Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in May 2023.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/05.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2023-05.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Synagogues by denomination

[edit]

Except for perhaps the Karaites, I think "denomination" is the wrong term here, and would suggest "movement". "Denomination" is a basically Christian term that suggests a difference in theological doctrine, whereas the Orthodox/Conservative/Reform distinction is more one of degree of observance and traditionalism. Jmabel ! talk 14:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion on this issue. I used the same term in Category:Jewish denominations. יעקב (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't noticed that one, since it didn't show up on any of my photos. But the same comment would apply. I'll link that here as well. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Category:Judaism in the United States by denomination. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, proposal:
I'm open to other suggestions but, as I said, I think "denominations" is not a good choice. I think it's better if we (slightly misleadingly) fail to say that Karaism is a "denomination" than if we (much more misleadingly) distinguish Orthodox/Conservative/Reform as "denominations".
- Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amending this: maybe "denominations" is more OK than I thought and should be preserved to keep things more parallel. According to a friend of mine who works as the manager of a Hillel, "denominations" is often used as sort of the cultural equivalent of a loan-word, and in fact he has used the term "non-denominational" to try to explain how the Hillel organizations relate to the various movements/streams of Judaism. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought "denomination" was the word to use. But perhaps Denominations of Judaism rather than Jewish Denominations? There are secular Jews too so it might not be the best category designation.--Jetam2 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: And Jewish movements, I think, are also different from the religious movements. Zionism, for example, has a religious dimension but also a secular one and so should not be grouped with movements of only religious nature (though I guess it is also fair to say that the mostly-religious movements also have a political dimension).--Jetam2 (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need something so maybe "denominations" is OK. As I say, it's sort of a "loan word" in this context, but I guess I can live with it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women wearing complete bikinis

[edit]

Why do we need this category? If the bikini is not complete, then the image belongs in either Category:Women wearing bikini bottoms, Category:Women wearing bikini tops or one of their subcategories. If the bikini is complete, then why not categorize it in Category:Women wearing bikinis and it's subcategories. XxakixX (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC

Understandable question, here is some explanation:
  • All people wearing bikini tops are wearing bikinis, but only some people wearing bikinis are wearing bikini tops, so 'wearing bikini tops' belongs under (subset of) 'wearing bikinis'.
  • All people wearing bikini bottoms are wearing bikinis, but only some people wearing bikinis are wearing bikini bottoms, so 'wearing bikini bottoms' belongs under (subset of) 'wearing bikinis'.
  • All people wearing complete bikinis are wearing bikini tops and are wearing bikini bottoms, but not all people wearing bikini tops or bikini bottoms are wearing complete bikinis, so 'wearing complete bikinis' belongs under (subset of) 'wearing bikini tops' and 'wearing bikini bottoms'.
Thus the following structure is derived from the above logic:
  • Wearing bikinis
    • Wearing bikini bottoms
      • Wearing complete bikinis
    • Wearing bikini tops
      • Wearing complete bikinis
In short, 'wearing bikinis' is the main cat for any wearing of any bikini or part of a bikini in any way. Sub-categories exist for diffusion based on specific parts or combinations of parts worn. Josh (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't a bikini consist of two parts, a top and a bottom? If so, how can a person wearing only one of the pieces be said to be wearing a bikini? It's like saying a person is wearing a suit if they're wearing only one piece of a suit. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: That is a fine question, and I'm not sure I have the answer for it, but the idea that only wearing a top or bottom means they are not wearing a "bikini" makes for some food for thought. If we go with that idea, then it certainly creates some interesting twists. If a person wearing a bikini top only, then does that mean that image shouldn't belong in 'wearing bikinis' at all, since according to that idea, they would not be wearing a bikini? This is complicated by the fact that 'wearing bikini tops/bottoms' is not exclusive to only 'wearing bikini tops/bottoms'. Another question would be handling partial views of people. An image of the top half of a person wearing a bikini top cannot be presumed to be wearing or not wearing bikini bottoms. All we know is that they are wearing a bikini top, but we cannot deny or assume that they are wearing a complete bikini. But in this exercise, they couldn't be assumed to be wearing a 'bikini' at all, so how does this structure look?
In any case, the fact remains that all people wearing a complete bikini are wearing a bikini top, while not all people wearing a bikini top are wearing a complete bikini. This means that people wearing a complete bikini can be a sub-cat of people wearing a bikini top, or the two can be parallel perhaps under some structure, the one structure that is wholly incorrect is to have people wearing a bikini top as a sub-cat of people wearing complete bikinis. This is true whether wearing a bikini top alone is considered wearing a bikini at all or not. Josh (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Possibly unfree images

