Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03

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

Category:Americanization

[edit]

What is the difference between Americanization and American culture abroad? Americanization is basically the introduction of the American culture in other countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way "Taiwan chicken rice burger" can only be qualified as "Taiwanization". :) 186.172.4.12 11:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
americanisation is a cultural phenomenon.
opening an american shop/restaurant outside usa is an instance of american culture abroad, but not necessarily americanising that place. you wouldnt say a sushi bar is japanisation right? RZuo (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But most media in the category tree show nothing more than American outlets/products outside America. Images like A Pizzahut-Restaurant in Changsha.jpg, Kosher McDonalds.JPG and Pepsi in India.jpg may equally belong to American culture abroad. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's the problem of the categories being applied that way. i would remove them.
like your example File:Kosher McDonalds.JPG, is it americanisation of jews or Judaization of american fast food culture?
kfc offering rice in china, is that sinicisation of american fast food culture? RZuo (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agronomy Engineers

[edit]

You mean engineers? 186.172.4.12 11:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just asking for it to be changed to lower case? If so, that requires a move, not a discussion. I see the same issue with one of the subcategories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then move your ... (3 letters, the last 2 are identical). 186.175.129.32 22:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay polite. Ask for a rename if that is the solution. And then close this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gusztáv Kovács (theologian)

[edit]

Noone else here with this name. Why (...) ? 186.172.4.12 11:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gusztáv Láng (literary historian)

[edit]

Noone else here with this name? Why (...) ? 186.172.4.12 11:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gusztáv Adolf Manninger (1880–1954)

[edit]

Noone else here with this name. Why (...) ? 186.172.4.12 11:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Projections

[edit]

this should be turned into disambiguation page. right now some files show something that protrude. some show projection from projectors (devices that display graphics on a screen).

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/projection the word has way too many different meanings. RZuo (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and i'm looking for a category for "graphics projected by projectors". does one already exist for this? RZuo (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident

[edit]

RodRabelo7 moved this to Category:Al-Rashid massacre, but it is a controvertial change (as seen on the en.wikipedia article talk page), so it needs to be discussed first per COM:CATMOVE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Move to Category:Al-Rashid massacre, opening fire on civilians and killing over 100 in any other situation would be deemed a massacre. Doesn't matter what enwiki calls it, they have always shown a biased position on wars/invasion/genocides involving the US and Israel. A few other language wikis who have this article have called it a massacre too. The definition for massacre is "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people"...let me put it this way, if those were Russian soldiers opening fire on ukranians civilians trying to get food from aid trucks, what do you think enwiki would have called their article on this? The best thing about commons is that we have always been neutral cause we provide for 700+ wikis and not controlled by ONE, so lets categorise accordingly.....the word "Incident" is degrading to the 118+ lives lost in that massacre..--Stemoc 05:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Category:Al-Rashid stampede and shooting, massacre implies this was a deliberate act by IDF rather than a preventable tragedy that the IDF is largely responsible for. I think incident is as bad as massacre as far as inaccuracy. I would also accept "Al-Rashid deaths" or "Al-Rashid killings". Merriam-Webster defines massacre as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/massacre " the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty" Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    are you saying those people waiting for food, most of whom were hungry for days if not weeks now and just wanted some food were not helpless and were resisting getting aid?; stampede and shooting is laughable, isn't "shooting" what you americans calls the massacre of school kids at schools in your country by "lone wolf's"? (another word invented to hide the real problem).. yeah this is the issue with enwiki, its run by biased Americans who use a different work to underplay the truth of the atrocities of the crimes committed..A country which calls invading a country and killing millions of innocent people a "military intervention" is not a country's whose opinions matter on what a genocide or massacre is. I have seen the voting of the renaming of this on enwiki and its disturbingly, sad, very sad...Maybe follow international news on whats happening in Gaza right now instead of the biased American news media like foxnews and CNN..no other news is calling what happened here an "incident", its a massacre and it has been happening for 6 months now.. Stemoc 01:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we Americans do have a mass shooting problem because many value easy access to guns more than the lives of children. These shootings are perpetrated by those who often have a history of "domestic violence" (which those who commit terrorism also have a history of). On the rest of this reply, I'll just state that I disagree and I will leave it at that. Abzeronow (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think, for categories of new concepts (an event in this case) that are controversial in the real world such as this, commons users can wait until the real world reaches a conclusion on what to call it.
commons categories is just a tool for grouping together files hosted on this website. it's not commons users' responsibility to decide what name is proper before the real world has a conclusion.
is there a template that users can put on such categories, that says something like "this category title is a temporary placeholder. it may be changed in the future. for the convenience of users, it should not be changed until a commonly accepted name is found through community discussion."? RZuo (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually, even for category titles that have been decided, there can be a template saying something similar, that the category title is just a tool of convinience. it doesnt imply that commons users hold a particular point of view. RZuo (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ideally yes, I agree with you. However the media is uploaded in real time before consensus develops on what to call these real life events, and I would even agree with a disclaimer that categories are for ease to finding things, and doesn't imply anything as far as the viewpoints of Commons users. So things are a bit messy before consensus develops. I can understand the need for caution for these events so I can see why someone would chose "incident" even though it completely masks that many people died as a result of it, and I can see the viewpoints of those who want "massacre". Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the word "killings" can be used to emphasise the fact that some people were killed. RZuo (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll reiterate that "killings" would be a category move I'd support. Abzeronow (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jose Maria Mora

