Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03

This page is for open CFD discussions started in March 2023.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/03.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2023-03.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache

Summary of open discussions

Current requests

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Presentations at CSIS

I created a subcategory for presentations AT an institution. Just speak up if this seems to be a bad approach.

The issue I'm trying to address is this: The category for the institution itself gets clogged up otherwise. In my example (Category:Center for Strategic and International Studies), that category has 96 photos, few of which are actually focused on the building, or the staff, or the history of the institution itself. Instead they are photos of some notable visitor who gave a speech. The usefulness of such photos is to cover the notable person or topic, not the host institution. We could move most of these photos down into the "presentations" subcategory, if we agree it should stay.

Similar examples of other host institutions, not all of which have this exact problem but where one could imagine taking the same approach: Category:National Press Club, United States, Category:Brookings Institution, Category:Cato Institute, Category:American Enterprise Institute, and generally other subcategories of Category:Think tanks. -- econterms (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Econterms: Thank you for developing this solution. I think it is a good use of subcategorization. Any institution with more than a few images of presentations vs. images of the institution itself would be a valid target for this strategy. One tweak though:

Rename Category:Presentations at CSIS to Category:Presentations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

Proper name should be used and should match parent category name per category naming policy and Hierarchic Principle. Josh (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Done! -- econterms (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cragside House

What's the difference between this and the estate? Should the house categories be moved here and the estate category be for the wider estate? Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Last runs

I think this category should be reviewed with Last day of operation events, because there is no definition of what counts as a last run of a type of vehicle, as opposed to the last day of service of a type of vehicle.

I think we need to consider what counts as a last run as opposed to the last day of service. Alternatively, there may be a need to merge categories although I am not suggesting this now due to lack of consensus. Minoa (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. You made me think about it and indeed there are two different matters being subsumed here, which would be good to split apart:

Consider this photo: It shows the last day of service of Lisbon’s bus route 745, operated by one of CCFL’s MAN buses. Did they scrap this bus the next day, or was it assigned to other routes? Rhethorical question: The latter happened.
On the other hand, consider this photo: It shows Brussels’ 7161 tram car on STIB/MIVB’s route 39, the day before the 7000 series was scrapped. Did they cancel route 39 along with it? Again: no.

Indeed we can be certain that the last run of a certain vehicle or series and the last operation day of a given route service are only the same in unusual situations — either wholesale ceasing of a given public transport network, or the closure of a system which has very specific vehicles, such as a funicular.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good think about this and I came up with a potential category structure:

Last day in service events Last day in service of airports Last day in service of vehicles — that includes aircraft Last day in service of operators Last day in service of routes Last day in service of stations — trains and buses

--Minoa (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War in Bakhmut, 2022

redundant category, because there is already this category: Category:Battle of Bakhmut (2022–2023) Jnmths (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that when we need to rename categories, we rename them and do not create duplicate categories. But we really can replace the first category with the second, especially if we are sure that the battle will end in 2023. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I thought too. Neither of the categories was created by me. Jnmths (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Draft environmental impact statements for vegetation management

This is "timber sale" DEIS, not an ambiguous "vegetative management." Timber sales are common on U. S. western federal lands. Ooligan (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ooligan, thanks for initiating the discussion. I created a subcategory for timber sales and moved the file in question (File:Emerald bay timber sale - draft environmental impact statement (IA CAT11084316).pdf) into that subcategory of Vegetation Management. I agree that "timber sales" are a form of vegetation management and that vegetation management encompasses a broader context of silvicultural, range management, hazardous fuel reduction, non-native invasive plant species management activities. I don't mean to "greenwash" timber sales and be sensitive to accurate and precise categorization in Wikimedia Commons.

I went and found another specifically "Vegetation Management" entitled DEIS and added it to the category as a "seed" file. I believe strongly in the "if you build it, they will come" Field of Dreams approach- setting up a sound category structure and then categorizing files within that structure. Muell132 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Enamul Haque Palash

non-notable topic and promotional content IMO. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany

This category was recently redirected to Category:Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands by User:Chaddy because supposedly "All other categories of German policial parties have a German title." Which is clearly nonsense since there are multiple categories in Category:Communist parties in Germany that are in English. Even if that were not the case though, as far as I know it's perfectly fine to transliterate names into English in cases where the English name is commonly used. In this case "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany" has 650,000 hits on Google search. The name in both Wikidata and Wikipedia are also in English. Plus, the party itself goes by "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany" in multiple places. Including in this document from it's own website. So at least as far as I can tell there's zero reason to not have the name of the category be in English. That said, User:Chaddy thinks it should be in German. Otherwise, according to them it's vandalism and not "how a collaborative project works." I don't really feel like being falsely accused of committing vandalism or doing uncollaborative editing just because I was following the guidelines. So I thought I'd start a discussion about it to see what other people think. Should the name of the category be in English since it's commonly used that way in accordance with how we name categories in every other instance? Or should there be a special exception from the norm in this case by having the name in German? Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though first view might tell otherwise, "Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands" is definitively a proper name, and thereby the cat should carry exactly that name, as is the case with the categories of all other political parties of Germany, see Category:Political parties in Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my and Jmabel's comments in the other discussion. The policy doesn't say proper names have a blanket exception from the rule. What it says is that "some" do. The question is if the names of categories for German political parties should be an exception or not, which is why I started this discussion. It's fine if you or anyone else thinks the name should be German. It would be good not to miss-represent what the policy says in the process though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You two are wrong, see Commons:Forum#Sprachenfrage bei Kategoriennamen deutscher Parteien. Let us please end this dispute now. -- Chaddy (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has now been split over at least three different venues. I will reiterate the relevant policy, from Commons:Categories#Category names (bolding mine): "Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version)." I believe my only significant other remark on anything other than process was, "For most of these parties there is, indeed, a common English-language name."

When you say I am "wrong": are you saying I am misquoting policy? That there are not common English-language names for the German parties? That something else I said was wrong (in which case please provide a diff and say how I erred)? Saying non-specifically "you are wrong" is not a likely way to move toward a consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 22:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the linked discussion. -- Chaddy (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaddy: There is a difference between "I disagree with you" and "you are wrong". This conversation has been made much more complicated to follow by you splitting this discussion across three venues, and is all the more so when instead of answering my question here, you tell me to look at one of the others. But, to be honest, I still cannot tell on what point you are saying I am wrong. I think you are saying that your interpretation of the policy I quoted is one that means this category name could stay in German, but that in no way means I have misquoted the policy. For the record, at no point in this discussion did I take a stand on what conclusion should be reached. Again, and more bluntly this time: you are not behaving like a person who is trying to reach a consensus; you are behaving like someone who wants this to be a fight so he can feel in the end like he won it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not split this discussion across three venues. I just tried to clarify things with Adamant1 first and later on I posted an informational comment about the discussion on Adamant1's discussion page in the Forum (this was necessary because consequently most categories for German parties would have to be renamed). This third venue here was opened by Adamant1 and I also didn't know about it first. It turned out that I didn't get a notification about Adamant1's message on my discussion page (or I missed it).

"you are not behaving like a person who is trying to reach a consensus; you are behaving like someone who wants this to be a fight so he can feel in the end like he won it." - Do you really think so much ABF is appropriate for a sysop? I want to add that you started with accusations ([1]). Maybe I completely misunderstood you and I am sorry if I did. But whether I did or not it will not be helpful to escalate this any further.

