Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/05
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.
You can visit the most recent archive here.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2008 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2009 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2010 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2011 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2012 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2013 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2014 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2015 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2017 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2018 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2019 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2020 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2021 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2022 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2023 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 2024 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
Archive May 2021
|
Reasons for discussion request : Typo in the category name. The correct category is Category:SNCF Class X 73500, TER Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes.
--Remontees (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted as an empty category Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty and useless category JDrouette (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:The center of the revolutionary movement at the locomotive depot in Chelyabinsk 1903-1919
editAn erroneous category created by me. Please delete. 攝影師 (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
erroneous duplication of a category, there is already: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chelyabinsk_Military_Aviation_Institute_of_Navigators 攝影師 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category JDrouette (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category after new structure JDrouette (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Similar category already exists JDrouette (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Useless category subcategories have been moved JDrouette (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category JDrouette (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category items have been moved JDrouette (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Similar category already exists JDrouette (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category JDrouette (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Category already existing JDrouette (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The series is based on a very old reference, and is not used in sources that I can find post 2005 molecular phylogenetic studies; delete Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
he series is based on a very old reference, and is not used in sources that I can find post 2005 molecular phylogenetic studies; delete. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Wat is the difference between Category:Neighborhoods in Rotterdam and Category:Neighborhoods of Rotterdam? Can these two categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- May be merged!
Antoine.01
overleg(Antoine) 14:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Performed by Antoine. I close the discussion. JopkeB (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
versehentlich erstellt - Bild gehört in Kategorie Kleinzschocher Andreas Wolf 01 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Please look at the CfD just above this one. Commons is fast becoming "Ukraine Commons". E4024 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- What would you like to discuss about it? --Sanya3 (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You may ask their opinion to the very few user(s?) that are trying to convert Commons into a showcase for Ukraine, as we happen to see all the time out-of-standard cats for that country. I appreciate people who try to take care of their countries but this must not turn into a "my country should have a different place in Commons". BTW when I opened this CfD I only saw "Ukranian women" in there; everybody agrees that Ukranian women are beautiful but that does not have to bring together a special treat for them in Commons. This last sentence may join the two category discussions, about "adult women and young women of Ukraine" (women are women BTW, and girls are girls) I guess. --E4024 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are free to create categories for any country you like. For example, there are tens of thousands of categories that exist only for Japan on Commons, because somebody took care to create all of them. I primarily create categories for Ukraine, although I have also created hundreds of categories for the United States, Russia and other countries. As well as many general categories as well.--Sanya3 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a discussion about a particular user, but I hope you get the message. --E4024 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not really sure what your point is, other than you are unhappy that some users are creating categories for Ukraine.--Sanya3 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- And some users say no to this attitude. If I (or anyone else) do not want to understand something, nobody can make me (them) understand. Good-bye. --E4024 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not really sure what your point is, other than you are unhappy that some users are creating categories for Ukraine.--Sanya3 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a discussion about a particular user, but I hope you get the message. --E4024 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are free to create categories for any country you like. For example, there are tens of thousands of categories that exist only for Japan on Commons, because somebody took care to create all of them. I primarily create categories for Ukraine, although I have also created hundreds of categories for the United States, Russia and other countries. As well as many general categories as well.--Sanya3 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You may ask their opinion to the very few user(s?) that are trying to convert Commons into a showcase for Ukraine, as we happen to see all the time out-of-standard cats for that country. I appreciate people who try to take care of their countries but this must not turn into a "my country should have a different place in Commons". BTW when I opened this CfD I only saw "Ukranian women" in there; everybody agrees that Ukranian women are beautiful but that does not have to bring together a special treat for them in Commons. This last sentence may join the two category discussions, about "adult women and young women of Ukraine" (women are women BTW, and girls are girls) I guess. --E4024 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