[edit]

Should be moved to Category:José María Mora as we generally include accents. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tomica models of automobiles

[edit]

Empty category with the only possible files on this category being copyvio COM:DWs of COM:TOYS Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hot Wheels models of fictional automobiles

[edit]

Empty category with the only possible files on this category being copyvio COM:DWs of COM:TOYS Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sioni

[edit]

This is double with Category:Sioni (townlet) - contained one photo that belonged to this Category:Ateni Sioni Church - which makes this Sioni category fully redundant Labrang (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goristsikhe

[edit]

moved to proper distinctive naming - this one is now redundant, would lead to confusion between village in Kazbegi municipality of this name and Category:Gori fortress which has the same name in Georgian. Labrang (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oqroqana

[edit]

redundant - wrong spelling Labrang (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Okrokana

[edit]

redudant - was presented as composed village of Kvemo and Zemo Okrokana, but they are two separate villages. No need for umbrella cat. Labrang (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labrang, I wonder. what the purpose for discussion that the files are already removed? You should leave the files in the category for consideration. Otherwise it may be considered as vandalism. -- Geagea (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was one category in it, Zemo Okrokana. Kvemo Okrokana, was missing, while available. This all has been a mess anyways, so any threat of vandalism sounds ironic and not very constructive. The only way to propose categories for deletion is to start a "discussion". Hence why. Labrang (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tomica models of automobiles

[edit]

Empty category with the only possible files on this category being copyvio COM:DWs of COM:TOYS Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hot Wheels models of fictional automobiles

[edit]

Empty category with the only possible files on this category being copyvio COM:DWs of COM:TOYS Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sioni

[edit]

This is double with Category:Sioni (townlet) - contained one photo that belonged to this Category:Ateni Sioni Church - which makes this Sioni category fully redundant Labrang (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Logos of colleges in the United States

[edit]

Merge with Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States because the parent category covers colleges. Astros4477 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose For several reasons.
  1. colleges and univerisities are clearly different concepts. That's why we have Category:Colleges and Category:Universities. Per the policy on naming categories "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." So Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States goes against policy. Whereas this category doesn't.
  2. There is no parent category that these "Logos of universities and colleges" can go in because we have Category:Colleges and Category:Universities, not Category:Universities and colleges since it's a redirect. In fact most, or all of the "Logos of universities and colleges" categories have "Higher education institutions in" as the parent, not Category:Universities and colleges. It's clearly pointless to have categories for "Logos of universities and colleges" when there isn't even a parent category for it to go into. At the end of the day files in the categories should probably just be up merged to "logos of higher education institutions in" categories and deleted. But there's no reason you can't, or shouldn't, have separate categories for "logos of colleges" or "logos of universities" categories when again there's already top level categories for both, not Category:Universities and colleges. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have renamed the target category to Logos of higher education institutions in the United States per Category talk:Higher education institutions, so the nominated category can be safely redirected to the target. For what I worth, there's no actual distinction between colleges and unis in the United States, which is found in countries like India and the UK. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish models

[edit]

Who cares for the ethnicity of models? Is there an obligation to make positive discrimination to Jewish people everywhere? Why, because they suffered a Holokoust? Now they are making a genocide and we are not making any negative discrimination. So use the "ethnic" adjective only for tribes lost in jungles who may not have citizenship of any country... 186.173.68.234 12:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep — we don't value ethnicities like Jews just because they have survived genocides like the Holocaust. We value them because such ethnicities are not concentrated to a single country. We can also create similar categories on other international ethnicities like Basque models and Flemish models. I also belong to an international ethnicity spread across two countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parkhaven, Rotterdam

[edit]

duplicate of older and well populated Category:Parkhaven (Rotterdam) ErickAgain 12:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Keep - my mistake, one is about the port and the other about the street with the same name.
Then one should have "Port" in the category name and the other "Street". So rename both. --JopkeB (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inland dunes of Chile

[edit]

Is this different from the Category:Inland dunes in Chile?! 186.173.68.234 13:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cerro Dragón (Chile)

[edit]

What is the need for "(Chile)"? 186.173.68.234 13:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beechcraft Staggerwing painted as 44-76068

[edit]

I created this category because I falsely believed that the aircraft at the National Museum of the United States Air Force was not actually 44-76068 ZLEA T\C 02:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA: This probably doesn't need discussion. You could tag it with one of these:
-- Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:August 1919 Australian photographs

[edit]

Wrong spelling, already created the correct one. Can be deleted immediately LucaLindholm (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LucaLindholm: This doesn't really need discussion. You can handle it by tagging with {{Bad name}}. I would do it, but I don't know what the correct name is. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Election apportionment diagrams of the Congress of the Republic (Portugal)

[edit]

isn't this category the same thing as c:Category:Portuguese parliament seat diagrams with a different name ? Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpe.g5.stan That seems correct. The two should be merged into Category:Election apportionment diagrams of the Portuguese Parliament. "Portuguese Parliament" is the English name used for their legislature on their official webpage. Josh (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joshbaumgartner: and thanks for updating me on that ! After a second thought : there may be a difference in the name if one separates the Parliament since 1975, the Parliament under the Ditadura Nacional/Estado Novo, the Parliament from 1910 to 1926 and the Parliament under the Constitutional Monarchy. As I did not dig inside this question I may be wrong. Regardless, Category:Election apportionment diagrams of the Portuguese Parliament seems to fit for all of them, and I agree to rename/merge the current categories in it. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Longest cable-stayed bridges