In the discussion in the Forum Túrelio proved that it is absolutely common to use the local names for party categories (it is also done at least for French, Dutch, Italian and Spanish parties). This leads to the conclusion that Adamant1's interpretation of the policy is not correct. There is no need to use the English names for these categories as also the policy itself says that there is an exception for ("some") proper names. The word "some" makes the policy a bit vague (which proper names are meant? which not?) but the fact that local names for party categories are broadly used is a proof that "some" may also include the proper names of political parties. You on the other hand - at least I understood it this way and if I got him right also Adamant1 understood it in a similar way - seemed to support Adamant1's view ([2]). That is what I meant with "you are wrong". -- Chaddy (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The forum shopping by Chaddy really isn't conducive to this getting resolved. It would have been much better to just have a single discussion in this CfD instead of spreading it over multiple forums. More so since you clearly started the discussion on the German Village Pump as a run around to participating in the CfD since you know people there will be more sympathetic your position. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will inform other German users about a discussion concerning most German parties. We would have to rename most German party categories (and also French, Italien, Spanish, Dutch and so on as Túrelio found out later) if your interpretation of this policy would be right. -- Chaddy (talk)

You didn't just inform other German users about the discussion though. You used that discussion as a run around to the discussion happening here. Hell, you didn't even mention this in your original comment. So the claim that you were informing German users about it's existence is just laughable. You clearly started that discussion as a run around to this one. That's why your saying in the German forum that this shouldn't be discussed beyond the two Germans who responded to your comment. Otherwise, you would have just alerted the village pump about this conversation, left it at that, and had the conversation here. Instead of not talking about here and trying to squash further discussion of the topic the second a couple of German speakers agreed with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention what? This discussion here? It didn't even know about this here until Túrelio posted the link in the Forum. It turned out that I didn't get a notification about your message on my discussion page (or I missed it).

"That's why your saying in the German forum that this shouldn't be discussed beyond the two Germans who responded to your comment" - I never said something like that. Maybe you mean my hint that I don't see any need for any further discussion about this specific category (-> Category:Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands). The discussion in the Forum proved that it is absolutely common to use the local names for party categories (it is also done at least for French, Dutch, Italian and Spanish parties). This leads to the conclusion that your interpretation of the policy is not correct. There is no need to use the English names for these categories as also the policy itself says that there is an exception for ("some") proper names. The word "some" makes the policy a bit vague (which proper names are meant? which not?) but the fact that local names for party categories are broadly used is a proof that "some" may also include the proper names of political parties. I really don't see any gain in discussing any further about this specific category.

If you want to discuss the policy itself we need another procedure. We actually agree in one point: The word "some" makes the policy unclear. But this is a problem with the policy itself, not with this specific category. For this specific category there is only one logical conclusion at the moment: a revert to the German name du to several reasons. -- Chaddy (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't even know about this here until Túrelio posted the link in the Forum. Yet you've also said in previous comments that you started that discussion "to inform other German users about this discussion." So you started the discussion on the German Village pump to inform other Germans about a CfD that you weren't even aware exited at the time? OK. Sure dude. I'm more then to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know about the CfD when you started the discussion the German Village pump, but then your claim that you started to to inform other Germans about the CfD is clearly false.

Maybe you mean my hint that I don't see any need for any further discussion You didn't just "hint" that you didn't see a need to discuss this any further. You told me to revert the edits because there was a supposedly a consensus to have the name in German. That's not just "hinting" that you think the topic doesn't need to be discussed anymore.

your interpretation of the policy is not correct. You've had exact quotes from the policy quoted to you multiple times now, including by me. No one is "interpreting" the policy. I know I'm definitely not. People could have both named the categories for German political parties in German and the policy can still say there are exceptions from the naming rule for proper nouns in cases where the English name is commonly used. They aren't mutually exclusive. Although, I agree that the policy is a bit vague, that's why I started this CfD. I disagree that it's not the right place or procedure to discuss it though. CfDs exist for the sole purpose of clarifying things and resolving disputes like this one. That doesn't mean we can't move it up further in the discussion process after this particular dispute is resolved. The extremely bad faithed, insulting, and pushy way you handled this kind of made a CfD necessary. I'm perfectly fine with letting this run it's natural course and then starting another CfD further up the line once it's sorted out though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"So you started the discussion on the German Village pump to inform other Germans about a CfD" - You are mistaken unfortunately. I clearly posted a link to your discussion page, not to this discussion here. You don't need be be able to read German to see that: [3]. And later after Túrelio posted the link I was surprised, as you can see here (I admit in this case you need German knowledges): [4] ("Oh, diese Diskussion hatte ich gar nicht gesehen" translates as "Oh, I didn't see this discussion at all").

"but then your claim that you started to to inform other Germans about the CfD is clearly false" - I did never claim that. I said that I wanted to inform the readers of the Forum about "the discussion". And "the discussion" was the discussion on your private discussion page. I really think it is very clear what I meant. And I also don't know why this would be relevant at all.

"You told me to revert the edits" - Yes, I did and I still do. I already explained why and there is really no need to discuss about this specific category any further.

"I disagree that it's not the right place or procedure to discuss it though." - As I said: If you really wanted to discuss the policy we need to discuss the policy itself. But here in a discussion with the title "Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany" we obviously discuss this specific category. 🤷‍♂️ But you insist to discuss it here and this leads to the logical conclusion that you don't really want to discuss the policy but just this specific category.

"The extremely bad faithed, insulting, and pushy way you handled this kind of" - So, what do you mean by this? Your edit-warring? Your reluctance to use the edit summary? ([5], [6]) Your false blamings against me here? You are the one that behaves bad faithed, insulting, and pushy. You refuse to accept every single argument, even the fact that it is the standard procedure to use the local party names for categories ([7]). You are unwilling to step up to other language minorities in this project. You just want this category to have an English name, no matter what the cost. And that's not how a multilanguage project like Commons can function. You have to accept this. -- Chaddy (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but I told you on my talk page that I opened the CfD before you started the conversation on the German Village Pump. Plus your clearly following edits made to Category:Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany. So I doubt you would have missed the notification when I added it to the category. But sure dude, you must have missed it even though you've had zero problem reverting my edits and responding to messages in the meantime. Whatever. Either way, the reason you starting the other discussion is relevant is because the place to discuss disputes over how to name categories is in CfDs, not random village pumps, and spreading the discussion over multiple forums isn't helpful. Especially if one of them is clearly partisan to your position and that's your choosing to treat as authoritative over the others. That's also what makes it forum shopping BTW, because it's a place where there's a better chance of you getting a more favorable judgment about this then you probably would in a regular CfD.