[edit]

Seems duplicate with Category:Possibly unfree license images. A1Cafel (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. But we should keep Category:Possibly unfree images and redirect Category:Possibly unfree license images to the first one - that title is more succinct and means the same thing anyway (simpler is better). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locomotives by Whyte classification

[edit]

The whole category tree is a mess. On one hand Locomotives by Whyte classification is categorized under Steam locomotives. on the other hand it includes multiple subcategories of internal combustion-powered locomotives (e. g. 0-6-0DM locomotives), etc.).

  • Should Locomotives by Whyte classification include internal combustion-powered locomotives? If yes, it can't be also categorized under Steam locomotives. If no, we have to find a solution for the aforementioned subcategories.
  • Also: Do we really need four separate category trees for different classification systems, which seem to overlap basically 100% in scope?

@Andy Dingley: --MB-one (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, so now you're 4RR edit-warring over this and I seek to have you blocked for breaching one of our basic policies, now you want to talk about it ?
Yes, these should be included. MediaWiki categorization is not such an absolutist medium. I know that anything beyond the most simplistic consistency offends you, you've made that clear enough for years, but this is not how the world works. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other than tags, categories are transitive. A subcategory is equivalent to a subset of the parent category. MB-one (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a basic rule here, "Don't mess with subject knowledge when you don't understand the subject". That said, how can you possibly explain these? [1] [2]
At least this [3], obviously wrong though it is, was at least somewhat consistent with your invention "Whyte classification is not applied to diesels" (which you espoused, whilst busily arguing that it didn't apply particularly to steam locos) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't argue neither that it should or shouldn't include internal combustion. My argument is to pick one, not both. MB-one (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from no expertise on Whyte classification, but plenty on Commons categories: as I understand from prior discussion at AN/U, Whyte classification is mainly but not exclusively about steam locomotives. Assuming that is correct, I'd expect to see: 

[[:Category:Steam locomotives]]           [[:Category:Locomotives by Whyte classification]]
               \_____________________________________/                    |
                                  |                                       |
        [[:Category:Steam locomotives by Whyte classification]]  ''whatever else might be useful''

Is there any reason not to do it that way? - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is just about the worst possible change. Why not leave it how it is, and avoid breaking it?
It's the sort of change I'd expect MB-one to put forward: it's simplistic, narrow-minded, works badly for the readership and implies a hugely wasteful duplication. It evidences a lack of understanding of both the Whyte system, and practical use of categorization here.
Category:Locomotives by Whyte classification has 168 members. There are two that are inapplicable to steam locos (maybe half-a-dozen tops, as there are some similar ones that don't currently exist). So this new categorization would do what? Duplicate nearly the whole set, so that we gained maybe another 50–100 child categories under wiki-invented disambiguators, at variance to how the real world works, all just to make navigation paths longer for our readers? Because most would then need to be in both categories, and half of them would now need new and non-standard names. Category:1′C1′ locomotives could be a member of Category:2-6-2 locomotives (and not a sub-sub-category of the steam locomotives one) because that's the closest that the outdated Whyte system can manage for those. But that would be ridiculous. Yet another wikineologism, and another one with no parallel in the real world, because no-one else ever uses the notification in that way. This is why the current structure has the UIC and Whyte sets heavily populated, whilst the AAR and Commonwealths are nearly empty – there is no point in trying to represent every possibility here, in notations that just aren't suitable for them.
In particular, qualifying "steam locomotives by Whyte classification" is terrible use of most categorization systems, and especially MediaWiki. The default here (for Whyte) is for steam locomotives, so that should be the overall parent and if anything is to be made the special case, it would be the non-steam examples. That would give a (slightly) less bad structure. But both of these would still be worse, in all ways, than the previous system. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"narrow-minded, works badly for the readership and implies a hugely wasteful duplication."
This describes the current situation very well.
We have categories that are duplicated with different names because each group uses its own notation system to describe the same thing.
Here is my proposal:
We transform into redirection to Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement the four subcategories "Locomotives by ... classification‎".
A common categorization is established using the UIC (International Union of Railways) notation, which has the advantage of not being specific to a country, and which is the most detailed system. Eg "Category:A1 locomotives".
On the category page, the different notations are specified, this can be done using a template, which will help with translations. Ex. "Category:A1 locomotives" with description: UIC A1; French 011; Swiss 1/2; Turkish 12; Whyte 0-2-2
The old categories specific to each notation are transformed into redirection to facilitate categorization.
We can create a specific category by type of energy Ex. "Category:A1 diesel/electric/gasoline/steam locomotives"
The category "Diesel/electric/gasoline/steam locomotives by wheel arrangement" will go into the appropriate category "Diesel/electric/gasoline/steam locomotives".
On the "Locomotives by wheel arrangement" category page, we create a sortable table that includes all the notation systems and the link to the category in addition to the specific links according to the type of energy. Eg. link. Arflhn (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have categories that are duplicated with different names Such as?
Also, why are you already depopulating Category:Steam locomotives by UIC classification: [4][5][6] ? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such as?
All those categories there are subtypes of B′B or B′B1′ or C′C locomotives, I don't see the point of having a child category such as B t locomotives categorized in both B locomotives and all of B locomotives own categories... Arflhn (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wet unshaved genitalia (female)