[edit]

Commons categories are not Wikipedia lists and categories like "longest bridges", "tallest buildings", "highest mountains" don't make any sense. See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Most populous cities of the world. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged and JopkeB: I've also nominated Longest arch bridges, Longest cantilever bridges, Longest continuous truss bridges, Longest suspension bridges and World record bridges for the same reason mentioned above. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deer meat

[edit]

synonym of category:venison, should be merged into it MPF (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MPF, I am the creator of the category.
If I understand the English meaning of the term correctly, it primarily refers to the meat of deer, but also to a lesser extent that of antelopes.
Furthermore, if I compare with the French meaning of the equivalent word “venaison”, it could refer to the flesh of any type of game.
Seeing these fluctuating definitions, I preferred to dissociate the two terms through these categories.
But I perfectly understand the opposite approach and the desire to have a single category. A merger would not pose any problem. Ellicrum {bablute [...]} 21:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parish halls

[edit]

The terms "Church hall" and "Parish hall" seem to be synonymous. Might be just an EngVar thing. Either way, one needs to be merged into the other. I would have a preference for "Parish hall" as the target since "Hall church" is an architectural term. I can see how Category:Church halls might get confused with Category:Hall churches. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecolodge Pan Hou Village

[edit]

looks like this category and its content is a business ad. How do I remove it and the related pictures? Атаман Павлюк (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

let's delete the annnoying ad and clean up some wikipedia server disk space! Anyone? Атаман Павлюк (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cosplay of Paramount Pictures characters

[edit]

Is this really needed? Trade (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Arlington, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 1903

[edit]

Category:1903 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Arlington, Middlesex County, Massachusetts and Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Arlington, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 1903 are seemingly identical by subject; the latter one has lower resultion.

Multiple other map Sanborn map series are seemingly also affected. Enyavar (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6450x7650 is not a lower resolution than 6450x7650.
these are duplicates. The jpeg version has no discernable loss of quality from the tif version.
These duplicates exist, because the naming scheme is unusual for the maps uploaded in 2018.
I am no longer fixing any sanborn problems. I spent a week or two writing perl scripts and fix the mess, but then i ran into a bunch of idiots, who were under the impression that somebody made smart decisions in 2018.
After bringing half a dozen people up to speed on the matter in instances of 5 minutes each and dealing with 7 to 8 bureaucrats who all said different things, the half dozen new-born experts on the matter decided it is all a mess, but it should better not be touched.
I have a bunch of shell scripts to make this sanborn thing really comfortable for myself, so i pulled the plug on jerking off the wiki-clowns. Why bother, right? Nowakki (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I hadn't really looked close enough into file size and types.
At least, I certainly am no Sanborn-expert nor do I ever want to be declared one; I just regularly stumble over these maps that are strewn haphazardly all over our "old maps" categories in Commons (in my opinion, this here is some 1895 random Sanborn plan (as in cadastral plan) and should not be sorted under "1884 maps of Massachusetts"). Someone Else[TM] should bring some sense into the matter, I just find them amusingly annoying whenever I encounter them. --Enyavar (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all the sanborn map plates/sheets are cadastral plans.
if you want them to be found, they need to appear in a map category. they are high resolution maps. i don't see the problem. Nowakki (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just found two categories with identical content and wanted to voice my concern. If you say all is as it should be, then great, a quick resolution for a CfD for once! --Enyavar (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said i don't see the problem with filing them as "maps".
And I said that i stopped fixing the obvious existing problems, because of a lack of good judgement encountered along the way.
The are over 500,000 sanborn map files on commons. This cannot be fixed without a consensus (in other words, some people would have to lose a vote). There are not enough people who care, to reach a consensus either way. Nowakki (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trains of the United Kingdom by class

[edit]