If you really wanted to discuss the policy we need to discuss the policy itself. I'm not here to discuss the policy and never claimed I was. I'm here to discuss if the name of the category should be English or German, which the policy matters to, but that doesn't mean the discussion is about "the policy." There's also a huge difference between the dispute we got into about how to name the category and if the specifics of the policy should clarified or not. They aren't mutually exclusive. One of or the main reasons I started this discussion is because you pushed the issue and accused of edit warring and committing vandalism. According to the guideline editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. A CfD is one way to do that. Otherwise I could have just reported you to ANU over the false allegations, but I thought this was the more reasonable way to get outside opinions. Either way, your the one who turned this into a dispute. I didn't. I was perfectly fine with settling it in a sane, congenial way on my talk page. You weren't. So it was either this or an ANU complaint. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for parties should use the original name. Translating names of parties is uncommon in publications in general. GPSLeo (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and Wikidata of political parties should be named by the proper name in the language of their country. And perhaps we need to discuss this imperialistic policy somewhere else. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's anything like a universal. For example, the Romanian-language contributors have been quite diligent about turning categories for not only Romanian party names but names of public squares in Romania, etc. into English even when I, as a native English speaker have said for the public squares, "no, really, no one calls it that, even in English". - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so then let the Romanian-language contributors do it as they think it is best for them and let the French-, Spanish-, Dutch-, Italian- and German-language contributors do it as they think it is best for them, too. It could be so easy. -- Chaddy (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we need to discuss this imperialistic policy somewhere else. Sure, "imperialist policies" (whatever the hell that means) suck and should probably be discussed if there are any. So does nationalist POV editing though. like 50% of Germans use English in their every day communications and Germany is like the 10th highest country for English language proficiency in the world. If you confined that to German users of Commons I'm sure it would be much higher. Yet they make up what like 4% of contributors to the project? And literally no one else in the world speaks German. Yet we all speak English perfectly fine, including Germans. Hell, a lot of Germans on here speak English better then native speakers of the language do. Including myself. But sure dude, having the names of categories in a language that most people in Germany speak proficiently and use on a daily basis is imperialist. Right. Also, dismissing a policy that insures most people in the world can contribute to whatever areas of the project they are interested in (including Germans BTW) as "imperialist" is just laughable. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"dismissing a policy" - As you yourself have pointed out this discussion here is not about the policy. And besides of that: No one wants to dismiss this policy. It was just shown that this policy does not apply for this specific case here.

"that insures most people in the world can contribute to whatever areas of the project they are interested in" - Using the correct proper names instead of translations does not hinder anyone in contributing to whatever areas of the project they are interested in. That is a nonsense argument. As I already wrote rather using the English names complicates contributing because then you first have to find out the correct English translation before you can search. And in addition there exist those language templates with which you can easily add a description to every category in any language you want. That is much more useful than forcing English category names where they are not reasonable. -- Chaddy (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was just shown that this policy does not apply for this specific case here. Where exactly was that shown? No one who thinks the name of the category should be German has given a single reason why except for "because German", which doesn't do anything to show the policy doesn't apply in this case. You sure haven't. Be my guest and make an actual argument for why it would be better for the name to be German beside just crying foul about it being vandalism or whatever though. I'm more then willing to revert my edit and close this if you or any of the other German users can give a valid reason why I should beyond something that just comes off like German nationalist POV editing.

Like you say having it in German is much more useful than "forcing" English category names where they are not reasonable, cool. How exactly is it useful for the name to be in German and what makes it so unreasonable for the name to be in English? Like I've said most or all German users speak English just fine. Wikidata, Wikipedia, the party itself, 650,000 hits on Google search also have the name in English. It's ridiculous to claim it would be unreasonable or not useful for the name to be in English when literally everyone on here speaks English and that's how every other project, the party itself, and Google Search have it. Be my guest and tell me how it's unreasonable and not useful for the name to be in English though. In the meantime, I'd love to know how it's reasonable for you to force the 99% of users on here who don't speak German to have to find the name of the party in German instead of English. Again, German users can find the party perfectly fine either way because they speak English. It's everyone else who doesn't speak German that's getting screwed here if the name isn't in English. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"No one who thinks the name of the category should be German has given a single reason why except for "because German"" - Of course this was shown. What is your discussion strategy? Writing as much text as possible so that no one is able to find any arguments again?

"I'm more then willing to revert my edit and close this if you or any of the other German users can give a valid reason why I should" - Then do it. I have asked you already to do so days ago.

"How exactly is it useful for the name to be in German and what makes it so unreasonable for the name to be in English?" - I have answered this already, too. -- Chaddy (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this was shown Why not summarize it for me then and answer the question I asked about how it's unreasonable and not useful for the name to be in English instead of deflecting? Look Chaddy, this dispute isn't going to move forward to any meaningful degree or get resolved if you won't even answer simple questions or at least acknowledge the things people tell you. To the degree that I've written a lot of text, it's only because I've had to repeat myself multiple because you've ignored what I've said. Like I've said six times, German users speak English. So again, how is it unreasonable and not useful for the name to be in English? It's not that difficult of a question. The ridiculously bad faithed why you've handled this is the only reason it's even an issue at this point. So answer the question and lets move this forward. Otherwise I'll revert the edit when people who are willing to discuss it in a good faithed, reasonable way comment and there's a consensus to. I don't really have anything else to say about it this point if your just going to repeatedly ignore what I say though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"if you won't even answer simple questions" - I already did several times. Your are the one that ignores every argument. I will not play your game any longer. It already took too long. -- Chaddy (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it is might be easy to find a proper translation. But if you translate the name in one case you have to translate the name in all cases. One example Category:Bündnis 90/Die Grünen: Should this be "Union 90","Alliance 90" or "Confederation 90". And "The Green" or "The Greens". And should the T and the G be in uppercase or not. It is much simpler to use the original name. Also in this case: Where does the "of" in the English translation come from? GPSLeo (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if you translate the name in one case you have to translate the name in all cases. Not really. This isn't an all or nothing, black and white thing. It depends on if the name is commonly used in English or not. Otherwise your just creating a fait accompli thing where the policy can be ignored because of how other categories are named. It's perfectly fine to have some in English and some in German though depending what the common usage is per the policy. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly where there is no English-language name that is commonly used, we should stick to the German. I think the policy I quoted above is pretty clear on that. And, so far, for this particular case, I believe no one has established firmly whether or not there is an English-language name commonly used for this rather minor party. For some of the major parties, I think it's clearer, though. Many German parties have an English-language name that is used consistently even by the party itself when it communicates in English.

In any case, whether we opt for English or German where both are used, a soft redirect from the other is almost certainly in order. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the policy is not so clear as I already have explained. And as already was said a dozend times not only by me: It is obviously common law to use the original names, not the English names. You can not ignore this.

But somehow or other, this is a discussion about the policy itself. But we do and can not discuss the policy itself here in this discussion but only this specific category. -- Chaddy (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already have explained: you seem to be presuming that you have a correct understanding of the policy, and that no one else here does unless they agree with you, and that you are merely "explaining" while those you disagree with are "wrong" and you are in an objective place to say so. May I suggest, once again, that the goal here is to try to reach a consensus, and that constantly reiterating the same point, and replying to requests for clarification by saying, effectively, that you have already given an answer, is not the way to get there?
At this point, I'm going to duck out of this conversation, post at COM:AN, and see if a different administrator would like to take over attempting to moderate this discussion, because while I am still neutral on the outcome, I have ceased to be able to be neutral on the personalities. - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not what I have said. I never said that I have a correct understanding of the policy and no one else does. I said that the common law proofes that it is usual to give the categories the original names, not the English ones. And so there is no reason to proceed here in a different way. That is the important point. If we would want to go any further we would have to discuss the policy itself which in fact is unclear. But this is not possible here because this discussion here is solely about this specific category. And Adamant1 also doesn't want to discuss the policy ([8]). So please don't blame me for this cirumstance.

