mute if this cat does not contain contents.
    Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople who died as a result of playing sport

[edit]

"Playing sport"?! Does a runner "play sport"? A high jumper? Is this American English? 200.39.139.17 21:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So everybody other than me thinks this a good title... 🧐 200.39.139.17 21:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to do without a proposal to fix the issue (maybe with rationale for good measure). Josh (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Category:Sportspeople who died as a result of doing sports" maybe? (note: I'm not a native English speaker and am thus not 100% sure whether this suggestion would actually work or whether it should be "sport" or "sports" in case that the verb "doing" could be used here.) Alternatively, Category:Sportspeople who died as a result of engaging in sport activities (but that might be too broad and I'm also not sure whether the word "engage" would work in this context). Nakonana (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete it's not commons category's job to document cause of death. RZuo (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. 200.39.139.17 16:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment There are categories such as Category:Dead people by manner of death and all it's sub-categories. Nakonana (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between manner of death and "people who died under this very specific circumstance" Trade (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade but there are some very specific sub-categories, e.g. People killed by falling trees, Deaths from duelling, Deaths by horse-riding accident, Deaths from volcanic eruptions (scientists). If anything it is the people category (sportspeople) that is oddly specific, although, given the deaths of scientists by volcanic eruptions category, that level of speficificy might be actually fine too. There could be "People who died during sport activities" as a parent category which could include racing car accidents or flight show accidents. It is also known that soccer players have an increased risk of sudden death from heart failure during soccer matches (compared to the average risk of sudden heart failure in the general population), so a separate category for sport-related deaths might have some justification to exist. Nakonana (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superstraight

[edit]

As far as I'm aware the whole "Super Straight" thing was mainly a transphobic internet meme that never took off. All the images in the category seem to be completely made up or copyrighted to. As there is no "Super Straight" flag outside of a few internet transphobic online message boards. It's by no means official or widely used outside of transphobic circles though. So my suggestion is that the images in this category be deleted along with files. Or at least the category be deleted and the files in it up-merged to Category:Controversial sexual and gender identities. I don't think we need a whole category just for a bunch of duplicate images of a transphobic and fake meme flag though. Adamant1 (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep the overall vibe I get is “I find this offensive”. Commons isn’t censored, so that’s invalid. There are plenty of absolutely non-notable made-up orientations and pride flags here so the argument that a concept we know exists “in the wild” is too obscure to be covered is also invalid. And even if you deleted a bunch of redundant ones you’d still have enough for a category. Also none of these files are copyrightable, even the google trends chart which is simple facts and data shown in an auto-generated graph that required no creative effort. Dronebogus (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your vibe is wrong. I could really care less about it personally outside of it not being an actual, official concept. Nor do the files even really have anything to do with it either. Since again, the flag is completely fictional and that's essentially all there is in the category. Nice try making this about me though. I'd like to think it would be possible to discuss the actual merits of having a category for something like this without you treating me like I started it just because I'm offended by the thing. You can't just use Commons not being censored or hide behind fake claims of my feelings about this as an excuse to keep a category that serves no purpose and goes against the projects goals either. That's not how this works.
I think you could make an argument for keeping the category if it contained files that were actually about the whole "superstright" thing to begin with. But there's no point in having one for it if the only things on here related to the concept is a couple of images of fake flags. There's no reason they can't just be upmerged. The category is essentially worthless when it comes to anything actually having to do with the "superstraight" thing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there is no need to get inordinately offended about me saying I think you’re offended. Secondly, It’s not an “actual official concept”, but it is an actual hoax/neologism. Thirdly, there’s no need to try and delete a category that you’re currently trying to empty anyway. As long as at least two images exist the category is valid. If most or all the images are deleted, then of course the category would serve no purpose. But right now this is purely redundant. Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it is an actual hoax/neologism." Is it though and how would that even matter? Neologisms aren't inherently worth having seperate cateogries for and this has been around for at least a few years now with essentially zero buy in for it outside of a couple of posts on 4chan. If you look for "superstraight flag" on Google image search there doesn't seem to be any images of the "flags" actually being used IRL anywhere either. So I really don't see how this is an actual thing outside of being a barely notable meme. It wouldn't even be that much to begin with if not for the transphobic element. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m done responding to you here. You can answer me on the individual DRs. I stand by my assertion that this is a pointless and invalid nomination because the category is still serving an objective purpose. Dronebogus (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'd still appreciate an answer about why you wouldn't support the images that are left after the DRs being upmerged though since I think I've provided plenty of evidence for why its not an actual thing regardless of if there are images related to it or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. It should be ignored whether the sexuality in question is notable or not, whether it is offensive or not, whether it is a product of the far-right or not. Besides from the fact that Commons is not censored, if we analyze its existence in a purely technical manner it is evident that the category meets the requirements to continue existing, more specifically the 4th point of Commons:Category inclusion criteria: it is part of a diffusion scheme. Note to the nominator that there are several relevant categories in Category:Superstraight and, if it gets deleted, the files currently in it would be spread across various categories, making their finding costly. By the way, most if not all of the files are being nominated for deletion by this nominator; I can guarantee here that at least one will be kept, as it is below the threshold of originality in the United States, and at least one flag four flags must be kept, as it is they are Commons:In use. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: Can you point out where the guidelines say us not being censored has anything to do with the existence of specific categories? Because I must have missed that. Also, where exactly have I said this has anything to with it being offensive? You and Dronebogus seem to be the only one's who are making it about that. Not that I disagree that we don't censor things, but I don't see why any particular category or file should be kept simply because it relates to the topic of gender somehow. Yet unless I'm miss understanding you that seems to be your and Dronebogus' only argument against up merging the images to a better category. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out where the guidelines say us not being censored has anything to do with the existence of specific categories?
    It doesn't, that's why I used "besides".
  • Also, where exactly have I said this has anything to with it being offensive?
    I'd say when you used the word "transphobic" five times throughout this discussion.
RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just an American English thing, but to me "besides" has the connotation of "in addition to." In other words, "in addition to the fact that Commons is not censored, if we analyze its existence in a purely technical manner" makes it sound like your saying the category should be kept because we anti-censorship "in addition to" the technical aspects. I don't really see why you'd bring it if you didn't think it was relevant to keeping the category or not either. Thanks for clarifying it though.
The "transphobic" thing is simply a description of the origins of the thing. Since I think the context is important to the question of it deserves a separate, individual category outside of other non-notable, niche memes on here that don't have one. The claim that my mention of it being transphobic has anything to do with it being offensive is simply you reading to much into it. As I already mentioned to Dronebogous "I could really care less about it personally outside of it not being an actual, official concept." --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. In order to make it clear, I'll try to rewrite it: "It should be ignored whether the sexuality in question is notable or not, whether it is offensive or not, whether it is a product of the far-right or not; Commons is not censored, period. [Furthermore,] if we analyze its existence [blah blah blah]." RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep If your issue is that you believe the content files to be out of scope, then you should raise a deletion request for those. So long as they are on Commons, however, this appears to be a valid category for them to be under. If they do get deleted at some point and this category is empty as a result, it can be deleted at that time. Josh (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment does one paragraph in one article on Wikipedia justify an open-ended number of such images as being in scope? - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it’s not just “one paragraph in one article on Wikipedia”. In any case this is not the place to discuss files being in scope; this is about a category, and the category is clearly valid and useful as of now. Dronebogus (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Photographs by date by country