delete - nonsense cat, duplicating a far better structure we've had for years Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is hours of work cataloguing trains by their class number. It does not affect people who do not want trains catalogued by class number - the less useful (in my eyes) system of electric locomotives etc and then numbers still exists. However there are many many ways we can catalogue things in commons and I'm unhappy you are trying to destroy al my work by mass reverting me. Secretlondon (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is hours of work cataloguing trains by their class number.
So why waste time doing something so wrong? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a very logical and useful way to organise the sub-categories that doesn't require people to know what motive power a particular class of train is before they can navigate to it. I also cannot see any obvious reason why this is "nonsense", "wrong" or how it disrupts any parallel organisation structure that exists and the nominator has chosen not to give any explanation beyond an implied personal dislike. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that the nominator has apparently spent a lot of effort reverting the addition of this category (with no explanation) and without waiting for the outcome of this discussion, which would definitely be explicitly contrary to en.wp policies and is should also be contrary to Commons' policies (although I admit I am rusty on these). Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is based on three terms: all three of them are wrong.
These are not 'trains', they're rolling stock: mostly locomotives, some are railcars or multiple units. Rolling stock have class numbers, this could work, but trains do not. Trains are temporary groups of rolling stock, assembled for a particular journey. They do have numbers or reporting codes, but they'll be something like 1V66, not 'class 158'.
There are no 'trains of the United Kingdom', no more than there are trains of England. Trains in that region are associated with Great Britain instead. Trains don't operate between Britain and Northern Ireland. But I can photograph trains from my own window as they magically transform from trains of England into trains of Wales - they're not stable or workable categories.
What's 'class'? Who allocates it? We already have British Rail TOPS Locomotive classes, Category:British Rail locomotives by 1957 number, Category:Trains of British Rail, Category:Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars of Great Britain. These aren't perfectly structured (there was no British Rail in 1957, for instance) but at least they have some implied coherent definition that we can work with. If we categorize by class, then those classes have to come from some sort of coherent list, or else it's meaningless. There's no such list or allocating body for 'the UK' (or 'England').
This all began last night from a series of changes breaking the Category:Numbers on rail vehicles tree. See User talk:Secretlondon#Number 99 on rail vehicles. That's a category tree based on simple lexical appearance and some presumed graphic design value for 'trains with numbers on'. They're visible. It's not about any semantics of the number (Take a look at what's there - it isn't.) Locos with numeric classes don't usually have that class number visible on them. NS 2900? They're numbered from 2901 upwards. None of them have 2900 on them. For the L&YR, this is especially ridiculous, because those class numbers were never used by the railway and are still contentious today (they appeared in one book, long afterwards). Now if rollback for that caught up changes to this other category tree too, that's perhaps unfortunate (and why I opened this CfD), but neither of these changes are any sort of improvement.
We've long had the problem of 'four-engined tractor aircraft with unicorn sprinkles' [1] and poorly-thought out categorisations based on an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the details. Generally if they're self-contained I leave them be, but this was now breaking the existing Numbers tree, so it was time to clean up. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis we have categories by class number of each train, so it makes sense to have an umbrella category. The "Trains of the United Kingdom" category has existed for almost 20 years. For good or ill, there are train nerds on Commons who delight in categorising railway stock in great detail. (As for the "of the United Kingdom" vs "in the United Kingdom", I'd happily support a rename of the subcategories from "of" to "in", for the reasons Andy explains above. If a locomotive passes through my local station I've no idea where it is "of".) Sionk (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there are train nerds on Commons " having made your disparaging opinion of other editors so clear, then I think we know how to treat your opinions on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are undoubtedly people on Commons who obsessively photograph and categorise railway related subjects. That doesn't invalidate my opinion on this discussion. Sionk (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PBS SoCal Plus

[edit]

"PBS SoCal Plus" is simply the new branding for television station KCET; there is no reason why this needs to be a separate category from Category:KCET. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. 2603:7000:B800:F04:991A:8451:8B9C:6AEE 01:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:0.4-kilometer bridges in Germany

Category:Official Languages Act, 2003

[edit]
  • Delete The only contents that sucha category could reasonably be expected to hold is a digital copy of the act itself. Since it does not do so, it serves no purpose. The contents could all fit comfortably within Category:Irish-language signs in Ireland. There is no need for such duplication. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :It is an act of the Oireachtas and I believe that categories of such are welcome on Wikimedia Commons. Darren J. Prior (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The act is a major piece of tranformative legislation in an Irish context and is still not fully implemented. All new housing estate road signage since 2009 has to have equal status for both Irish and English on them and this policy is still not fully implemented in practice. This measure is part of the act.
    It is good I believe to keep a watch on the act. I personally believe that the act is major and transformative enough to merit a category on WC. Having photos of signs in line with the act in the category seems normal to me. Darren J. Prior (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This nomination is not about the merits or notability of the act. What could be contained in this nominated category that would not be in the Irish-language signs category? Personally, I'd see little content. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm in having the category and the photos I have put in it. The photos are all relevant as they have come out post-2003 when the act came in. They are not just any Irish language / bilingual signs. Darren J. Prior