And no, it is completely useless to answer already answered questions over and over again. This wouldn't take us any further, it just leads us to moving in a circle. -- Chaddy (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe no one has established firmly whether or not there is an English-language name commonly used for this rather minor party. I think I established that with how it is in named in Wikidata, Wikipedia, the amount of Google search hits that show up for "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany", and the fact that the party calls itself that on it's website. Like you say, it's a fairly small party. So I don't know what more evidence we need. It's certainly enough for Wikidata and Wikipedia to have the name in English, and I know at least Wikidata is pretty strict about those kinds of things. Sure, many German parties use the English-language name when communicating in English. But that's not the only or main metric here. At least for me there's 7 times more results on Google Search for "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany" then "Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands." Or 711,000 results for the English name versus 106,000 for the German. So I don't know how anyone can reasonably argue the English name isn't common. The only issue is maybe the "of" thing. Correct or not though, that's how must places on the internet seem to translate it including other Wikimedia projects and we aren't here to be linguistics. Although I could see an argument for leaving "of" out of the name, but it's obviously a separate issue to if it should be in English or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is the other way round: Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany: 10.200, Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands: 43.400.

Concerning the "of": That actually seems to be part of the party's self-given English name: [9]. -- Chaddy (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of the modifiers. I highly doubt there's some 60,000 results being filtered out just from Wikimedia projects though. Especially given that there's only like 25 files on Commons related to them. Add Wikidata/Wikipedia that's like what 5 more pages including the talk pages? Either way, it's essentially nothing. Not to mention that's not how people search for things anyway. Now that I think about it the modifiers probably filter out any site with the name of the party and the names Wikipedia/Wikidata/Commons, which would include plenty of legitimate websites. Not that I think there's some 60,000 websites that use the name of the party and Wikipedia/Wikidata/Commons in the same article or even website though. So I don't see how your numbers are an indicator of anything either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? These modifiers, especially "-Wikipedia", are nessary to filter out Wikipedia clones like i. e. [10]. But also without these modifiers the results are completely different than yours: "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany": 30.000, "Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands": 55.000. -- Chaddy (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So there's upwards of a million clone websites of Wikipedia out there? OK, sure. I'd like to see some reliable states on that. Even if I buy it though the key phrase here is "commonly used", not "most popular." I'm sure you get the difference. If there were 70,000 results for "Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands" and 699,999 "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany" it obviously wouldn't mean the English name isn't common used. Although I still think your search results are bunk. Same goes for putting the names in quotes. I can do that when searching for files on Commons all the time and it will often filter out perfectly legitimate results. Same goes for Google Search. You can use search modifiers to make a search box fit whatever narrative you want it to. That doesn't negate the fact that the name of the party is commonly in English. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if I do a Google Search for "Online map" I get 12,850,000,000 results. If I do one for the same term minus the word "OpenStreetMap" I get 7,130,000,000 though. You'd have to agree there aren't 7 million copies of the OpenStreetMap website that it's filtering out. So your clearly wrong that it's just filtering out clones of Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Have we now to discuss how to use Google correctly? -- Chaddy (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we are discussing it is because your claiming it's filtering out results in a way that it clearly isn't. Be my guest and drop it. Like I said this doesn't have anything to do with which name has the most Google Search hits anyway. I know it's a good way for you to not address the fact that the name is common in English, but I could really care less about the biennial minutia of how search filters work. It's completely irrelevant to the conversation. Except you seem to have nothing else to argue about at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Like I said this doesn't have anything to do with which name has the most Google Search hits anyway." - You brought in the Google search hits as an argument. -- Chaddy (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To show that the name is common in English. Not so we could get in a super pedantic and pointless discussion about how search filters work. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again: It was you who started the discussion about the search filters.

Okay, I think I have to explain this more accurately: You have doubted my usage of modifiers and quotation marks. As I already have said those are nessary. I. e. the "" prevents search results in which all parts of "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany" are contained but not actually the name "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany". Here is an example: This page is shown as a result when I search without the quotation marks. The page contains all words I have searched for but actually in different grammatical forms like "Marxism-Leninism". And it does not contain the name "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany". Without the modifiers you get a lot of false positives. That is how Google works and that is also the reason for your wrong search result you have posted above. - It is okay that you didn't know this but there is absolutely no reason to think that my search results were "bunk" or that I just wanted to manipulate them. -- Chaddy (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again: It was you who started the discussion about the search filters. I mentioned them because you used them in your search. It wasn't a discussion about search filters though. Just like it wasn't a discussion about Wikipedia, Wikidata, or Commons even though we both mentioned them. The only reason it became a discussion about search filters is because you turned it into one. Again though, I don't care about the biennial minutia of how search filters work. I just disagree that's it doing filtering things the you say it is. That's it. Your the one arguing about it because you clearly have nothing else at this point. I'm done discussing it though. So drop the stick. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I just disagree that's it doing filtering things the you say it is." - Wtf? Yes, it really is better to end this... -- Chaddy (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article directly from Google to exclude words from your search "Put - in front of a word you want to leave out. For example, jaguar speed -car", which is exactly what I said using the negative symbol before a word does. But sure dude, Google doesn't know how their own search engine works and putting a - in front of the word Wikipedia just excludes Wikipedia clones from the search results. Whatever you say. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear... Of course it does this. That is the whole point of it.

Look there if you don't believe me: [11]. -- Chaddy (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's purely to filter out specific words from the search. Like the article I linked to says if you want to search a specific website you have to use site:whatever. So to search Wikipedia for "Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany" You'd do search for "site:wikipedia.org Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany", which only gives results from Wikipedia. The same goes for if you want to exclude Wikipedia from the search results, except you'd use the negative symbol before site:Wikipedia.org. I assume just like I did here. Sure, just using the negative symbol before the word "Wikipedia" filters out search results from Wikipedia that contain the word "Wikipedia" in the article, but it also filters out every other website that contains the word. So the article you read is wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: it only filters out pages that contain the word, not sites. - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think at least in the case of Wikipedia it would functionally be the same thing since most or all pages on the site say "Wikipedia" somewhere on them. Sure though, it filters out pages that contain the word, not sites. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

opinions advocating for non-english latin-alphabet proper names as cat titles would create a problem for non-latin-alphabet languages.
should names in those languages then use a transliteration in latin, or still their popular english names? Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (Q99233271) be Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan or Rikken-minshuto?
using translated names has one downside. sometimes the same name can have different english translations because the subject didnt come up with an official english name.
MLPD is a fringe party anyway, so it's hard to find mainstream english news coverage of it, but let's take a look at the major parties (the six in bundestag).
if you search "germany party site:bbc.com" or reuters.com, apnews.com, npr.org... you'll see english news always use an english name, "social democrats", "christian democratic union", "green party"... commons cats are all using their german names currently.
personally, i prefer the "common usage" test. a fixed rule specifying either the proper name in the original language or the english name is impractical. for example, the two most important parties in the republic of china are known as the "communist party of china" (translation instead of its transliteration "gongchandang") and kuomintang (transliteration instead of its english translation "nationalist party"). that's just how the reality is.
if we apply the "common usage" test, those major german parties should be moved to their english names.
MLPD is not well known anyway so it can stay at the german name, but since it has an official/commonly used english name it can also use the english name without ambiguity, so it depends on comons users' overall preference.