No clear purpose to or suggestion for nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the purpose of this category. Test creation? Achim (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Nonsense. --E4024 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between Category:Groynes and Category:Groyne beacons? Can Category:Groyne beacons be merged into Category:Groynes? JopkeB (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Beacon at the end of the groyne is a structure designed to be seen at High tide to warn watercraft that a groyne is just below the water and designates the end of the groyne so is really not part of the sea defence but a marker to designate its location and so there for is the difference between the two objects. Kolforn (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Also for your quick answer. This is very helpful. JopkeB (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Both categories should be kept. I have added a description in Category:Groyne beacons according to the definition of Kolforn. JopkeB (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name of this category to "Category:Hartmut Becker (actor)" to match other categories about actors. Thanks in advance. 109.79.98.241 22:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know how to change the name without losing the wikibox. If you have an account do as you please. --Hiddenhauser (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've moved the category. --Magnus (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Renamed by Tsungam. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't belong here. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) ping me plz 00:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, and I marked it for speedy deletion. And now I'm pinging an admin who is active at this moment. Danke schoen. --E4024 (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
this cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Judithcomm. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
this cat is empty and can be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Judithcomm. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Md. Aftab Uddin Aftab0199 (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the category? If Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Md. Aftab Uddin is closed as delete then it will simply be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The result was deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty category, created by an indeffed editor while evading the block. — kashmīrī 01:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deleted by Ymblanter. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Please delete: the category already exists at Category:88 High Street, Arbroath. (My mistake). Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:Flags 2A02:2F05:110B:4400:B51C:8256:CF04:3F97 20:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a redirect. Seems like an appropriate one to me. What is your problem with it? - Jmabel ! talk 01:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The rationale is "Category:Flags"? Erm. Regardless, this is a valid redirect someone may use. No obvious (or stated) reason to delete it. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
My mistake[1][2] POS78 (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Useless "discussion," this was actually a proposal for deletion. I nominated it properly. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
My mistake[3][4] POS78 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Useless "discussion," this was actually a proposal for deletion. I nominated it properly. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently empty; never contained more than 1 image (not specific to book) and not likely to either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Bad alternative to Category:Providence, Rhode Island in the 21st century (extra comma) Filetime (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Empty and useless category. --Lambiam 11:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Tavio -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
rrtytjtjytyjtjyjtjjyjjrjtjtjjtjy 2A01:CB19:554:C400:B0B9:E73C:7E4E:A25D 12:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
U.S. 60 does not go through Mississippi. Category was created because a single file was miscategorized, category is now empty. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: Just delete it as an empty category. Krok6kola (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin. I can't delete stuff. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Bad name: Rotterdam is a city, "the" is not good. What should it be: Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam or in the Rotterdam surroundings? JopkeB (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree, caused by a copy/paste error from parent country category ;) --ErickAgain 14:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick answer. What should it be: Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam or Aerial photographs of bridges in the Rotterdam surroundings (or something like that, area might also be good)? I saw that you also put the Spijkenisserbrug to this category, on the very outskirts of Rotterdam, more Spijkenisse (another municipality, now Nissewaard) and Hoogvliet (a neighborhood on the outskirts of rotterdam) than Rotterdam in my opinion, hence my question. JopkeB (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It should be Category:Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam all bridges are located inside the municipality of Rotterdam (Hoogvliet is part of Rotterdam) Being on the outskirts or in downtown Rotterdam does not matter in this case. Some bridges may be located on the border but are still partly inside. These shared bridges can be put in two categories. Any bridge completely outside Rotterdam should be placed elsewhere. --ErickAgain 19:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC).
- OK, I performed the changes. I close this discussion. If you ever make a similar mistake in the future, you might rename that category yourself: scroll at the top in "More" and follow the form. JopkeB (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- It should be Category:Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam all bridges are located inside the municipality of Rotterdam (Hoogvliet is part of Rotterdam) Being on the outskirts or in downtown Rotterdam does not matter in this case. Some bridges may be located on the border but are still partly inside. These shared bridges can be put in two categories. Any bridge completely outside Rotterdam should be placed elsewhere. --ErickAgain 19:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC).