[edit]

A request for comment relating to the sub-categorization of this tree has been posted at Commons:Requests for comment/Categories of photographs by country by date, so please comment there. Josh (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nezami

[edit]

There is a disput between me and user Orijentolog about the categories in the Category:Nezami. User Orijentolog is adding disputed categories "Poets from Iran", "12th-century people of Iran" and "13th-century people of Iran"[2][3][4], which is wrong as I think. As it can be seen in the top of these categories they are related to the modern country of Iran. In the talk page I realized that user Orijentolog mixed the means of these categories with country and cultural context. If these categories are related to the people lived within the modern borders of Iran, then they must be removed because Nizami did not live within the modern borders of Iran, he lived within the modern borders of Azerbaijan. If these categories are related to people who lived in the country called "Iran", then these categories again must be removed because Nizami lived in Seljuq Empire ruled by Turkic dynasty of the Atabegs of Azerbaijan. If these categories are related to all Persian language poets then these categories again must be removed because there is already a category "Persian-language poets" there, otherwise we should add country categories related to the main language to the categories about all poets, e.g. category "Poets from Azerbaijan" to the category about Azerbaijani poet Fuzuli. Interfase (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, categories reflect the situation on all major Wiki projects where Nezami is categorized under Iran-related categories because it stands not only for modern country but also for historical cultural region. Medieval Iran, like Ancient Iran or Ancient Greece, spans wider than contemporary political borders and we can not categorize historical figures under modern countries. Your pseudohistorical claim that Nezami is an "Azerbaijani" poet shows your motive is of purely nationalistic nature. Attempts of Azerbaijanization of Nezami already failed on tens of Wiki projects, so you bring it here. --Orijentolog (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page I showed that even Britannica says that Azerbaijan has given the world Nizami. But here we discuss the categories about Iran, not about Azerbaijan. Nizami was not from the counrty called "Iran". Nizami was not from the terriory that is located within the modern borders of Iran. So, the adding of categories "Poets from Iran", "12th-century people of Iran" and "13th-century people of Iran" here is not reasonable. I think that you are still mixing country/language/culture when say "Iranian" and do not realize what these categories stands for. That why I am not already interesting in your comments. Let's see what Commons comunity thinks. Interfase (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than ten years ago, in December 2013, you claimed Nezami "has nothing with Iran", using the same quotes from Britannica. Your claims have been rejected as a pseudohistory, so now you try it here. Because no major project accepted your historical negationism and the Baku's ongoing campaign. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to repeat once again, scholarly perspectives about the issue are pretty clear, that's why all Wiki projects categorize Nezami under Iran-related categories. The only exception is the Azerbaijani Wikipedia which follows the state propaganda. Your claims are no different. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to take the discussion in a different direction. I repeat once again, no one here is trying to add the category “poets of Azerbaijan” to the category about Nizami, we are talking about controversial categories about poets and people of Iran, to which Nizami could not belong as I stated above. In English Wikipedia there are no such categories, only categories about "Iranian people" which are not the same. Iranian people are not equal to "people of Iran". Interfase (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's "controversial" only for you. Tons of subcats of People by century by country are interconnected with Wiki equivalents (despite "X-ian" vs. "from X" differences), and according your logic it's all "wrong". --Orijentolog (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't discus tons of subcats, we discuss this particular category. If tons of categories are not in correct places, then they must be removed as well. Let's for now correct category about Nizami and remove these misleading categories. Interfase (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do discuss it because your claim imply there are thousands of wrong connections. And there's nothing misleading in this particular case. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is wrong connection, then we need to correct this wrong connection, not to mislead the readers and users of Commons. If we face with mistake we need to correct this mistake not apply it everywhere again and again. As I explained on a talk page and here categories with "of Iran" and "from Iran" are wrong in the category about Nizami Ganjavi because he was not from Iran. If he wrote his poems in Persian and considered as Persian poet or Iranian poet it does not mean that he is from Iran. Frank Sinatra is Italian. But we cannot place category "Vocalists from Italy" or "Actors from Italy" to the category about Frank Sinatra, despite the fact that the category "Italian-American vocalists" is located in the category "Vocalists from Italy". Why you continue to ignore this simple logic based on the common sense? Interfase (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims are based on pseudohistorical interpretations, as you already proved on the major talk page. The world regards Nezami as an Iranian poet. Parallels with Sinatra are false analogy, historical cases like Herodotus are much more relevant. His categories will ultimately lead you to Greece, Iran and Turkey. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is you who proved on the major talk page that you are mixing territorial and cultural context in the term of "Iranian poet". You think that the "Iranian" is the same with "of Iran" or "from Iran", but this is false. Parallels with Sinatra are correct. You will not find "Vocalists from Italy" in category "Frank Sinatra" but you can find it in category "Italian-American vocalists" because Italian-American vocalists can be from Italy, but not all Italian-American vocalists were from Italy like Sinatra who was not from Italy but was Italian. The same thing with Herodotus: you will not find "Historians from Greece" in category "Herodotus" but you can find it in category "Ancient Greek historians" because Ancient Greek historians can be the historians from Greece, but not all "Ancient Greek historians" were from Greece like Herodotus. The same should be applied for Nizami. He was Persian language poet and was from Seljuq empire. We can find category "Iran" in he category about people from Seljuq empire because Seljuq empire was located mainly in the territory of Iran and people from Seljuq empire can be from Iran but not all people from Seljuq empire should be from Iran. Interfase (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Justiça do Trabalho do Brasil

[edit]