The photos are grand. Move them to the Category:Irish-language signs in Ireland before this category gets deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that the category should be deleted.
And they are bilingual signs not Irish-language signs.
Every photo in the category has come out post-2003 when the act came in. That was the point in having the category and to so highlight examples the change in legislation brought in.
Again there is no consensus that the category should be deleted - only you on your own saying it. I find that offensive. Darren J. Prior (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No offence was intended. But you seem to be deaf to the rationale. Don't like the recommended site? Try Category:Bilingual English-Irish signs in Ireland instead. Looks like a good home for the contents of the nominated category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard your argument / rationale but believe that there is nothing wrong with having the category. WC should be a welcoming place. I would consider the cateogory to be a good category to have.
Unless there is a consensus that the category should be deleted it should not be. Darren J. Prior (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content found in this category are not about the act. It seems to be mostly signs using the Irish language located in Ireland. These should be located at Category:Irish-language signs in Ireland (for Irish-only signs) or Category:Bilingual English-Irish signs in Ireland (for bilingual signs), or the most appropriate language combination. They do not need to be also placed in a category about the Official Languages Act, 2003. Place Clichy 07:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Content found in this category are not about the act". You are wrong. Every photo in the category is because of the act. Darren J. Prior (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Before the act came in in 2003 there was no legal obligation that there had to be Irish langugae versions of signs in Ireland. And printed in the same size as the English language versions. Every sign in the category has come out post-2003. Darren J. Prior (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You placed the entirety of Category:Irish-language signs, Category:Irish-language signs in Ireland and Category:Bilingual signs in Ireland in the category about the act. There are plenty of signs there who are not related to the act, older than 2003 or not even in Ireland. Also, for files you put directly in Category:Official Languages Act, 2003, I would say it is far from obvious that they have come out post-2003 or are related to the act, without more specific information, e.g. File:Welcome to Finglas bilingual Irish English sign (2023).jpg, File:Welcome to Ballymun bilingual sign (2019).jpg or File:The Weir, Chapelizod (2019).jpg.
    The only topic here is Irish language on signs in Ireland, and therefore these files should be in existing Category:Irish-language signs in Ireland and Category:Bilingual English-Irish signs in Ireland. We don't need an additional category. Place Clichy 11:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The signs in the Official Languages Act 2003 category all came out post-2003 - you can tell by looking at them that they are not older signs - and are all in accordance with the act. If you want I can add a description to the category to this effect. I took most of the photos in the category so know that they came out post-2003, and you can tell by the other ones that they are not more than 20 years old.
    "You placed the entirety of Category:Irish-language signs, Category:Irish-language signs in Ireland and Category:Bilingual signs in Ireland in the category about the act."
    I was just linking the categories because they are connected. Darren J. Prior (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The only topic here is Irish language on signs in Ireland".
    The Official Languages Act does not only cover signage. It just happens that most of the uploads in the category to date are on that issue. Darren J. Prior (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then for those that are signs they should just be in Category:Bilingual English-Irish signs in Ireland, as was suggested to you above. If there is other content (which I don't see any at the moment) then we may consider if such a category is needed.
    Re "you can tell by looking at them that they are not older signs": it is very much a matter of appreciation to guess how old is a sign when you just have a picture of it and no other information. But that's not what matters. These signs (older or newer) don't have an explicit reference to the Official Languages Act written on them. They are, however, explicitly unilingual or bilingual, in Irish Gaelic, English, Polish, French, Latin or even some other languages. That's why the categories of signs by language are a good fit for them, but a category about an act is not really.
    Re "I was just linking the categories because they are connected": you don't put content in a category because it is related, but because it precisely belongs to the definition of that category and could not do without it. Otherwise that would be a mess to no end. Categories are an organized structure, not a spaghetti plate. Guideline Commons:Categories#Over-categorization could help you to understand how categories are useful. Place Clichy 21:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the signs in the category are bilingual in Irish/English - with only 1 in Irish-only which is also in line with the act as an English language version of the sign was beside it but I did not take a photo of that - not "in Irish Gaelic, English, Polish, French, Latin or even some other languages."
    "a good fit for them, a category about an act is not really."
    I don't see that the category merits deletion (there are also 2 audio interviews in the category), and if it remains what is wrong with keeping the photos that came in in line with the act in it.
    I don't want to continue this tedious conversation for much longer. I have as it happens already when I uploaded my photos (which constitute most photos in the category) added them to the 2 other most relevant categories as well.
    I would imagine that more people than just 2 would merit a "consensus" for deleting the category and/or moving most of the photos.
    I recommend that you ask more people to comment on this CfD and ideally some / some more Irish people who may have an idea of what the Official Languages Act 2003 is in general. Darren J. Prior (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just going to say as well that pursuing a deaf dialogue is not needed. More than 1 opinion is probably needed to keep a redundant category that is ill-advised per guidelines on category usage (Commons:Categories). However, besides this disagreement, I acknowledge that you edits are all done in good faith and welcome your contribution to this project. Place Clichy 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend keeping the category with the 2 audio files in it.
    The photos have already been added to different categories so can be deleted from the category if need be. Darren J. Prior (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the (albeit small numerically) consensus is that this categpory / most of the photos in it should be deleted I will go with that.
    We have a category for Acts of the Oireachtas (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Acts_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland) so I do not think that this OLA category should be deleted as there are 2 podcasts in it that makes it worth keeping the category I believe.
    Do I have to go through ever photo of signs in this OLA category to delete from the category or is there another faster way one of you do it? Darren J. Prior (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These 2 categories can be deleted now if you's really think appropriate or relevant to do so:
    1) Category:Official Languages Act, 2003 - Wikimedia Commons
    2) Category:Official Languages Act, 2003 (Republic of Ireland) - Wikimedia Commons.
    This updated category only has 2 audio files in it that I recorded myself from home on 2 community radio stations. I recommend keeping this category.
    1) Category:Official Languages Act 2003 (Republic of Ireland). Darren J. Prior (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand you and Laurelodged are moderators. Bearing in mind my advice on what I believe should happen with this category - can you's make up your mind what is going to happen to it? Darren J. Prior (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've moved most of the content to Category:Irish-language signs in Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I have just added 1 more file a podcast to the category. Darren J. Prior (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you take the notice off the top of the category now? Darren J. Prior (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weaponization of antisemitism

[edit]

Appeal speedy deletion prod by User:Denniss. Rationale had been "emptied cat, was based on POV accusation vs Latuff", which suggests a good faith misunderstanding. The cat is a description of what the images are about – i.e. the concept of how Weaponization of antisemitism can be used to stifle free speech. It is akin to the concept of playing the Race card.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French Rallycross Championship

[edit]

identique à Category:Championnat de France de Rallycross JuanManuel Ascari (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Championnat de France de Rallycross