- Thank you for your quick answer. What should it be: Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam or Aerial photographs of bridges in the Rotterdam surroundings (or something like that, area might also be good)? I saw that you also put the Spijkenisserbrug to this category, on the very outskirts of Rotterdam, more Spijkenisse (another municipality, now Nissewaard) and Hoogvliet (a neighborhood on the outskirts of rotterdam) than Rotterdam in my opinion, hence my question. JopkeB (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I renamed this category to Category:Aerial photographs of bridges in Rotterdam and moved the subcategory and files to this new category. JopkeB (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we either move this to (or have a redirect from) the gender-neutral Category:Line workers? Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. It's already at en:Lineworker on English wikipedia. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Lineworkers would be fine. If no one objects in the next few days, I will close it and that is where it will go (or someone else can feel free to beat me to it). - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete Category - it's empty Mef.ellingen (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: yep. --JuTa 21:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Was created by mistake, already exists as Category:UC Davis College of Engineering Kritzolina (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
We all make mistakes Kritzolina but there is usually little need for discussion. Next time, use {{Bad name}} to delete your errors. =) -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Themightyquill, I did not find the right template and just wanted to make sure it gets deleted - it is the first time I needed to do this, will try to remember how to do it correctly, in case I should need it again. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
|
Reasons for discussion request: There was no other Wilde Rodach found, so new Category:Wilde Rodach was created, all contents of the old Category:Wilde Rodach (Rodach) was moved to new category and now, the old category should be deleted. --Silvicola (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
"Apples and pears" cat opened by a newcomer. Delete immediately. E4024 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am really sorry. I wan to make it like Category:International relations by organization please help me. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Relations of Iraq and the People's Mujahedin of Iran. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
It appears that this category is a typo and that the correct stage name for this DJ is "Jay Frog". That spelling already has a category created for it containing all the images in this one and more. Since this category is redundant, can you please delete it and/or redirect it to the correct spelling? Thanks in advance. 51.37.110.14 22:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Jay Frog. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Empty category involved in a DW-related DR (COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tourist maps of Doña Remedios Trinidad). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The category can be deleted according to the opinion of the participant who proposed the renaming, the files were redirected to the proposed category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Monument_to_Gabdulla_Tuqay_(Chelyabinsk) 攝影師 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Monument_to_Gabdulla_Tuqay_(Chelyabinsk). -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a typo in the category name. The Latin book title says "... juxta systema Tournefortianum ..." (not "systems").
(And the last word, "paulo", does not really make sense as long as the following words are omitted. The adverb "paulo" just qualifies those; on its own, it's quite pointless.) Martinus KE (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Martinus KE, thank you; in this case (evidence of typo errors) it's better to proceed to fix the category name, no discussion needed. --Marcok (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done fixed. Next time {{Move}} can be used. --Marcok (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Hortus Romanus juxta systema Tournefortianum. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Category with typo, files redirected to the corrected one Robot8A (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Saladern (Savallà del Comtat) -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la catégorie au profit de NStCM ABe 2/4 and Be 2/4 par cohérence avec https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/tmnstcm0415f.pdf --Remontees (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please do not add new discussions on top of the list but at the bottom. I am now marking this as empty for speedy deletion. Merci beaucoup. --E4024 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, you can also do it yourself by adding {SD|C2} (use a couple of {}) on the empty cat. --E4024 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between these two categories:
- Category:Paintings with signatures (lower left)
- Category:Paintings with signatures (bottom, left), which is a child of the one above
Also between these two:
- Category:Paintings with signatures (lower right)
- Category:Paintings with signatures (bottom, right), which is a child of the one above
I thought the difference might be that one is for signatures that are right in the very corner, but a few checks showed that that doesn't seem to be the case. If there's no difference, these should be merged. If there is a difference, an explanation at the top of each would be helpful.
FYI, there for the "upper" categories, there is only one for each side (upper left and upper right). Auntof6 (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- These are 9 years old, no one asked this except you.^^ Explantions:
- The position of the text means the position of the signature(s). If it's "bottom", then there is a broader space. I hope, you understand the differences now. The positions are now integrated in each category (sortkey “!”). Unfortunately, I have little knowledge of graphics software.