Is this Brazilian language? Why not English? 200.39.139.16 15:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per category naming policy, if this is the official name of the organization and they have no published or official English version, it is acceptable to leave the proper name in a non-English language. However, reviewing their official website reveals important details:
  1. In Portuguese, their name is styled as simply "Justiça do Trabalho", not "Justiça do Trabalho do Brasil". If were were to use their form in Portuguese, "do Brasil" should be dropped. If dab is needed, "(Brazil)" should be used.
  2. The official website does offer an English version, and there, the name is styled "Labor Court". Since this there is an English name provided on the official site, that should be used for the category name, probably warranting "(Brazil)" as a dab.
Thus, Rename category to Category:Labor Court (Brazil) in compliance with category naming policy Josh (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Court? 200.39.139.16 16:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as is. For country specific entities that do not have existing/in use English language names, nothing wrong with keeping native language name rather than inventing a Wikimedia only parenthetical neologism. Name matches the article name in pt:w, the only wikipedia with an article about it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caso Tatiane Spitzner

[edit]

Does caso mean case? 200.39.139.16 16:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so Rename category to Category:Case of Tatiane Spitzner, Category:Tatiane Spitzner case, or even just Category:Tatiane Spitzner. I'm not sure if the true crime folks have much of a standard for these kinds of categories, any of those three comply with Commons category policies as far as I can tell. Josh (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the right path... 200.39.139.16 16:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, caso means case in Portuguese. What’s the matter?
Dear Brazilian IP, also in Spanish it's like that, but we write in English here. 200.39.139.16 16:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from Christie's by Hans Baldung

[edit]

makes no sense at all and only crowds the place, and then for 1 img. MenkinAlRire (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an image but a painting. 200.39.139.17 22:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paintings are a kind of image. Josh (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category name implies that "Christie's" is the name of the source from which these images were gathered, and that the original creator of the images was Hans Baldung. If that is what these 3 images are, then this seems a correct category to hold them in accordance with Commons category policies, so  Keep unless that isn't what these are. Josh (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Baldung is a painter, worked in early XVth Century. Images bla bla can be used for Commons users who believe their photographs of works of master painters are more important than those paintings. 200.39.139.17 16:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Kiwen

[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:kiwen (toki pona) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ko

[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:ko (toki pona) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lape

[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:Lape (toki pona) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Laso

[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:laso (toki pona) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lawa

[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:lawa (toki pona) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Len

[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:len (toki pona) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linja

[edit]

Should be renamed to Category:linja (toki pona) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loje

[edit]

should be renamed to Category:loje (toki pona) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pini

[edit]

I do not know what this catergory is supposed to be about but it certainly has nothing to do with Toki pona. Should be discussed for potential deletion, clarification of the name, and categorization Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alexander-von-Humboldt-Gymnasium

[edit]

Ich schlage vor, den Klammerzusatz (Konstanz) anzufügen, denn wie man in Category:Schools named after Alexander von Humboldt sieht, gibt es sehr viele Schulen dieses Namens. Frupa (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Ich denke, das wäre eine recht unkontroverse Umbenennung. Aber vielleicht sollte man sich auf eine Namensform einigen bzw. den Städtenamen-Zusatz vereinheitlichen; denn derzeit gibt es sowohl die Variante "Alexander von Humboldt Gymnasium Stadtname" als auch ""Alexander von Humboldt Gymnasium (Stadtname)". Ersteres impliziert, dass der Stadtname Teil des offiziellen Namens der Schule ist, was vermutlich anzuzweifeln ist. Nakonana (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Benoît Prieur

[edit]

Category of a globaly banned user Durifon (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, nothing to do. --Achim55 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per above. Why was the user banned and why is that not clearly visible on the user page? Prototyperspective (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Study of the Christ child

[edit]

only one copy after deletion of the dublicate (and no need) MenkinAlRire (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One file is enough and there are two here. Nothing required. Close the discussion. 186.173.236.245 12:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Palestinian women

[edit]

It's not really clear what the difference between this category and Category:Women of Palestine is. So does anyone care if it's up-merged? Or if the answer to that is no can someone at least say exactly how they are different? Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective form is usually used for ethnic groups. E.g. Kalmyk people, who are an ethnic group of Mongolian origin that has been living in the European part of Russia for centuries and have their own federal state/republic within Russia - Category:Kalmykia -, but only 67% of Kalmykia's population are Kalmyks (the others are ethnic Russians, Germans, Chechens etc.). So, an ethnic Russian woman who was born and lives in Kalmykia would be a "Woman of Kalmykia", but she wouldn't be a "Kalmyk woman". That's the difference between the two categories. Now, I'm not familiar with the situation in Palestine. Is there a notable amount of "women of Palestine" who are not "Palestinian women"? If yes, then a separation of the two categories might make sense. If not, then "Palestinian women" could be kept as a redirect to "women of Palestine". Nakonana (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the subcategories of this one most, if not all, of them are for women who were born and live in Palestine. So they seem to be both "Palestinian women" and "women of Palestine." As oppossed to say a woman who was born and lives in the United States but happens to be of Palestinian ancestory, which I assume there's another category for altogether. So probably redirecting one is the best option. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homeland

[edit]

Ambiguous name, can be misused by uploaders to categorize their own homelands. No objections for Category:Homeland in art. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of penitent Saint Jerome

[edit]

cat should better be called Paintings of Saint Jerome in the Desert, avoiding the imgs of him in his study to be tagged with this one (penitent as the general characterisation of him) MenkinAlRire (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Coat of arms of the Duchy of Milan (Before 1395)

[edit]

There was no Duchy of Milan before 1395. It was created in 1395. These are the arms of the Visconti family, who before 1395 were "lords of Milan". The category seems intended for un-crowned Biscione Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transportation (Trujillo, Peru)

[edit]

Reasons for discussion request: Hello, this category is duplicated, as it has a similar name to Category:Transport in Trujillo (Peru) and there are photos uploaded there, so I want the duplicate category to be deleted. --Fabco09 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabco09, I imagine this can be speedy deleted without controversy. I notice the correct category has a Wikidata Infobox, but is missing an item over at Wikidata. Can you by chance either fix that or remove the infobox? Josh (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works by Andrea Mantegna in the Cleveland Museum of Art

[edit]

no other museum has this parent. Both should be sorted under d./p....by museum MenkinAlRire (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep per @EurekaLott & @Joshbaumgartner. -- Ooligan (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tribunais Regionais do Trabalho

[edit]