[edit]

identique à Category:French Rallycross Championship JuanManuel Ascari (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abergele surrounding area

[edit]
Category:Denbigh surrounding area
Category:Hawarden surrounding area
Category:Llanarmon-yn-Iâl surrounding area
Category:Llandegla (surrounding area)
Category:Llantysilio (surrounding area)
Category:Pentrefoelas surrounding area
Category:Ysbyty Ifan (surrounding area)

Poorly defined categories created by the same editor. Either the contents are pictures of views within these communities, or they're not. I suggest the contents of these categories are merged into the main community categories. Note that communities (similar to English civil parishes) are the lowest level of local government organisation in Wales, with clearly defined boundaries. The "surrounding area" would logically be in a neighbouring community.
Communities are often named after a town or village within the community, and maybe the creator has confused the two, and these are duplicates of the community categories. But if the built-up area of that town or village forms only a small part of the community (though communities are often quite small anyway), it makes much more sense in my opinion if a subcategory of "FOO (village)" or "FOO (town)" is created. --Sionk (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Populated areas (village / town) and it's surrounding area are two very distinct places. The first is a collection of homesteads defined in all cases by name on a road sign. The surrounding area refers to the community which aren't marked on road signs, this area (similar to parishes) is much larger than the village or town, included within. I can't see how this differentiation is 'poorly defined' as both are defined geographically by the planning authority. Sionk describes these populated places as only 'communities or not (communities)' and does not take into account the populated area within the community / parish etc, which also have 'clearly defined boundaries'. Having 1 size fits all is certainly confusing and poorly defined when both community and populated area have the same name. The surrounding area category also helps ensures that only images of the village / town are within that Category, rather than clutter each populated area with hundreds of images of bypassing roads, fields of sheep, mountains and and flowing rivers miles from the actual populated area. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, these categories have the same name as the community and an associated town or village (after which the community is named). The surrounding area to the town of Denbigh is ...the Denbigh community, for example. So calling a category "Denbigh surrounding area" doesn't help much, we don't know whether this is surrounding the Denbigh urban area, or the Denbigh community. There has to be a better solution - maybe creating a Category:Denbigh (town), Category:Hawarden (village) categories etc.? Sionk (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with any recognised term within parenthesis, as suggested, depending on defined status eg X (community}, Y (village)... The important bit is that they become separate entities rather than one big mish-mash as per status quo. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To see if the suggested format works, I've trialled one area: Category:Abergwyngregyn to Category:Abergwyngregyn (village) and Category:Abergwyngregyn (Community area). I can't guarantee that every images in the Category:Abergwyngregyn (Community area) is actually in that community, as the community boundaries are not easily mapped. Going through each one of the 500+ images to check would take days. It's already taken me two hours, whereas the general category (surrounding area) would have been done in 10 minutes. I still believe that surrounding area is a quicker and better way. Yes, Strong keep Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete, per nom and previous discussion. "surrounding area" is vague and undefined. If it/some can be converted to "(community)" then that's fine. It indeed is helpful if the settlement is separated from the rural areas for categorisation, but should stick to more defined variables like administrative boundaries, or making settlement categories. Understand that them being intentionally vague allows for quicker categorising though. A parent category can be used if unsure. DankJae 00:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Matthias Wiegandt

[edit]

It's a subcategory of many of its own subcategories!!! 186.174.124.88 00:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? The ones such as Category:Matthias Wiegandt/Cultural heritage monuments in Oranienburg that are both named as subcats, and are also subcats? I've removed these from being supercats. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing my mistake! --Wieggy (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the discussion can be closed, thank you for pointing out my mistake! --Wieggy (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toki Pona in sitelen sitelen

[edit]

should this category and Category:Toki Pona in sitelen pona be shortened to just "Sitelen sitelen" and "Sitelen pona"?

  • shorter and more direct names
  • consistent with other categories
  • sitelen pona and sitelen sitelen are only used for one language, toki pona

editors can decide whether to have it in lowercase (sitelen pona) or Caps (Sitelen Pona). the former is used natively in toki pona. Juwan (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "consistent with other categories", which categories do you mean exactly? Toki Pona categories or those of other languages/scripts?
I assumed that Category:Toki Pona in sitelen pona and Category:Toki Pona in sitelen sitelen were consistent with similar categories in some other language. But going to check, this doesn't seem to be the case for Azerbaijani (which has "Azerbaijani Arabic alphabet" rather than e.g. "Azerbaijani in Arabic script") nor for Mongolian (which has Category:Mongolian script put directly in Category:Mongolian language).
Anyway, yeah, it's probably more useful to shorten them to just "sitelen pona" and "sitelen sitelen". So  Rename . Spenĉjo (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concerts at Theaterchurch Bemmel

[edit]

Deze redirect is onnodig; het zou verwijderd moeten worden omdat het zinloos en misleidend is. Lendskaip (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ma

[edit]

this is not related to toki pona but idk what to do with it Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mi

[edit]

this is not related to toki pona but idk what to do with it Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inaugurarea Expoziției de tablouri ale pictorilor Gheorghe Lisița și Veronica Iftodii „Primăvara începe cu tine” (2021-03-01)

[edit]

What does it say? 186.173.117.57 06:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plantae

[edit]