RZuo (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On your point three: The problem is that two of the tree examples you made are not translations of the name. "social democrats" is the description of the political spectrum of the party, same with "green party". And this is how most articles are written, they do not mention the name of the party they only mention the political spectrum of the party. "The socialist party won the election." "The conservatives won the election." In some cases it is not even this, there news shows talk about "The governing party won the election." GPSLeo (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"social democrats" are members of the "social democratic party". in german you guys have the same terminology. fdp call themselves "freie demokraten" even though the party name is "Freie Demokratische Partei" https://www.fdp.de/seite/impressum . that doesnt change the fact that there are commonly used/official english names for these parties. RZuo (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But not all social democrats are members of the "social democratic party" some are also member of other parties. And many liberal people are not member of the "Freie Demokratische Partei". And commonly used term is not a good argument for category naming, then we would have to rename many categories in the filed of natural sciences. GPSLeo (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dont shift the goalposts. when you refer to the "social democrats", "green party", etc. in news articles, they refer to those exact parties.

read your own country's websites

https://www.bundestag.de/en/parliament/groups

https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/these-are-the-various-parties-positions

they clearly have unique english names.

the cat for govt is at Category:Federal Government of Germany instead of cat:Bundesregierung. RZuo (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in a news articles. But we are not a news article we are an archive and archives need to use more exact terms for describing the content. I think we should not treat the names of institutions and organizations the same as they are totally different. As this is a mayor question affecting some hundred categories this should be discussed on Commons:Village pump/Proposals. GPSLeo (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"more exact terms"

so you think "Social Democratic Party of Germany" (lifted from https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Beschluesse/Grundsatzprogramme/hamburger_programm_englisch.pdf ) is less exact than "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands"?

there exists a "Social Democratic Party of Germany" that's not "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands"? an "Alternative for Germany" that's not "Alternative für Deutschland"? RZuo (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

archives need to use more exact terms for describing the content. It's actually the opposite. At least it is on Commons. That's why Category:Canis lupus familiaris is a redirect to Category:Dogs. It would be completely ridiculous and unworkable if people had to find images of animals by searching for the scientific names just because its more exact. I image that's probably why the policy is what it is. This still needs to be navigable by the general population of internet users. No one would use the site if they were forced into finding categories or images based on the exact naming of the topic just because we are an archive or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Bundesregierung" is not a proper name. -- Chaddy (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Es gibt oder gab nie eine Partei mit diesem Namen. Punktum. Ist schon eine Zumutung, das sich hier alle in der Sprache des Störers melden müssen. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the English language article, the Wikidata page and everything else is wrong about the English-language name for this party? If that is the objection, then say that is the objection rather than this bizarre "we must use German" fight because you don't want to fight all the sources over this name for the party. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My main interests are media related to companies and postcards - so keep out of other countries parties. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, OK dude. I'll get right on that as soon as you stay out of other countries DRs. Oh yeah, and as soon as you also stop adding English, Spanish, and French captions to files. Also, stop uploading images of American generals to. Then maybe I will keep out of other countries parties. I'm good until then though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can come to an end now. And because this discussion was still constantly flooded with comments, my arguments gradually became invisible. So however I will just try to sum them up again:
Using the original names instead of English translations would make it more easy to find the party categories because this way you don't need to find out the English translation first.
I also want to warn of a too heavily Anglo-American focused view here. Commons is an international project and should also consider other views.
And (almost) all other parties from Germany, Italy, Spain, France and the Netherlands (and probably more) have their original names in our category system. So I don't see why this single category should differ from this.
Furthermore this category here already had a German title until last year when the category was moved without any discussion. So why do we need a discussion now to revert the thing back to the original status? If at all we should discuss here if the category should be moved to the English title - not the other way round.
Last but not least the policy some people here refer to excludes proper names (but only "some" to be honest which makes the policy quite vague). Of course this here is a proper name. I though agree that we should discuss the vague policy itself. But that can't be done here in this discussion. -- Chaddy (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's an eurocentric opinion, or more specifically, germanocentric.

should political parties with non-latin-script names then use their names in original languages?

if so, should organisations other than parties use their names in original languages?

if so, should concepts other than organisations, such as people's names, use their names in original languages?

then what about concepts that have names in multiple languages and/or in different writing systems? Category:SBB-CFF-FFS has three official names in french, german and italian. Category:Singapore has four official names, two of which are written in kanji and tamil scripts. Category:Japanese Embassy, Seoul has two official names, neither of which is written in latin.

i'm sick of this "germans have their own special way" mindset. austrians dont have the same problem Category:Political parties in Austria.--RZuo (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japan doesn't have the problem either and people aren't even super fluent in the language there. Same goes for South Korea, Singapore, and China. Hell, even some or most of the categories for political parties in middle eastern countries like Egypt, Afghanistan, and Lebanon are in English. So this seems to be a mostly, if not exclusively, eastern European issue. I'm not going to go as far as chalking it up to a "German mindset", but they do seem to be the main people who have an issue with category names for political parties being in English at this point. Plus the way they have handled it has been rather petty.

In the meantime, the whole thing about how the party would be easier to find if the name was in German just seems like a bad excuse. None of the countries that I've listed where the names are in English don't seem to have an issue with it. Most of the people from those countries aren't fluent in English either. Whereas, Germans are perfectly capable of speaking English they just don't want to. Personally, I think they should just have to deal with it like most everyone else seems to. Also Chaddy, you repeatedly demanding this be closed in your favor is just gettingtendentious . I'd appreciate it if you stopped making demands and let this play out without bludgeoning the discussion by repeating the same talking points you've already said multiple times. These can take time sometimes. That's life. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germany, Italy, Spain, France and the Netherlands are eastern european?

"and let this play out without bludgeoning the discussion by repeating the same talking points you've already said multiple times" - Really? Above you were unhappy because I didn't want to answer your ever same questions about topics I already have answered over and over again. Now you are unhappy because I answer your questions? And who is bludgeoning the discussion? I just wanted to collect and to sum up my argumentes and immediatly you two start to flood and derail the discussion again with the ever same points. -- Chaddy (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously not. The problem is that there's no middle Europe. It's either Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are the Western European countries, then everything else to the east like Poland that isn't really "Eastern" gets screwed in the process or the UK is Western Europe and everything to the east of that is Eastern Europe. Although I guess it's not as much of an issue now that the UK isn't part of the EU, but whatever. And yes I know that they were northern European when they were, but it doesn't negate the point. Either way, I thought saying it was an "Eastern European" issue was at least better then just exclusively blaming Germans. My bad. It seems like your just looking for things to get upset about. Like me asking you to stop bludgeoning. I don't really care if you have an opinion, but you've already said like 7 times now that you want this to be closed and the name to be German. We get it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rzuo raises a valid point about political parties in countries that don't use the Latin alphabet. There isn't a reason to give Europeans special treatment as far as categorizing party names in the official language of the country of origin and not do the same for other nations. English is the lingua franca of Commons, and much like Latin for the naming of taxa (plural of taxon), it would be the best commonly used and understood language for the categories of political parties here. Abzeronow (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a problem having files in categories with non Latin symbols? We can create redirects for translations and transliterations. I would prefer to also name all location categories by the original name. But that is nothing to discuss on this page. GPSLeo (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose such a conclusion if that is how this discussion is closed. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me like the point in category redirects is for them to act as an ad hoc translation tool. Wouldn't it just needlessly add complexity and over complicate things anyway? Like where does it end? We put the name in German, redirect the English. Then someone who speaks Chinese wants a redirect for their language and so and so forth until its just redirects all the way down. How is that at all helpful or useful? At least with things being in English people usually know what to expect and have a default language to do their searches in no matter what the subject is. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The general overall large consensus is English language names for categories but the pages can be whatever names we want (compare मुंबई with Category:Mumbai). I see no reason why political parties or specifically why German political parties should become a special exception. It seems incredibly -centric that the parties in Category:Political parties in the People's Republic of China or Category:Political parties in India are in English while Germany-related parties are in German. We should have a redirect from the German-language name to the current category because (a) redirects are cheap and (b) it is most likely that a German-language uploader will need to pick a category and will pick the German-language version of the political party name. It makes little sense to put a redirect from the Japanese translation even though there is actually a Japanese article on this party but if it amuses people to create those redirects in the oddball change a Japanese-language speaking uploader has images related to this German political party, so be it. I don't care about ad hoc translations so much as what is the best way to avoid a bunch of red links from people who are obviously going to aware of the right category and shouldn't have to memorize the English-language transaction. If you want to have a larger discussion, nominate every category you propose to rename to your system and notify everyone rather than play games in a German-select group of speakers without even telling them what the discussion is about and then fighting in a single CFD. What does any of this argument have to do with organizing media about this political party? This is known as d:Q499632 anyways. Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany doesn't even exist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case anyone wants to participate GPSLeo seems to have started a proposal related to this at the Village pump. I guess they didn't like how this was turning out after Ricky81682's keep vote and decided to use it as yet another run around. Either way, the more participants in the discussion the better. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Prague (1848-1918)