Why not in English?! 200.39.139.16 14:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Porque se trata de tribunais brasileiros! Devem ser redigidos em português do Brasil Emerson Júnior GSF (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per category naming policy, if this is the official name of the organization and they have no published or official English version, it is acceptable to leave the proper name in a non-English language.
However, reviewing their official website reveals that the official website does offer an English version, and there, the name is styled "Regional Labor Courts". Since this there is an English name provided on the official site, that should be used for the category name, probably warranting "(Brazil)" as a dab.
Thus, Rename category to Category:Regional Labor Courts (Brazil) in compliance with category naming policy Josh (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. 200.39.139.16 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ministers of Tribunal Superior do Trabalho

[edit]

"Ministers of" is OK. 200.39.139.16 16:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per category naming policy, if "Tribunal Superior do Trabalho" is the official name of the organization and they have no published or official English version, it is acceptable to leave the proper name in Portuguese.
However, reviewing their official website reveals that the official website does offer an English version, and there, the name is styled "Superior Labor Court". Since this there is an English name provided on the official site, that should be used for the category name, probably warranting "(Brazil)" as a dab.
Thus, Rename category to Category:Ministers of the Superior Labor Court (Brazil) in compliance with category naming policy Josh (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. 200.39.139.16 16:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electric three-wheeled stand-up scooters by location

[edit]

 Delete, this is an unnecessary extra layer of metacat. Josh (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Different types of IFO (ufo identified)

[edit]

Poorly named category at best. Seems to be a collection of 'things people thought were aliens' or 'things in the air people commonly misidentify as something more mysterious than they should be' or some such. Perhaps rename as Category:Aerial phenomena commonly presumed to be UFOs? I still don't think it makes for a good category, but its better than its current name. Delete and merge into Category:Atmospheric phenomena? Josh (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Different types of UFOs

[edit]

Bad name, Rename category to Category:UFOs by type or Category:UFOs by shape. Josh (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese FOP cases/deleted/3D artworks

[edit]

No practicality to distinguish 3D artworks from other cases related to artistic works of Japan, as under the eyes of the Japanese law both 2D and 3D are just the same, artistic works. Therefore, all case pages should be reverted back to Category:Japanese FOP cases/deleted. Category:Japanese FOP cases/deleted/literary works is not included as the literary works are not artistic works. Regarding concerns of potential category overcrowding, it is normal to have thousands of FoP deletion requests in a single category. See Category:Russian FOP cases/deleted and Category:United States FOP cases/deleted, for example, both also do not provide liberal FoP for non-architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a similar proposal for the redundant Russian subcategory, see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/03#Merger of case pages under Category:Russian FOP cases/deleted (non-architectural). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women's sumo

[edit]

I think this should be merged with Category:Female sumo wrestlers but I am unsure about what policies apply here. That one is about the participants and this is about the act Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support for this merge. It is valid to maintain one cat for the sport and a second (sub-cat) for the participants, but only if we have images about the sport that are not depictions of the players. Here, both images are clearly images of Female sumo wrestlers. Josh (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Titular Monarchs of India

[edit]

Unnecessary category, since we don't categorize the monarchs by the nature of monarchy. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's monarchs, not Monarchs. 186.173.236.245 13:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bus routes by designation

[edit]

Rename Category:Bus routes by designation to Category:Bus routes by number for consistency with both parent and sub categories. The vast majority of contents are named "Bus routes numbered XXX". There are a few named "Bus routes designated XXX" and these should be renamed from 'designated' to 'numbered' to match the rest of the category. Josh (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some routes have designations, that aren't numbers. MB-one (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Autassassinophilia

Category:Carrer del Bisbe bridge closes up

[edit]

Propose moving to Category:Close-up photographs of the Carrer del Bisbe bridge. (A different name with correct grammar would also be fine, but the present name is not.)) Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Facade of Palau de la Generalitat at Carrer del Bisbe (Barcelona)

[edit]

Can we change "at" to "on" here? I don't think any native English speaker would say "at", and the alternative "in" is a bit odd in U.S. English when referring to a building (as against something actually on the surface of the street). I know "on" is acceptable here in U.S. English, and believe it is acceptable in UK English, though I'd appreciate if someone from the UK would weigh in on that. If it's unaccceptable in UK English, I could even live with the British "in", but "at" is simply wrong. Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also affects Category:Relief of Saint George at carrer del Bisbe facade (Palau de la Generalitat), where I'd change "at" to "on the". I'd also capitalize "carrer" ("Carrer" instead). And on both categories, I'd be happy to see "facade" changed to "façade", but it's not a big issue to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harmful sexual identities

[edit]

Category:Sexual abuse and category:Paraphilias already exist 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not all paraphilias are tied to harmful acts (sexual abuse in this case). And those are two categories that can be summed up by one (the current one we are discussin). And the scope of this category is about sexual identities, subtype of Category:Controversial sexual and gender identities. Formerly, Category:Pedophilia was categorized in category:sexual identity and category:sexual violence, so this one merges both. MikutoH (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it for a while and decided it would better to keep the category, but change it’s name to "coercive paraphilias". Category:Controversial sexual and gender identities is about LGBT identities only, not sexual identities in general. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 13:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, it contains sexual and gender identities that fall outside the scope of LGBTQ on their own, like Sapiosexual, fictosexual, superstraight and (arguably, though not IMO) Femboy Dronebogus (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the last one depends whether or not we care about the opinion of Tumblr and Twitter Trade (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Coercion" implies another person which by it's very definition excludes the inclusion of Necrophilia Trade (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep valid overlap of two categories— sexual identity and sexual violence. I’m not sure about necrophilia but many pedophiles and zoophiles definitely see their paraphilias (paraphiliae?) as identities, and subcultures have developed around both. Dronebogus (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(IMO) Calling a sexual identity "harmful" by itself is weird and informal, not to mention that it can lead to bad-faith edits of users adding controversial identities they don’t like personally. It would be nice to rename this category to "coercive paraphilias" to avoid such incidents. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 16:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with renaming. While for necrophilia, there's indeed "necrosexual", they even have some flags, though I agree that most necrophiles don't even identify as necro-anything. MikutoH (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know how to feel about that information Dronebogus (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep if the cat is moved to a more accurate and/or objective name (otherwise  Delete) such as "Sexual orientations associated with harm", "Sexual preferences associated with coercion" or "Sexual orientations associated with coercion". Prototyperspective (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with your opinion 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 16:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I don't think any of the categories in this category are really sexual identities. I'm not going to debate what harmful is or is not harmful, but it does seem ambiguous/lacking NPOV. In general I think this category is rife for misuse and POV pushing. William Graham (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category to Category:Paraphilias associated with non-consent or similar. The current contents are all Paraphilias. The common thread appears to be that they all involve attraction to subjects which are incapable of consenting or possibly even expressing their non-consent. Josh (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Controversial sexual and gender identities 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 02:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People wearing female clothing