Wouldn't it be good to merge this with Category:Plants? The latter is the more common term and seems far better maintained/populated with the two essentially being about the same thing (see Plant taxonomy and Plant).
Despite of this, the former is linked from the main page and contains e.g. Category:Plantae in art‎ with barely anything in it while Category:Plants in art (not a subcat) is well-populated. Merging should be done in a good way if it indeed does make sense (if not things like the need for an additional cat, the difference to the other cat, and the missing media/subcats should be addressed). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I'm late by seven months. Anyway, I support downmerging Category:Plantae to Category:Plants, as they cover basically the same kingdom, with "plants" being a common name for end users. Same for Category:Animalia versus Category:Animals. Category:Equus caballus (scientific name) already redirects to Category:Horses (common name). However, Category:Cats is a dab page, with Category:Felis silvestris catus being the category for what we commonly call as "cats". Category:Tigers and Category:Lions are redirects to Category:Panthera tigris and Category:Panthera leo respectively, which should be reversed. Same for Category:Leopards, Category:Cheetahs, Category:Walrus, Category:Sharks and so on. COM:CAT says, "Category names should generally be in English. 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." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: I've tagged Category:Plants, Category:Aves/Category:Birds, Category:Animalia/Category:Animals, and Category:Mammalia/Category:Mammals for this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presence in Antarctica by country

[edit]

(1) What is the difference from Category:Countries of the Antarctic? (2) Why is it Antarctic in some categories and Antarctica in others? 200.111.227.105 20:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also this open discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rei Ayanami plushies

[edit]

Inappropriate per COM:TOYS   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit rude not to ping the participants of the original discussion so they have a chance to know about the discussion--Trade (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anya Forger plushies

[edit]

Inappropriate per COM:TOYS   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pochita plushies

[edit]

Inappropriate per COM:TOYS   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plushies, dolls or toys based on fictional characters

[edit]

Inappropriate per COM:TOYS   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template:User Tuba

[edit]

This makes no sense to me as a category. What is the intent here? Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello !
Perhaps because you are not a musician. The idea is simple: people will know that I am a musician by profession.
There are many different hobbies in the templates Map hobby (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Map hobby: How does you being a tubist make sense out of the combination "Category:Template:" which I have never before seen on Commons or any other WMF project? Is the intent here simply a template (in which case "Category:" should not be there)? - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Yes, it was supposed to be a template. But I'm not experienced yet.
That was the first attempt to create a template (as you can see, it was unsuccessful)
Please delete it
Thanks Map hobby (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christopher Addison, 1st Viscount Addison

[edit]

duplicate of it's subcategory Category:Christopher Addison Robby (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fuxing Palace Temple, Taipei

[edit]

same as Category:Jingmei Fusing Temple Wikimycota (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Awarded of Velykoho Bazhaite

[edit]
[edit]

text translates to "In this category put things from popular culture."; cat is problematic and should probably be redirected or deleted Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bengali revolutionary

[edit]

Parentless category with no clear definition and exactly one file. What exactly are the criteria to determine what does and does not belong in this category? What are appropriate parent categories? Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel:  Keep as a Bengali person. The criterion for inclusion for this category should be to include Bengali revolutionaries who had participated in Category:Indian independence movement and/or Category:Bangladesh Liberation War. I can name a few people who should belong to this category, like Category:Khudiram Bose and Category:Bagha Jatin. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Revolutionaries and Category:Bengali people should be the parents. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, that would be Category:Bengali revolutionaries (plural); however, I see no other categories of revolutionaries by ethnicity, not even for groups like the where there was a specifically nationalist failed revolution (the war). - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abusive people

[edit]
see previous discussion at: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Abusive women

Completely arbitrary category Trade (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer, Kk.urban, and Amousey: --Trade (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all three categories identified by @Kk.urban. As I noted in the VP discussion, "abusive" is a fairly fuzzy, subjective term. Most, if not all, of the content under these categories was already under more precise categories (e.g. Category:Criminals by crime if applicable). Omphalographer (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all three categories for the reasons outlined by Omphalographer. The way these categories (and its parent, "Problem behaviour") are being used is also rather inappropriate. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Per everyone else. Totally pointless and inappropriate category. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subsuming previous CfD into this one: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Abusive women. Josh (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per rationales above. - Jmabel ! talk 05:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ralph Avery

[edit]

No files or subcategories. This is not where Commons categories are for. Zafer (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zafer, I am in the process of uploading files to category. Please allow me a few weeks to organize. Regards, Recardo Highvoltage113 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Highvoltage113 are you still uploading? RZuo (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transparentality

[edit]

"Transparentality" does not seem to be a commonly-used term. In fact, I'd never heard of this word before today, and I'm pretty deep in trans culture myself. "Transgender parenting" or something like that would be more understandable. Brainy J (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Rename to "Transgender parenting". Transparentality reminds me of transparency, but it's still a neologism. LEILA FERRAZ (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel’s Jessica Jones

[edit]

Merge category with Category:Jessica Jones (TV series) - they have the same scope Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Warburg1866 does this cat serve a special purpose other than Category:Jessica Jones (TV series)? RoyZuo (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tirant d'eau

[edit]