- Best greetings, --Mateus2019 (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mateus2019: I must be missing something, because I still don't see the difference. In the illustrations, I see little or no difference between the two for the left side; the bottom left one just looks a little smaller. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- The pair "bottom left” und "bottom right" or the pair "lower left" and "lower right" categories may be deleted. --Mateus2019 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mateus2019: I must be missing something, because I still don't see the difference. In the illustrations, I see little or no difference between the two for the left side; the bottom left one just looks a little smaller. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree to merge, please one of you two do the needed and let's not lose time with this discussion. Consensus is clear. E4024 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference either, so I would suggest we go ahead with the merger. @Auntof6: Do you have any preference between the terms lower and bottom? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Lower would be a better match for the term upper in the related categories, so I think that would be better. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference either, so I would suggest we go ahead with the merger. @Auntof6: Do you have any preference between the terms lower and bottom? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Paintings with signatures (lower right) and Category:Paintings with signatures (lower left) -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Does this category make any sense? Ies (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not to me, especially being categorized under Category:Dogs... --E4024 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- There were 23 images of various dogs apparently taken by someone named Andrew Branch at unsplash.com that were batch uploaded and put into Category:Dogs. I created this category (though a better name would have been something like, Dog photos by Andrew Branch at Unsplash) simply to group them together and slightly reduce the number of images in this far overcrowd category, which is 1,641 as I write this. I had thought about moving them into Category:Unidentified dogs, but that is even more overcrowded, currently containing 4453 images. If there's another way to handle groups of nondescript images having only the same general subject and coming from a common source, please let me know. Feel free to do anything with this category and/or the images within it. Waz8 (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I moved it to Dog photos by Andrew Branch at Unsplash then moved that to Category:Unidentified dogs. I don't believe there's any reason to keep the redirect. Waz8 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted redirect. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This seems to duplicate Category:Mudéjar architecture in Aragon and could be merged. Mike Peel (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly. Nothing to discuss. Just go for it. "Mudéjar architecture in Aragon" is good enough. --E4024 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Merged to Category:Mudéjar architecture in Aragon Themightyquill (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Diese Kategorie bitte löschen, fehlerhafte botanische Bezeichnung, Tippfehler, Wunsch des Hochladers, Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 18:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of Category:Clerodendrum colebrookianum. Pimpinellus Next time you make an error, you can simply use {{Bad name}}. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Men by name with microphones or similar. This would follow the Category:People by name pattern. Senator2029 20:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
No opposition. Moved to Category:Men by name with microphones. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Empty category JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
empty category أمين (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@أمين: obviously, when images are deleted, the categories are empty. Empty categories are unnecessary. Lotje (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between "transport ships" and "cargo ships"? Can the category:Transport ships be integrated into Category:Cargo ships? JopkeB (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could it be intended the relevant category for en:Troopship? But I agree, the current category name doesn't work. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are right. I did not look well. And troops are not cargo, so merging this category into Cargo ships is no option. Either a good description should be added or this category should be renamed to Category:Troopships. I prefer the latter because then the name is in line whith ENG Wikipedia and immediately obvious at first glance. JopkeB (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Troopships. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
To me the name is not correct. The images in this category are not Ancient ( ± 3200 BC - ± 600 AD) but much younger. I propose: Antique toys on stamps. JopkeB (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- That makes sense since it's a subcategory of Category:Antique toys. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Thanks for your contribution. JopkeB (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This category has been renamed to: Category:Antique toys on stamps. JopkeB (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between Category:Studies and Category:Home offices? How can you see in an image that it is one thing or the other? JopkeB (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: The meanings seem to be almost identical, maybe with some nuances of connotations and different historical and etymological background of the words. --ŠJů (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to @ŠJů: . In his answer I do not read a difference that you can see on images. So my next questions are:
- Can these two categories be merged?
- If so: which one should be kept? It seems to me that Category:Home offices has a slightly broader definition and that that one should be kept for that reason. Am I right?
- If not: what exactly are the differences? How can we define both categories in such a way that it is clear for each image in which category it fits?