[edit]

Too Western-centric perspective to categorize clothing. See my more detailed rationale here: Template talk:People wearing clothing#Auto-categorization for "female clothing" category Nakonana (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean toward delete. Applying this is going to be really problematic not just because of the question of where the clothing is considered female but also because it can change over time. For example, silk stockings are now thought of as very female, but in the 18th Century they were not. Another example: in the U.S. pink was a specifically female color for a large part of the 20th Century, but before that it was not, and starting roughly in the 1970s it became acceptable for men's shirts (and at some later date shoes) but generally not for other male garments. Etc. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana, @Jmabel, why did you specifically nominate this category, doesn't it apply to all Category:Female clothing? I've added the CfD tag there as well as this is really about that category, not just this one sub of it. Josh (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just used the "People wearing clothing"-template a lot recently and noticed that it was adding the "People wearing female clothing" category automatically that's why I nominated that one. The added category was usually a red link and I hardly ever bothered to create the corresponding category, so I just never arrived at the real parent category "Female clothing", I guess. So, it's nothing against your template in particular, just my laziness to track down the real parent category. Nakonana (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I didn't make the nomination. I haven't any real problem with some clothing being labeled as "female": in many contexts many items of clothes clearly are gender-specific. But I think it is much more problematic when it gets into what someone is wearing, especially if it is being added by a template that cannot be aware of the context in which the clothes are worn. Is a woman in the 2020s not "wearing female clothing" if she has on a T-shirt? Is a man "wearing female clothing" if he dressed like Prince (who was eminently male, but wore a lot of clothing more traditionally thought of as female)? - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A wedding dress can be "female clothing", but the second it is worn by a man it turns into "male clothing", so to speak. Such a dress would probably also need to be adjusted to the size and the body frame of a male body and therefore wouldn't be exactly a dress that is designed for women. Nakonana (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana Wait, no, that's incorrect. A piece of female clothing, if we can determine it to be such (say a wedding dress made for a woman to wear, using the example above), is still a piece of female clothing no matter who happens to be donning it at the moment. Let's be very clear, the adjective 'female' is applied to the clothing, and means that the clothing is designed/intended for a female to wear. However, should a man put on that wedding dress we are talking about it doesn't change the design intent, so it doesn't change to being a 'male dress'. Josh (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what if the dress design was changed to fit a male body? A blouse is just a dress shirt (or whatever the male version is called in English) that is fitted to a woman's body. So, if a dress shirt fitted to a female body is considered "female clothing", then wouldn't a wedding dress that is fitted to a male body be considered "male clothing" accordingly? And the perspective of a wedding dress being "female clothing" by default is again a Western-centric perspective. I mean, is the guy in this photo wearing a "wedding dress" or...? And do we agree that this wedding dress is "male clothing"? Nakonana (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana: Answers to your questions:
  1. If a piece of clothing is designed with a specific gender in mind, it is fair to categorize it as such, so a dress specifically designed to fit a male body could be considered a 'male' dress.
  2. No clothing should be considered anything 'by default', that is poor categorization. It should only be categorized by known qualities. If it is not known if the the clothing covered by a topic is female, male or otherwise, it should not be categorized by gender. Since Wedding dresses can be designed for any gender, Category:Wedding dresses should not be categorized by gender.
  3. I know nothing about the design or anything else about the dress in the image you linked, so I would not categorize it by any gender, female, male, or otherwise.
Does that answer your questions? Josh (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel I don't agree with you on that. If we determine whether clothing is male or female just based on who is wearing it, then it is meaningless to ascribe gender to the clothing at all and we might as well delete the whole male/female clothing scheme completely. If the T-shirt you speak of is designed for female use (sizing, fit, marketing, etc.) to the point we can call it a female t-shirt, then it is always a female t-shirt, same with a male one. If it is a unisex design, then it should never be gendered, regardless of who is wearing it. As for Prince's outfit, if it was made for him, then it is male clothing, and it is irrelevant if someone thinks its effeminate or whatever...likewise, if it is an article made for a woman, but he dons it, it is still female clothing. Josh (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to the point we can call it a female t-shirt

The question is really whether we can do that. In the US, pink and magenta shirts or jackets for kids are usually exclusively for girls. But in Scandinavian countries it is not too uncommon for boys to wear such items in such colors. And children's clothing is also quite unisex in its size and fit. It might get tricky to determine for whom an item was created. I'm not saying that there aren't some rather obvious cases, but there are also cases where it can get complicated. Nakonana (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana: Why would it be tricky? If I design a shirt and say it is for women or girls, then it is a female shirt. What is tricky about that? It doesn't matter what color it is (and you are wrong, there is nothing female about pink or magenta shirts in the US) or what the size and fit looks like. It is not up to us to determine this, the design/intended gender is either known and can be used for categorization, or it is unknown and the item cannot be categorized accurately by gender. In what case does it get complicated? Josh (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner

If I design a shirt and say it is for women or girls, then it is a female shirt.

It's tricky because there may be a culture that uses the same design of shirts but labels them as "male shirts". If we then have a photo of the shirt displayed on a table (not worn by a person), we won't know whether it should be put in the "female shirt" or "male shirt" category. Just like with skirts - they may be for women in the US, but they are (also) for men in Scotland. You can't tell whether a depicted tartan skirt is a skirt for women or for men, unless it's worn by a person.
None of that is relevant to my statement. It doesn't matter who if anyone is wearing it, and it has absolutely nothing to do with culture or what country it is in. It also has no relevance to tartan skirts or whatever. Josh (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to us to determine this, the design/intended gender is either known and can be used for categorization, or it is unknown and the item cannot be categorized accurately by gender.