Rename category from French to English 213.55.226.254 12:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree In the EN-WP it is called Draft (hull). I suggest to do that in Commons as well. JopkeB (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do it then. 186.174.168.209 01:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do it yourself, just give your opinion or requests here, no assignments (we are all volunteers, not your employees). But first wait at least two weeks (see Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion) to see if there are other opinions. And it would be nice if you would log in before giving a reaction. JopkeB (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you say those things to the IP that opened the discussion? Dicrimination among IPs?! 186.174.168.209 11:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: The discussion period of two weeks has more than passed by. Since there seems to be no opposition, how can we proceed? Can I close the discussion and make a move request to the name you suggested? Or is this forbidden for IPs? 213.55.188.113 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can close the discussion and implement the solution. I do not know whether you can do that with you IP adress, I try to avoid it, so I wouldn't know. JopkeB (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
ActionsRename to Category:Draft (hull)
Participants
Closed by213.55.188.223 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@213.55.188.223:  Question I see that the solution has not yet been implementated. Are you going to? How else would the solution being implementated? --JopkeB (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: I added a move request to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves. But this page has a huge backlog. :-( If you can implement the move without admin support, that would be great. 213.55.227.172 01:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just ask. I have renamed the category. You can withdraw your request on CommonsDelinker. JopkeB (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have withdrawn the request. 213.55.224.167 06:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Confluence

[edit]

I see no good reason why this category exists. If there is a good reason, would someone please add parent categories and (presumably) more than the single subcat it now has? Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ernst Leitz Wetzlar stereo microscope with 4 objectives

[edit]

None of these are a 'Ernst Leitz Wetzlar stereo microscope with 4 objectives'.

Most of these are of a binocular microscope, not a stereo microscope. This is a big difference and would matter to any microscopist.

One of them is a stereo microscope. But it's a type with a single pair of objectives, and these are interchangeable. It can have as many of them as you have access to, not just 4 on a turret. In fact this one appears to have 5. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley Thank you for the review of the category name. I have choosen it on base of the inscription on File:Ernst Leitz Wetzlar stereo microscope with 4 objectives-7969.jpg and File:Ernst Leitz Wetzlar stereo microscope with 4 objectives-7970.jpg. Raymond (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see the point you're making? You're arguing that these really are stereo microscopes? Or that because you've named the files already, we have to propagate the error? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley My point is about the manufacturer "Ernst Leitz Wetzlar". If I made an error related to the type stereo/binocular it should be fixed, of course. Raymond (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:VisibleWikiWomen 2018

[edit]

topical categories (of individual people in this case) should not be put under wikipedia event category like this.

if no objection, then they will be removed from this. RZuo (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @RZuo, I'm the creator of this category :) Please keep in mind that this category has been in use for 6 years and it contains all the contributions of the very first #VisibleWikiWomen campaign. What's your suggestion for this category? Do you think it should be transformed in a topical category? I have no opposition to that, since other #VisibleWikiWomen categories are also topical. But please, can you explain a little bit more about your idea of what to do with this one? I just don't want to make drastic changes that can cause a valuable memory loss. Even, I can do the change, after a reasonable discussion. Thank you! Señoritaleona (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"other #VisibleWikiWomen categories are also topical"
no they are not. examples Category:VisibleWikiWomen 2021 Category:VisibleWikiWomen 2022 only contain subcategories related to your event, but not any topical categories (of individual people!).
the women, of which you uploaded pictures, are not defined by "VisibleWikiWomen..." in fact, they probably have no interaction with your event or your organisers at all.
what's appropriate, is (1) apply these event categories only to files or your event pages, but not to topical categories, (2) if you want to have a list, you create one in gallery or commons namespace, instead of using a category.
take a look at Category:Wiki Loves Monuments. monuments that were photographed are not listed in those event categories. only the photos are. RZuo (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @RZuo! So, your proposal is to make VisibleWikiWomen_2018 a non-topical hidden category, correct? If that's what you mean, I'll be happy to proceed with the change. Thanks! Señoritaleona (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's to remove all these categories from this category, e.g.
RZuo (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Po (toki pona)

[edit]

empty should be deleted Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nvm this category is a real toki pona word but just rare Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not empty and this is not Deletion Requests page. 186.175.173.53 12:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11 deaths

[edit]

Ambiguous naming. Could also mean 11 number of deaths instead of deaths in 11 CE. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: Category is empty now, so you can ask for a deletion and close this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: There are similar non-empty "[year] deaths" categories like Category:4 deaths, Category:14 deaths‎, Category:17 deaths‎ etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: What is your proposal? How can this problem be solved? JopkeB (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: My proposal is to rename this category to Category:Deaths in 11. This is more unambiguous than the current scheme. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you rename all 1,855 categories? If not: which ones and which ones not? JopkeB (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpine passes in Switzerland by name

[edit]

I think we can upmerge this into Category:Alpine passes in Switzerland. Similar categories for Italy/Austria have barely any entries.

It was also a subcategory of Category:Mountain passes of Switzerland by name, but as a flat category, that shouldn't have such subcategories. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dan

[edit]

It's unclear what this category is about. The parent categories say something about biblical figures and Israeli people, but the Dan category itself includes photos from Thailand and Dan (as in: martial arts black belt) certificates. This category probably needs a name addition that indicates what it is about ("Dan (Israeli tribe)"?) and the Category:Dan should be a disambig page that lists Black Belts as an option as well as the aspect that got those Thailand photos in that category (no clue what that aspect is). Nakonana (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/03&oldid=950499981"