- JopkeB (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I like the romantic nostalgia of the word "studies" but it also presents the problem of confusion with study as a type of research, like scientific studies. So I guess I accept the idea to merge to home offices. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
There should be one category for Studies and Home offices alike because you cannot tell whether an image shows one or the other. Category:Home offices is kept because it has a slightly broader definition and there cannot be confusion with study as a type of research, like scientific studies. I implemented this conclusion. JopkeB (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Creating an empty category feels absolutely pointless. Had it been populated immediately then I would not have an issue. There are few pictures of this person that have suitable licencing, if any. The sole [ictiure of her was a struggle to find for its uploader Timtrent (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are two images in the category now. I might not have created it, but I don't see any reason to delete it. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem described in the nomination statement is now resolved. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
inappropriate 80.229.137.112 21:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why inappropriate ? There is already Category:LGBT-related logos, so why not Category:Anti-LGBT logos ? --Tangopaso (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Anon-ip has nominated all or many of the included files for deletion. I assume they find the content offensive, rather than there being a problem with this categorization. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be an LTA nomination. Either way, this would be dealt with by discussing the individual images, not the category (which could then be deleted as empty if necessary). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Romania. So, NoFoP-Romania is correct category name. So, FoP-Romania Category should be deleted. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Remove duplicate category, Wikidata merge cannot take place Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support for deletion. Same as parent category Category:Oulunkylän seurahuone --Zache (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Zache and Susannaanas: Is a redirect alright, instead of a deletion? It seems plausible that someone would know the address but not the building's use. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The result was: merged, the redirect retained. Wikidata entries merged Estopedist1 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
We don't make former members cats.We cannot follow people's "membership" registers... Delete immediately. E4024 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above: we have Category:People's Mujahedin of Iran members that's enough -Killarnee (C•T•U) 21:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete ok, as creator of the category. --Ruwaym (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was delete Estopedist1 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Redundant with Faunce House. None of these photos depict the interior space which is the actual Campus Center. Filetime (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Empty category POS78 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Useless "discussion" (was actually proposed for deletion), but I'll fill it. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@POS78 and Orijentolog: the category is not empty anymore. The category is also part of a larger category/template scheme, and so should be kept?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: yes, I filled it but I forgot to properly close discussion. Thanks for notice. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Please change the name of the category to "Category:Jens Winter (actor)" to match other such categories on commons. Thanks in advance. 109.78.160.164 22:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- same as Category:Hartmut_Becker_(Schauspieler), do as you please because i don't know how to change the name without losing wikibox--Hiddenhauser (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Done, see Category:Jens Winter and Category:Hartmut Becker (actor) Estopedist1 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @DanielleJWiki: To be clear, the contained images of this category (and those in related CFDs) should simply be removed, not moved anywhere else? - Themightyquill (talk)
- @Themightyquill: I suggest to simply remove. It seems that all images have already provided with {{Institution:Maastricht University Library}} and hence automatically bunched to Category:Images from Universiteitsbibliotheek Maastricht--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I think this duplicates Category:J/80 (keelboat) Mike Peel (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Veto, see images! These are two different boat types, unfortunately merged in Wikidata. There is the problem! --Ein Dahmer (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- This could be noted in the category description (and fixed on wikidata) - Themightyquill (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kept per discussion Gbawden (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Politician? Doctor? Military? Personal promotion? Hoax? E4024 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Deleted' by wdwd as empty Gbawden (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Kategorie bitte löschen, Wunsch vom Hochlader, Doublette zu einer älteren Kategorie Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 10:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by wdwd. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Not used; if any materials relate to this, the existing Category:Yoga therapy will be sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Category is unused; it only ever contained one image, and that was not specific to the book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Standarizing a set of categories inside this project. No longer needed as all the images have been allocated to other tags. Theklan (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Category created in order to fill it with fictitious flags that have now been mass deleted TU-nor (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Please delete the category I created with an error in the name. 攝影師 (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
An empty category for an unnotable individual. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 09:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
We had some discussion at Category talk:Mature women, but -as many times happens- people just tend to impose their own categorization scheme without deigning to discuss with others. I wonder why we live in a society if we do not care to listen to other people. Whatever, as the cat talk page discussion was ignored by many, maybe this CfD may attract some attention to make a "consensus-based" categorization in the area of women (and men). E4024 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please also see Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Mature women. --E4024 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Mature women Estopedist1 (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
i'd like to ask whether this cat tree should use the name "Düsseldorf-Benrath" or just "Benrath". for the Category:Districts of Düsseldorf, the current naming format looks pretty neat, but for other Category:Districts of cities in Germany, it seems the naming format doesnt have to be strictly "city-district" even for other major cities like berlin. the cat tree should be harmonised based on the conclusion of this cfd. RZuo (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Velopilger: You created at least one of the parallel categories, and you are apparently from Benrath/Düsseldorf-Benrath. Can you contribute your thoughts here? Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that the best variant of the category is simply Benrath, since this is the original name and it is unnecessary to tie the word Dusseldorf to it.Алексей Потупин дипломированный географ 1974 (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC) (Velopilger).