In most cases we won't know. How would you know that a woman wearing a lumberjack shirt is wearing a lumberjack shirt intended for women rather than wearing her boyfriend's lumberjack shirt? Or what are "boyfriend jeans"? Are they jeans for women that look like male jeans? Or are they the jeans of a women's boyfriend and thus male clothing? And if it's the former, then can we even consider them "female clothing" if they are intentionally designed like male clothing? And what about the design of "neckties" makes them particularly "Men's clothing", of which they are a sub-category? (Category:Men's clothing > Category:Classic men's clothing > Category:Neckties). Due to this category tree, the Category:Female humans wearing neckties is a sub-category of "Men's clothing". Are the neckties these female humans are wearing explicitly designed/intended for men or how do we justify this category's inclusion in the "Men's clothing" category instead of the "Women's clothing" category? Sure, they are "classically" (or historically speaking) men's clothing. But so are trousers. However, for some reason, we're not putting trousers in "Men's clothing". The lines of what's clothing for one gender, but not for the other, are blurry these days. You can design/intend a shirt for female humans, but male humans might just decide that they want to wear that shirt, too, just like women did with trousers. And it's questionable whether the shirt will still be classified and seen as "female shirt" even if you intended it to be "female". Nakonana (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana: What is your point? I said if we can't determine it, don't categorize by gender. You even quoted that part of my comment. Are you disagreeing with it? I'm legitimately not sure where you are going here. See what I said about bikinis below or wedding dresses above. Now you bring up neckties, are you just going to keep picking new examples, or actually discuss the ones already brought up? Josh (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh I'm agreeing with you that we shouldn't categorize by gender unless we are certain. My point is that in most cases we can't be certain, because other cultures (without our knowledge) might categorize the same item differently than we do (e.g. skirts) and/or because with time the categorization of an item changes (e.g. trousers going from "male" clothing to "unisex" clothing). The categorization would be prone to error (as this whole discussion demonstrates and what prompted this discussion to begin with). And the demonstration of error-proneness could be continued with examples like neckties: why have they been determined to be "male" clothing instead of "unisex" clothing like trousers? You asked

In what case does it get complicated?

My answer is: possibly in all cases. Nakonana (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm actually OK with closing this category discussion now that skirts and dresses have been moved out of female clothing. Neckties can be addressed at another time if need be. (And I'm wondering whether Category:Men wearing bikini bottoms should be turned into a redirect to Category:Men wearing swim briefs, because I'm only seeing a single photo that actually looks like an obvious bikini bottom rather than a swim brief.) Nakonana (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Nakonana: Why is this a "Western"-centric issue? The idea of certain clothing being intended for, designed for, sized for, culturally accepted being worn by, and/or is more generally expected to be worn by a particular gender is common to most cultures on the planet past and present, isn't it? Maybe there are some cultures which completely lack gendering in their clothing, but it is a pretty small group, so I just wonder why you would think this is a specifically 'Western' issue (whatever 'Western' refers to). Josh (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way the category currently looks like is Western-centric (North American / Europen). I was going off of "dresses" and "skirts" being categorized as "female" clothing. Those two types of clothing might be categorized differently from an Asian-centric perspective for example. Nakonana (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana I think we all are in agreement that neither dresses nor skirts as a whole should be categorized as gendered (female, male, or otherwise), and that goes for American as well as other perspectives. Josh (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That we can agree on and I'm happy with that conclusion :) Nakonana (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Jmabel: Something like silk stockings is a broad type of clothing that can certainly come in varieties with different genders (or no gender) associated with them. I agree with you that categorizing general types of clothing by gender is very problematic. However, there are certainly more specific clothing which are undeniably associated with a particular gender. I'm thinking of particular styles or products that are specific to a given time/place/culture and very much are gender-specific in that scope. My question is, how do we categorize that if we delete gendered clothing categories, or should we just not worry about it and no longer do categorization along those lines? Josh (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: It's possible that this is a salvageable category, and that would be fine. But look at Category:Men wearing skirts, which is currently categorized under this. I would say at a glance that 30-40% of the images in that category are not people wearing female clothing. Are you interested in taking the time to sort this out? I'd have no problem with that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel Men wearing skirts does not belong under female clothing because "skirts" is too broad a class of clothing to determine that all "skirts" are intended for female humans to wear, and more technically, because Category:Skirts is not a sub-category of Category:Female clothing. It didn't take much time to fix this mis-categorization. In fact it was already fixed before your comment, so I'm assuming you were viewing a cached version of the page or working from memory. Josh (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take another case. File:Before 2013 Solstice Parade 068 (9139827592).jpg (which I took) is in Category:Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which is in Category:Male humans wearing female clothing, which is in turn in Category:People wearing female clothing. But is it really that? The Sisters' habits could not be mistaken for anything else. The reference they make to the habits of Catholic and Anglican nuns is clear, but certainly no actual Catholic and Anglican nun ever dressed like that: only the overwhelmingly male or male-identified Sisters.
Or File:Bikram Yoga - with Bikram Choudhury - Flickr - tiarescott.jpg: in Category:Men wearing bikini bottoms, which traces up through Category:Male humans wearing bikini bottoms to Category:Male humans wearing female clothing to Category:People wearing female clothing. But, really, when I look at that picture, nothing in it suggests to me a man wearing female clothing, just a man very minimally clothed to hide his genitals and (presumably) anus.
Again: I'm not saying this category area certainly couldn't be cleaned up and maybe made useful (though I have my doubts), just that right now it's a mess. - Jmabel ! talk 02:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it might be doable if a human would manually add this category on a case by case basis. So, if the "Category:People wearing female clothing" would be just a sub-category of "People wearing clothing" and wouldn't have any broad sub-categories of its own that classify certain types of clothing (such as dresses, bikinis etc.) as "female" by default. Instead, the category would only contain files that were manually tagged as "people wearing female clothing". This might help to ensure that the category really only contains files where someone is wearing clothing that was clearly not intended for them. Maybe something like the following would qualify for that category: File:Japan, Tokyo, young boy in his mother’s shoes 1.jpg and File:Japan, Tokyo, young boy in his mother’s shoes 2.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the issue with calling bikinis female clothing? Trade (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it includes the top, I suppose there is no culture where it is at all commonly male, but a man wearing a skimpy bottom in the bikini style is not necessarily "wearing female clothing." - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the "bi" part in "bikini" implies that it's a two-piece. Nakonana (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana: not exactly on topic, but does it? I've always presumed it was a reference to the nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel yeah after double-checking it looks like you are right. It's just a coincidence that there's a "bi-" in bikini. However, people are certainly working of this association with the number "two", as the terms Monokini and Trikini demonstrate. Nakonana (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Jmabel (talk · contribs) that a bikini is not necessarily 'female', even if that is a strongly predominant presumption. I don't see a need to keep Category:Bikinis under Category:Female clothing. Josh (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tldr
we do need Category:Female clothing as a generic reception category for all kinds of clothing users would perceive as female. not everyone is a fashion expert and can pinpoint what clothing is shown on a file.
i think it makes sense to not categorise specific clothing categories as male/female, as that depends on culture, time in history, etc. RZuo (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Delete The things that have already been brought up ad nauseum by other people aside, this whole thing gets kind of weird and nonsensical the further into it you go. For instance Category:People wearing black female clothing just sounds wrong for some reason. Maybe because of the whole "black female" thing, but also because no one IRL talks about clothing that way. I don't know. The whole category structure for images of clothing in general is way to in the weeds to be useful. Getting rid of this category would at least help with it a little. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aichi SH 138