Delete category and upmerge content into Prague in the 19th century and Prague in the 20th century per standard century-decade-year scheme. Josh (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International Van of the Year

Previously nominated at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Van of the Year

Nominating main cat and subcats for deletion
I originally thought all images in this category were at this event however after creating the year subcats and then doing some research online there doesn't seem to be any events - All vehicles in this category are at completely different events (mostly Category:IAA), Whilst the images mention International Van of the year none appear to specifically be at this event - just images hand picked by the uploaders,

There doesn't appear to be any events of this (I'm guessing these are Zoom meetings) and articles on project can include images of vehicles so there's no need for this category, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 19:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fridays for Future

Proposed merging it with Category:School strikes for climate as FFF is just an alternative name for the latter one A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both categories could be merged. No problem with that. The question is which one should stay as a remaining category. FFF already has a lot of subcategories, what implies a much bigger workload. Unless you have a bot for that... Javier Carro (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Fridays for Future" is the name of the worldwide organisations who organise school strikes, global climate strikes, protests, demonstrations, camps, workshops, crowdfunding, donation campaigns and more. This "mother category" is also needed for the individual activists, for the subdivisions and spin-off groups like Parents for Future‎, Omas for Future‎, QueersForFuture‎, Scientists for Future, ...

Merging FFF into Ssfc would be like merging Cat:Volkswagen into Cat:Volkswagen Beetle. --S I 22:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since starting this discussion, user:A1Cafel has removed nearly 20 subcategories from the FFF-cat, leaving the impression of a less populated category. As this does not help for this discussion, please stop until we have a decision here. --S I 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep different actions.

Category:School strikes for climate
- Category:Global Climate Strike
- Category:Fridays for Future
- ...
- ... the actions of School strikes for climate took place not only on Fridays, but also on other days of the week

And other arguments like user:Schmarrnintelligenz. Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 08:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Satellite pictures of tropical cyclones in Mozambique

It is difficult to identify the satellite pictures of tropical cyclones in Mozambique (and other countries). As far as I seen many of them are not just depicting Mozambique, but also with other countries. Some of them even do not show Mozambique in the satellite A1Cafel (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel If there are pictures not showing Mozambique there, they just need to be removed. I entirely fail to understand why a category of satellite pictures showing weather events over a country crucial to that country, as tropical storms and cyclones are to Mozambique, would be up to discussion. Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments and memorials to road accidents

Should be split to this and 'Category:Monuments and memorials to people killed in road accidents' (like all the James Dean, Lady Di stuff) Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San José State University

This category and all of its subcategories using "José" with a diacritic need to be changed to "Jose." Their common name does not use an accent mark. The English Wikipedia article is simply San Jose State University, and their sports teams are branded as and known as the San Jose State Spartans. Denniscabrams (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:صورة شخصية، هوية

category name should be translated to English Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Possibly F10. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant/unnecessary. Google Translate gives "Personal photo, identity" as the category name. I re-categorized all the files and this category is now empty. Marbletan (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scripts

looking at the current contents, i think it's best making this a dab. for the computer concept, it can become "scripts (software)"? RZuo (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dabify. Arlo James Barnes 21:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media from MDPI

please delete, duplicates 'Media from MDPI journals' Metacladistics (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exhibitions in France

There is very different content under the Category:Exhibitions in France by year and the Category:World's Fairs in France category trees; and I have no idea how the category tree needs to be best structured.

For example, "my" new Category:Exposition coloniale internationale, Paris 1931 and the existing Category:Exposition Coloniale (1931) don't share parent categories that would have prevented the duplicate categorization (there was no "expositions in France in 1931", for example). Shouldn't all "world fairs in France" also be "exhibitions in France by year" instead of "events in France by year"? Why are "World exhibitions in Paris" not included in "Exhibitions in Paris by subject"? Etc.

(This doesn't just concern France; I have often encountered problems to correctly find the World Expos in the category tree, but usually I find the correct place eventually.) Enyavar (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I asked myself the same questions. I worked on this category : Category:Exhibitions in France by year. May be it helped? Marc-AntoineV (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia Northwestern Tehcnical College (Floyd County campus)

Deletion, page was created with a typo and quickly moved to the proper name JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military people of the United Kingdom in World War I

Duplicates the scope of Category:Military people of World War I from the United Kingdom. Belbury (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The above is now an empty category, because I have moved its only subcategory to Category:British Army personnel of World War I. Please now delete the above empty category, which, as you say, is a duplicate. Storye book (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mikhail Alexandrovich Yasinovsky

1 person- 1 photo, what for 1 personal Category:Mikhail Alexandrovich Yasinovsky? Category:Physicians from Ukraine, it's useful in this situation Всевидяче Око (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emiliia Burbela

Where is E.Burbella? Translated Name of file - "TNMU - Visit of His Beatitude Sviatoslav - 23021114"- how we know where or who is E.B? Всевидяче Око (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This not correct request for Category. There are questions about a person on file, you can ask on file talk or user talk page. What is the discussion of the category? --Микола Василечко (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I add mark to file. Now can that look at missis Emilia as you wish :) --Микола Василечко (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dirt park

Trying to sort out the intention of this category; I suspect there should be two categories, Category:dirt jumping for the activity, whether in a specifically organized park or not, and Category:Dirt parks (note:plural, the normal standard on Commons) for the parks, even if no one using them at the time. Note that this category is currently connected to Dirt jumping (Q971386), which is about the activity, not the venue. Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Single stripe flags

any difference between this and Category:Flags with one stripe? RZuo (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. I think, Single stripe means "1+1 = 2segments (2elements)" only.
--Benzoyl (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Flags with one stripe		Single stripe flags
	2, 1, 1 0 000	2 and 1 0 000	1 and 1 0
Gr	two green stripes		one green stripe
Ye	one yellow stripe

Wh	one white stripe	x	x

Single stripe flags but, not Bisection flags (Bordered)

--Benzoyl (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia military people of World War II

This Cfd has been opened to address also the other subcategories categories in the main categories Military people of World War I by country, Military people of World War I by country and others.