[edit]

I don't see any significance of "wet" that deserved a separated category A1Cafel (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NER Class ES1 No. 1

[edit]

Merge back to Category:LNER Class ES1. Merge either way, I don't care. But there is no point in splitting into two categories for one loco. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male anogenital area images

[edit]

Proposed up-merge with Category:Male anogenital area, I don't see the point of creating separate category for images A1Cafel (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The differentiation is obvious: It is not, for example, the same content of the subcategories Category:Male anogenital area images and Category:Anatomy of male anogenital area, both belonging to the category Category:Male anogenital area. Jmarchn (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images and anatomy are different. If an image simply showing male anogenital area, why don't we put it at Category:Male anogenital area. I don't see a problem that the anatomy cat is a child cat of male anogenital area. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demonstrations and protests against United States recognition of Jerusalem

[edit]

Name doesn't really make a lot of sense as it stands. I assume this means to say "…recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel", and it should say so. Similarly for the many subcats. Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to any correction. -- Geagea (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sealing stamps of königlich sächische Amtshauptmannschaft

[edit]

Falschschreibung: Richtig wäre: "Sealing stamps of königlich sächsische Amtshauptmannschaft" inkl. der Unterkategorien. --Tuarb (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--Karsten11 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hirsuties papillaris penis

[edit]

Same as "Hirsuties papillaris genitalis", should be merged A1Cafel (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clothes hanger as a symbol of illegal abortion

[edit]

Category:Never again wire hanger and Category:Clothes hanger as a symbol of illegal abortion have a whole lot of overlap. Should they be merged? Brainy J (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, merge it. 'Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity'. In my opinion 'Clothes hanger as a symbol of illegal abortion' it's a little bit more decriptive and understandable. Zorro2212 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genitalia by gender

[edit]

"Transgender" is not a gender separate from male and female, that's gross and othering. Can we get this amended? "Ambiguous" is also not a gender. Intersex people can be of any gender. Brainy J (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures look more like they should be in a category Category:Genitalia by sex. en:Gender means the social status of people in mordern english, which might be very different from whatever they have "down there". --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Końskie during WWII

[edit]

This should be renamed to Category:History of Końskie during World War II Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no serious reason to rename this category which is a sub-category of "Historical Pictures Końskie". If done, you will have to rename hundreds if not thousands of categories. --FLLL (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burgruine Rauhenstein (Roberto Verzo, Flickr)

[edit]

I do not like the idea of hiding useful images deep in the category tree where nobody expects them. Subcategories by user and source do not make it easier to find images. Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mach was du glaubst, es ist das letzte Mal, dass ich außer bei meinen Bildern noch Korrekturen mache (denn dir passt eh nichts). Und zu deiner Behauptung von "nützlichen Bildern"ː Ursprünglich mit falscher Kategorie, nichtssagende Beschreibung: "Baden bei Wien", teilweise mit Wasserzeichen und falsche Bildbetitelung: [7]. Im Übrigen hätte ich nicht eine eigene Kategorie von diesen "nützlichen Bildern" angelegt, jedoch es betraf immerhin fast 40 Fotos und das bei einem einzigen Objekt. Liebe Grüße Bwag (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe gar nix gemacht. Ich habe was zur Diskussion gestellt. Mit offenem Ergebnis. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/05&oldid=902327373"