this category and relevant subcats are moved to names using "Benrath", as per discussion and the fact that many existing subcats are simply "Benrath".--RZuo (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Overalls, bib overalls, coveralls, boilersuits - What are their definitions and differences? And why is there a difference between Commons and ENG-Wikipedia? In the ENG-Wikipedia Overalls, bib-and-brace overalls and dungarees are all the same: a type of garment that is in Commons referred to as bib overalls. Can we please avoid confusion, especially for non-native English speakers and volunteers who categorise pictures, by giving clear definitions, preferably the same as in Wikipedia? I also see pictures of bib overalls in the category:Overalls, so that should be an action after we have concluded this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is good that you bring this up for discussion. There are problems with these terms when translating. In many languages (German, Spanish, Swedish, probably others too) the word overall (spelled overol in Spanish) is clearly seen as an originally English word but refers to what would rather be called a jumpsuit in English, while what is called overalls or bib overalls in English are not called overall(s) in many other languages. As far as I know, there are also some differences between British and American English. There are also confusion in the descriptions of images here which are obviously drawn to describe what a form of clothing is called, see File talk:Overall (clothing).jpg. Ove Raul (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Ove Raul: Thanks for you explanation. This is helpful.
- @Ove Raul: Thanks for you explanation. This is helpful.
Suggested definitions
editFor Commons I suggest these definitions and synonyms:
- Bib overalls (plural, as in trousers) = bib-and-brace overalls = overalls = dungarees:
One-piecegarments consisting of trousers with a bib and having straps extending from the bib to the back. Worn as work clothing by construction workers and all kind of other workers, and also as outerwear, for instance by feminists in the 1970s and 1980s. - Boilersuit (singular) = coveralls (plural): Loose fitting garment covering the whole body except for the head, hands and feet. A boilersuit is worn as work clothing, over outerwear, especially intended for dirty jobs, for instance for factory workers and in cleaning jobs.
- Jumpsuit: One-piece garment with sleeves and legs and without integral coverings for feet, hands or head. Worn as outerwear work clothing by prisoners, pilots and astronauts, and also by women as just outerwear.
-
Bib overalls -
Bib overalls in fashion -
Boilersuit -
Jumpsuit (pilot suit) -
Jumpsuit as outerwear
Please give your opinion, corrections and additions. After the definitions are good, we can think about the category structure. JopkeB (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think these definitions are good. English is not my first language, but as far as I understand, this is how these words are mostly used. Ove Raul (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Category structure
editIt looks like we agree on the definitions. Good!
Now we can focus on the category structure. I suggest:
- Main category: Category:Overalls; on Commons we use this as the umbrella term, though in UK and USA English this term might have different meanings (see EN.wiktionary); suggested definition: any one-piece garment consisting of trousers and either covering the whole body (except for the head, hands and feet) or having a bib.
- Subcategories:
- Category:Overalls by country
- Category:Bib overalls
- Category:Dungarees (bib overalls as casual wear) as a subcategory
- Category:Boilersuits
- Category:Jumpsuits
- Category:Overalls by colour
Please comment. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- No, I don’t think this is right.
- These should not all be subcategories to Category:Overalls. It’s better to keep them all as subcategories of Category:One-piece garments.