The user @Rhadamante: , with a disruptive category moving, has broken the consistency of the categorization tree, renaming the categories Country+ military people of World War II whereas the consistent scheme which he has disrupted is Military people of Australia in World War II or of World War II. I have no intention to engage in a frustratring discussion so let's the community find a consistent naming scheme. Which is not this. -- Blackcat 19:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male masturbation before ejaculation

I cannot see the necessity of creating category before manstruation, I don't see much difference between this cat and the main cat, and it is difficult to distinguish visually A1Cafel (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is "manstruation"? (I really don't care about the category either way, but was this some sort of joke?) - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male masturbation after ejaculation

I cannot see the necessity of creating category after manstruation, I don't see much difference between this cat and the main cat A1Cafel (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Switch yards

I don't understand a concept of having this category (Category:Switch yards‎) and categories Category:Classification yards‎ and Category:Rail yards. The description here as well as on WD and interwiki don't seem to be helpful at all. Can anyone explain, which difference between them should be? — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bevrijdingsfestival Winschoten

Why does this have to be deleted rather than be a redirect, what would be wrong with a redirect of this nature which is different only in style and not wrong based on spelling? Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not useful and confusing, people may categorise in this redirect so images are difficult to look for. Jismibro (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When using HotCat it will immediately direct to the category being redirected to. When using the MediaWiki Upload Wizard 🪄 this is currently not the case, but a bot already automatically moves files. Redirects aren't confusing as they serve to clear up confusion when there are alternatives styles and names, for example a translation or the usage of "Of the United States" Vs. "In the United States". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, see comments here: "Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Bevrijdingsfestival (Winschoten)". Same issue. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bevrijdingsfestival (Winschoten)

Why does this have to be deleted rather than be a redirect, what would be wrong with a redirect of this nature which is different only in style and not wrong based on spelling? Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jismibro: , first (1st) you tag it for speedy deletion after it was already a redirect:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Bevrijdingsfestival_(Winschoten)&diff=prev&oldid=741517855

I then ask you why delete:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Bevrijdingsfestival_(Winschoten)&diff=prev&oldid=741518054

You don't respond and tag it for deletion again:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Bevrijdingsfestival_(Winschoten)&diff=prev&oldid=742208387

I ask you again:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Bevrijdingsfestival_(Winschoten)&diff=prev&oldid=742217082

And again, without any explanation you wish to see it deleted:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Bevrijdingsfestival_(Winschoten)&diff=prev&oldid=742562555

Why not just discuss why deletion is better? Especially as the only difference between this and the new category is style, stylistic differences are better left as redirects as they can point people to the correct Category, deletions provide no benefit. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not useful and confusing, people may categorise in this redirect so images are difficult to look for. Jismibro (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jismibro, When using HotCat it will immediately direct to the category being redirected to. When using the MediaWiki Upload Wizard 🪄 this is currently not the case, but a bot already automatically moves files. Redirects aren't confusing as they serve to clear up confusion when there are alternatives styles and names, for example a translation or the usage of "Of the United States" Vs. "In the United States". Per "COM:REDCAT" / "COM:CATRED" In cases where it's likely that a new user might try to use the old category by accident, it's best to retain it as a redirect. This might include alternatives that are equally valid or synonyms; older and outdated terms; translations; or some other correct expectable name for the category. In such cases, the old category should be marked permanently with a "Category redirect" template.. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Domino effect

Suggest renaming this to Category:Domino toppling. The "domino effect" is a metaphor based on the concept of dominoes being toppled in sequence - but nearly all of these files are literal photos of dominoes toppling or set up to be toppled. There is no Commons category otherwise dedicated to domino toppling. Enwiki distinguishes the concepts at en:domino effect and en:domino toppling. Belbury (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Cărpineni

such categories should contain images, shouldn't they? Gikü (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maidstone

Is there a reason why Category:Maidstone isn't a disambiguator, and this category renamed Category:Maidstone, Kent? There are a lot of other Category:Maidstone something else categories. Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the capital of Kent is far larger and the original. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The principle was that the original took the prime name, and the derivatives would be XXXX(disambiguation). It was in existence in 975 and has had a grammar school since 1549. Sorry if the convention is changing. ClemRutter (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Principle still applies, many examples eg Cambridge, London, Norwich etc etc Ardfern (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States embassy produced photos

Files should be moved to subcategories under Category:Photographs by the U.S. Department of State A1Cafel (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People named in the Paradise Papers

it's not commons cat tree's purpose to record these people's presence in the documents. commons cat tree is not a directory. at least 99% of files in these subcats arent related to the documents. RZuo (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @CzarJobKhaya, I like this category. I have not checked all the files here, however I think this category is valid and powerful illustration of why categories can both increase knowledge and be interesting.

@RZuo,

1. Can you provide a policy related to this category?

2. Also, is there a Commons definition of directory?

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as i said, it makes no sense to put these unrelated people together in commons categories. you want a list you can create a list, or com:Tabular Data.

should we have "cat:people exposed in Ashley Madison data breach"?

or "cat:people mentioned by People's Daily in 2022"? "cat:people whose obituaries were published by the NYT in 2011"? "cat:politicians who visited the antartica"? "cat:people who grew up in countryside but died in cities"? etc.?

there're millions of plausible but arbitrary ways of grouping concepts together. most are impractical for the purpose of commons cat trees. RZuo (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tornado outbreak of March 24, 2023

Empty. Category was moved to new name. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surnames by ethnicity

Based on Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/05/Category:Given names by ethnicity and/or nationality and Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/10/Category:Surnames by country, this is unmanageable. I don't see a distinction that distinguishes given names by ethnicity as a problem but surnames are not. Similarly, it is not clear how ethnicity doesn't eventually become an unmanageable mess. In the end, none of this helps with sorting media because there is no media that will provide a collective image of "Indian surnames" for example (although I do see that we have some files somewhere). It is categorization for categorization's sake. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. commons is a databank, but some people want to turn it into something more than that. This is a databank of objects not ideas. Country and language are merely labels. Our goal is to make data accessible, by keeping it as open to view as possible, simplicity is the key. We shouldn't be so ambitious that we set up categories that are impossible to maintain and curate. Ethnicity does not define an object, country does ,and language does as a modifier. Ethnicity is political, and better served elsewhere. Broichmore (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of all subcategories involving in this discussion

In my opinion, this should be about language, not ethnicity, and surnames pose exactly the same challenges as given names, when it comes to categorize their etymology and othography.

This categorization doesn’t affect directly many media files (although it does affect some), but of course it does affect all files indirectly, thru categorization of their creators and of any person related to each file. It allows to anchor surnames downstream to the people thus named and further to the files pertaining to them, and upstream to the language/culture each surname originated from, regardless of current use. This is pontedly not «categorization for categorization’s sake» (unlike, say, splitting by month all the twenty-few photos taken in 1830…).

Finally, what’s unmanageable is not to categorize surnames by their linguistic background, that’s going well, as far as I can tell. What is unmanageable — and time wasting, uncollegial, and distressingly nerve wrecking, — is the constant hounding against categorization efforts.