[edit]

AICHI SH 138 5.59.15.187 22:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? What should be done? Why? Please give an explanation. JopkeB (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They prefer capital letters. Don't you see? 186.173.236.245 12:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not react so condescending. If you want to discuss something, it should be absolutely clear for all participants what the discussion is about, now and in the future.
Who is "they"? And if the problem can be solved by renaming the category, you can just ask for it in the category (tab "More", "Rename" and fill in the form), an administrator will make the change. JopkeB (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:General de división shoulder straps

[edit]

What is the purpose of this category? Sinigh (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aerial photographs od Lubrza, Lubusz Voivodeship

[edit]

duplikat Cyku new (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cosplay by year by work

[edit]

There is little usefulness in categorizing cospaly by year by work. Categorizing by character and country is already enough Trade (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney characters by year of introduction

[edit]

Is this category really necessary? Trade (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pedestrians by district

[edit]

Look at the Category tree downwards please. 176 categories invented for one foolish file! 186.173.5.168 23:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"176 categories invented for one foolish file"? Strange fantasy of an anonymous guest.RG72 (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization in Category:Warner Bros.

[edit]

See also Space Jam, Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse, The Lego Movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Scooby-Doo and Scoob!

Category:Warner Bros. characters by franchise
Category:Warner Bros. characters by gender by franchise
Category:Warner Bros. characters by gender
Category:Warner Bros. characters by medium by franchise
Category:Warner Bros. characters by medium
Category:Warner Bros. characters by name by franchise
Category:Warner Bros. characters by name by work
Category:Warner Bros. characters by name
Category:Warner Bros. characters by role by franchise
Category:Warner Bros. characters by role
Category:Warner Bros. characters by source by franchise
Category:Warner Bros. characters by source
Category:Warner Bros. characters by type by franchise
Category:Warner Bros. characters by type
Category:Warner Bros. characters by work by franchise
Category:Warner Bros. characters by work
Category:Warner Bros. characters by year of introduction by franchise
Category:Warner Bros. characters by year of introduction
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 1937‎
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 1938
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 1945‎
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 1946
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 1949‎
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 1950‎
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 1969‎
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 1993‎
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 1996
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2000‎
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2001
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2002
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2003
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2004
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2005
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2006
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2007
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2008
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2009
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2010
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2011
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2012
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2013
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2014
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2015
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2016
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2017
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2018
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2019
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2020
Category:Warner Bros. characters introduced in 2021
Category:Warner Bros. female characters‎
Category:Warner Bros. heroes
Category:Warner Bros. male characters‎
Category:Warner Bros. original characters
Category:Warner Bros. universe
Category:Warner Bros. villains‎

--ReneeWrites (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization in Category:Looney Tunes

[edit]

See also Space Jam, Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse, The Lego Movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Scooby-Doo and Scoob!

Category:Jeff Gordon in Looney Tunes: Back in Action
Category:Looney Tunes by character by work
Category:Looney Tunes by character
Category:Looney Tunes by medium
Category:Looney Tunes by subject by medium
Category:Looney Tunes by subject
Category:Looney Tunes by work
Category:Looney Tunes by year of introduction
Category:Looney Tunes by year
Category:Looney Tunes characters by gender‎
Category:Looney Tunes characters by medium by name
Category:Looney Tunes characters by medium
Category:Looney Tunes characters by name by type
Category:Looney Tunes characters by name
Category:Looney Tunes characters by role
Category:Looney Tunes characters by type
Category:Looney Tunes characters by work
Category:Looney Tunes characters by year of introduction
Category:Looney Tunes characters introduced in 1937‎
Category:Looney Tunes characters introduced in 1938
Category:Looney Tunes characters introduced in 1945‎
Category:Looney Tunes characters introduced in 1946‎
Category:Looney Tunes characters introduced in 1949‎
Category:Looney Tunes characters introduced in 1950‎
Category:Looney Tunes characters introduced in 1996‎
Category:Looney Tunes female characters‎
Category:Looney Tunes films by character
Category:Looney Tunes guest characters by work
Category:Looney Tunes heroes‎
Category:Looney Tunes male characters‎
Category:Looney Tunes original characters by name
Category:Looney Tunes original characters
Category:Looney Tunes universe
Category:Looney Tunes universes by work
Category:Looney Tunes villains‎
Category:Looney Tunes: Back in Action guest characters
Category:Michael Jordan in Looney Tunes: Back in Action

--ReneeWrites (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by character

[edit]

Overcategorization by the same IP user who made hundreds of categories for Space Jam, Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse, The Lego Movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Scooby-Doo and Scoob! and others, but structurally this one is a little different from the other CfD's. Many of these are tiny, contain no media but 1-2 categories, and are circular/self-referential (e.g. "Toy Story Films by character" will have a subcategory for "Films featuring Woody (Toy Story)‎" or "Films featuring Bo Peep (Toy Story)" which contains the category Toy Story).