As said elsewhere, if there’s a need for Category:Surnames (flat list), then go ahead and create it. No need for these attempts at scorched earth.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin I left the language category alone so we can focus the discussion on the ethnicity category. A number of the subcategories like Category:Greek surnames have a language subcategory so country, ethnicity and language are related for some places. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subject which is manageable to some extend in wiktionaries (in the cases where you have sources), but not in the context of Commons categories. FocalPoint (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are manageable in every place in theory but is the time and energy spent categorizing surnames by departments of France like Category:Surnames from Ariège really something for Commons? Category:Dedieu (surname) for example. en:Dedieu has no sources that put it in two specific departments of France, both of which are in the (I don't know why they are separate) Category:Occitan surnames and Category:Surnames from Occitanie and yet there is no article or category in French about any of this. This is just pure categorization people are coming up with and none of this has any connection to media anyways. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

while I think that it is necessary to save these categories. Generally speaking, because surnames are an integral part of the culture of every nation. I understand that there are citizens of other countries who may have surnames of foreign origin, but in this case, I think it will also be interesting for many to know about their origin. In addition, no one is forcing anyone to categorize according to this criterion. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Бучач-Львів It may be interesting generally but is it appropriate for Commons? Category:Agrawal has a lot of red-linked categories that could in theory be created but Commons doesn't do sourcing or really want extensive sources. That is better for en:Agrawal. If you look at this discussion, you can already see an issue with Category:Arnout (surname) not being in the general surnames category. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People could put their energy where they want, but the problem is when categories become too unreliable. If only a few of the surnames pertaining to some category have found their way there, the categories make it more difficult, not more easy, to find the stuff that would belong in that category. Not everybody sees what categories should just be ignored. Therefore there must be some graspable logic about what categories belong in a certain category, and an acceptable rate of use of the category.

Surnames by ethnicity does not tell whether it is about names of persons of that ethnicity (which will be a great share of all names there are, at least for some ethnicities) or names originating in that ethnic group – with many possible definitions of "originating". For anybody not doing the categorisation (or having studied it thoroughly), such a hierarchy without definition is at best meaningless and in most cases confusing.

–LPfi (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames has the statementThis category gathers all sub-categories related to its parent category in a non-hierarchical list, including those that would normally only be found via intermediate sub-categories. The category had (of 18 June 2022) 103,727 entries and is established as the standard for family names. Duplicate categorizations are not uncommon.

There is no need for a flat list.

Abxbay has still not commented why Arnout cant be in both ‘’Surnames’’ and ‘’ French-language surnames’’. They need to look again at their edits and include for both. Broichmore (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is an entirely different subject to surnames, which is complete in itself. If Abxbay is not going to add back in surnames where they have deleted them, then its a vandalism issue. Broichmore (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should completely get rid of classifying surnames by ethnicity; barring that, we should have a flat list as well (whether that is Category:Surnames or a new Category:Surnames (flat list).

I could give several reasons for this. Among these: (1) the enormous difficulty of determining the accuracy of this information and (2) the fact that as far as I can tell it makes things harder, not easier, for our end users.

As an example of why this is difficult, consider African-American surnames, which are a mix of names passed on from former enslavers, adopted African and Arabic names, and doubtless other things. Or consider the name "Miller", used in English but almost always a "translation" from another Germanic language, because "Miller" was a rare-to-nonexistent name in late medieval England.

Commons is a media repository. There is no need for us to wander into the weeds of difficult subjects that are of almost no use in finding or describing media. - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. Category: surname is always useful, in (say) identifying an artist, from his painted signature. To break it up into smaller categories by whatever, would be counter productive. The weeds are best served by lists in Wikipedia, or annotations in wikidata. N0-one here has given any practical uses for why we would need these cats, they service no useful purpose. Broichmore (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Indian surnames looks nice as the surnames in the category are used by people of different linguistic backgrounds. For example, depending on the language, the surname Kumar can be Bengali, Bhojpuri, Hindi, Marathi etc. However, if the consensus is to delete Indian surnames, the surnames in the category should be recategorised into Indo-Aryan surnames and Dravidian surnames, which would fall under Surnames by language family. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Category:Surnames by language doesn't break things into the language families. In either case, the surnames should be there if you want them categorized that way. I mean, is Category:Kipling (surname) technically speaking an Indian surname? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is Category:Kipling (surname) technically speaking an Indian surname?

Depending on the definition of "Indian". The Jungle Book author was born in Bombay (present-day Mumbai) and he was of British descent. This challenges my reason to keep Indian surnames. Then again, there are surnames used across multiple but related languages in India (Chakravarti (and its variants), Chaudhari (and its variants), Kumar, Sharma etc.). Such surnames are not considered specific to a language but nationality. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 That is precisely my point. Ethnicity is a weird categorization, by continent and country have been deleted so "Indian" doesn't purely make sense. We have a separate tree for by language but it has Sanskrit and Telugu only. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have ignored the case of using the same surname across multiple languages, which turns out to be solved, as the surnames I have mentioned are etymologically Sanskrit surnames (although Chaudhari is actually a corruption of Sanskrit Chaturdhari). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some surnames that are clear cases, but most are not. What about Swedish surnames with a Christian (Jewish) root, such as Johansson, "son of Johan [Johannes]", just slightly transformed variants ("corruptions") or plain foreign surnames in wide use? In addition to since long established immigrant families, there are cases such as the Roma people in Finland being given distinct surnames created in the Swedish tradition, when surnames became obligatory. What about surnames the etymologies of which are unclear? I would wish we had a clear rationale for such category trees, including a statement on what belongs and does not belong to individual categories. –LPfi (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surnames from Europe

This category was created before Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Surnames by continent was started so I assume it was not deleted but it doesn't make sense to have this alone. The principle that there exists a collective list of all surnames from a continent is patently ridiculous and in the end every surname will likely fit in this category as people move around. The only other continent for surnames is Category:Surnames from North America but this seems like the more thorough one to start with. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Surnames from Belgium. I think if the conclusion there is to delete the categories involved, then this one has no function anymore. JopkeB (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The prior discussion was Category:Surnames in Europe. This seems equally as problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Physcietum adscentdentis

This redirect should be deleted. It's nonsensical to have redirects for misspelled titels of syntaxon names. Industrees (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MCW Metrobus buses in Greater Manchester

Redundant category, see Cat-a-lot moves to MCW Metrobus buses new to GMT and GM Buses. Hullian111 (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourist information centre, Great Yarmouth

It's no longer the tourist information centre and is now for let. I think it would be better under the building name of Sailors' Home. this is what it currently looks like. Secretlondon (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mikhail Litvin

Николай Семёнов Ivan.Smirnov89 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes by day

All sub-categories should be renamed; e.g. "Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (6 February 2023)" to "Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (2023-02-06)" A1Cafel (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not any certain naming rule for this kind of categories. For example, Euromaidan and Russo-Ukrainian War categories has been named as "MM DD, YYYY‎". I think "Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (6 February 2023)" is much easier to understand and further categorisations than "Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (2023-02-06)". --Gargarapalvin (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to think of those non-English speakers, they may not know "February" or other months name in English. Using a "YYYY-MM-DD" format would be a better choice. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film lightning equipment

This category covers nearly all of Category:Photographic lighting equipment, except flashes and related equipment (hot shoes, remotes etc.). I think this category should be merged into the other to simplify the already messy structure among film and photo equipment. --Autom (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If not merged, it should be moved to Category:Film lighting equipment. --Autom (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03

Navigation menu

Search

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.