Category:BoOzy’ OS films by character‎
Category:Films featuring Aud’ OS‎
Category:Films featuring BoOzy’ OS (character)‎
Category:Films featuring Cock’ OS‎
Category:Films featuring Hedgeh’ OS‎
Category:Films featuring L’ OS t’SoOl‎
Category:Films featuring MammoOth’ OS‎
Category:Films featuring Marie-L’ OS‎
Category:Films featuring Mari’ OS‎
Category:Films featuring OSmic‎
Category:Films featuring Pteranod’ OS‎
Category:Films featuring Rob’ OSmic‎
Category:Films featuring SkoOlet’ OS‎
Category:Films featuring Smilod’ OS‎
Category:Films featuring Tarz’ OS‎
Category:Pinocchio (Disney) films by character
Category:Films featuring Jiminy Cricket‎
Category:Films featuring Pinocchio (Disney character)
Category:SynCop films by character
Category:Films featuring Victor Chai
Category:The Cockbite films by character
Category:Films featuring the Cockbitosaurus (character)
Category:Toy Story films by character
Category:Films featuring Bo Peep (Toy Story)
Category:Films featuring Buzz Lightyear‎
Category:Films featuring Woody (Toy Story)‎
Category:Films based on Hanna-Barbera by character
Category:Scooby-Doo films by character
Category:Films featuring Daphne Blake‎
Category:Films featuring Fred Jones (Scooby-Doo)
Category:Films featuring Scooby-Doo (character)‎
Category:Films featuring Scrappy-Doo‎
Category:Films featuring Shaggy Rogers‎
Category:Films featuring Velma Dinkley‎
Category:The Flintstones films by character
Category:Films featuring Barney Rubble‎
Category:Films featuring Betty Rubble‎
Category:Films featuring Fred Flintstone‎
Category:Films featuring Pebbles Flintstone
Category:Films featuring Wilma Flintstone‎
Category:Tom and Jerry films by character
Category:Films featuring Droopy‎
Category:Films featuring Jerry Mouse‎
Category:Films featuring Tom Cat‎
Category:The Jetsons films by character
Category:Films featuring Astro (The Jetsons)‎
Category:Films featuring Elroy Jetson‎
Category:Films featuring George Jetson‎
Category:Films featuring Jane Jetson‎
Category:Films featuring Judy Jetson‎
Category:Films featuring Blue Falcon and Dynomutt
Category:Peter Rabbit films by character
Category:Films featuring Benjamin Bunny
Category:Films featuring Cottontail Rabbit‎
Category:Films featuring Flopsy Rabbit‎
Category:Films featuring Jemima Puddle-Duck‎
Category:Films featuring Johnny Town-Mouse‎
Category:Films featuring Josephine Rabbit‎
Category:Films featuring Mr. McGregor‎
Category:Films featuring Mrs. McGregor‎
Category:Films featuring Mopsy Rabbit‎
Category:Films featuring Mr. Jeremy Fisher‎
Category:Films featuring Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle‎
Category:Films featuring Peter Rabbit‎
Category:Films featuring Pigling Bland
Category:Films featuring Samuel Whiskers‎
Category:Films featuring Mr. Tod‎
Category:Films featuring Tom Kitten‎
Category:Films featuring Tommy Brock‎
Category:Films featuring Pete (Space Jam)
Category:Films featuring Cruella de Vil

--ReneeWrites (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete --Trade (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Pointless minutia in category form. Commons categories aren't suppose to be a complete recreation or whatever of everything having to do with a particular subject. Really the some goes for the Wikidata entries, which someone should nominate for deletion on Wikidata's end once the categories are dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vil·la romana de l'avinguda de la Catedral

[edit]

How is the one photo in this category any more about the Vil·la romana than any other photo in Category:Hotel Colón Barcelona? Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest checking the one photo in the record for the remains of this villa in the heritage register of Barcelona. The building in the place of the villa is the only thing visible.
I must admit that it seems weird to illustrate the remains of an ancient Roman villa with a photograph of a modern building, but a lot of sources about archaeological sites are illustrated by the photograph of how the site looks nowadays, and that is often just an empty field, an orchard or a modern building. That image doesn't look odd compared with those. Pere prlpz (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, since the (potential) content of the category is the same as Category:Hotel Colón Barcelona, deleting or merging it is also reasonable.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should have at least reasonably clear criteria for membership. It seems to me that unless we have or expect to have specifically archaeological photos of this site, we basically have two categories here for the same thing, and should merge them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Photographs by Suo Edits

[edit]

Per Suo Edits Sebbog13 (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G7ed by Túrelio (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (not related) 08:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sergei Majskij

[edit]

Alumni of Ural State University? 186.174.244.237 11:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The sun during the solar eclipse of 2017 August 21

[edit]

IMO not necessary to have a category call the sun during the solar eclipse of <date>, as most of the images is related to the eclipsed sun, which seems to be redundant A1Cafel (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venues of the Major League Rugby

[edit]

This seems oddly named. Do people really say the Major League Rugby? Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is odd, and I haven't heard it in common parlance. When I created it, it was called "Major League Rugby stadiums". I'd recommend that it be renamed to "Venues of Major League Rugby" if that naming convention is more suitable. Brianreading (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors by role

[edit]

Category spam, courtesy of the same IP user who made the categories in Space Jam, Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse, The Lego Movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Scooby-Doo and Scoob!

None of the subcategories herein contain any media, and rather than categorizing media they create abstract (and often circular) relationships between categories instead. Every single one of them should be deleted, as well as the main category.

-- ReneeWrites (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim to notable characters only There's nothing wrong with creating a category pertaining to those people closely associated with a fictional character -- I've actually done this with comics characters. Category:People associated with Spider-Man is one example, which is subdivided into writers and artists who have worked on the character, and actors who have portrayed them. But in each of those charcters, the character is a major one, which has its own Wikipedia article. I know that the Commons is a separate site, but there needs to be some type of standard, and notability seems like a good one. Right right now, the subcats in the Actors by role cat looks like it's filled with non-notable character, or characters who part of an ensemble show, movie, or book that's notable by itself, and who are not notable individually, and some of them look like they're empty of content. I say trim those who do not have their Wikipedia artice, or which have minimal or empty content that is subcategoried elsewhere. Nightscream (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is typically that works or characters created by a specific person get subcategorized under that person's name. That person doesn't become a subcategory of their own creations. So e.g. "Spider-Man" as a subcategory of "Characters created by Stan Lee" would be valid, and would not create a circular structure. "Stan Lee" as a subcategory of "People associated with Spider-Man" would. (Being associated with something is also a very fuzzy and ill-defined term, whereas being a writer, artist or actor is far less so).
To take another example, Category:Spider-Man actors is a category with 190 entries that contains everyone who has ever played any role in any Spider-Man film. If there is a lot of media of a specific actor playing a specific role, it can get subcategorized as "[Actor] as [character]" - the creation becomes a subcategory of the creator. The actor himself would not become, in his entirety, a subcategory of that role. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enhancing999 (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film characters by actors

[edit]

Category spam, courtesy of the same IP user who made the categories in Space Jam, Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse, The Lego Movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Scooby-Doo and Scoob!

None of the subcategories herein contain any media, and rather than categorizing media they create abstract (and often circular) relationships between categories instead. Every single one of them should be deleted, as well as the main category.

-- ReneeWrites (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all. Upmerge the files in Glenn Close characters. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/05&oldid=949015913"