- (A pair of) bib overalls and (a pair of) dungarees are (a pair of) overalls in English. A boilersuit may be called an overall in British English, but not in American English and is not (a pair of) overalls. Jumpsuits are never called overalls in English, as far as I understand. In some other languages, overall is used for what would be called a jumpsuit or a catsuit in English, but here at Wikimedia Commons we should use the terms as they are used in English.
- What should be done, OTOH, is to sort files to the correct categories. As it is now, some files are in the wrong categories. I have corrected some, but not all, because there are some where the picture and the file name and/or the accompanying text are not consistent. See e.g. File talk:Overall (clothing).jpg. Ove Raul (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Adjusted proposal for category structure
editThanks Ove Raul for your input. I now try to make a new category structure, but I still have questions:
- Should we merge Category:Overalls and Category:Bib overalls? Are they about the same concept? If yes: which one should stay? I would prefer Bib overalls because then there is less possibility to get confusion.
- Can we keep Category:Dungarees or should this one be merged also with (Bib) Overalls? For me this one can stay because it is about bib overalls as casual wear, there is a difference. I agree that sorting files to the correct categories should be done, especially for files in Category:Bib overalls that should be in Category:Dungarees.
My new proposal would be:
- Main category: Category:One-piece garments. Subcategories (among others):
- Category:Boilersuits
- Category:Jumpsuits
- Category:Overalls with subcategories:
- Category:Overalls by colour
- Category:Overalls by country
- Category:Bib overalls OR MERGE WITH OVERALLS?
- Category:Dungarees (bib overalls as casual wear)
Please comment. JopkeB (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Overalls are not one-piece garments
editYou do not wear overalls and nothing else. You always have a shirt with the overalls, because the bib does not make the upper body decent enough. So overalls are not a one-piece garment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars Olo (talk • contribs) 19 sep 2021 22:49 (UTC)
- Thanks Lars Olo for your useful remark. So we should accept that there might not be a common umbrella term, a direct main category for these garments, we can only use See also's.
- Boilersuits and Jumpsuits are One-peace garments.
- Bib overalls and Dungarees are just Overalls, not One-peace garments.
- JopkeB (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions so far and new proposal
edit- There is no common umbrella term to use as a main category for all the garment pieces discussed here.
- The content of Category:Overalls should be merged into Category:Bib overalls; "Bib overall" is a clearer term than "Overall" which can be confused in other languages with Coverall/Boilersuits and Jumpsuits.
- The subcategories of Category:Overalls that start with "Overalls" will be renamed to categories that start with "Bib overalls".
- The content of Category:Overalls in art should be merged into Category:Bib overalls in art. Category:Overalls in art will get a redirect to Category:Bib overalls in art.
- Category:Overalls will become a Disambiguation category which contains all the concepts we discussed here.
- Subcategories of Category:Bib overalls:
- Category:Bib overalls by colour (rename of Category:Overalls by colour)
- Category:Bib overalls by country (rename of Category:Overalls by country)
- The renamed subcategories of countries
- Category:Bib overalls in art (including the content of Category:Overalls in art)
- Category:Dungarees (bib overalls as casual wear)
- Category:Shortalls (bib overalls with short trousers)
- Category:Boilersuits and Category:Jumpsuits will have "See also's" to Category:Bib overalls and to each other.
- All discussed categories that will stay get the descriptions/definitions of Suggested definitions (including the correction in green).
Please comment. --JopkeB (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
No comments for over a month, so I close this discussion--JopkeB (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions: see up here (Conclusions so far and new proposal). I'll add definitions/descriptions to the categories involved and make the changes. --JopkeB (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Does this term exist out of Commons? E4024 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ahmad252 and other Iranian Commoners, can we have your input here, please? --E4024 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: Yes, it's the same thing as Category:Macaroni - more or less. All sorts of pasta, including spaghetti, are usually called "Macaroni". That said, at least as far as I know, it's not a special "Persian" spaghetti; it's just that the term "Macaroni" is used more broadly in Iran. Ahmadtalk 07:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- In Turkey we also say "makarna", for all Italian-type pasta varieties. Then we add a defining word like "fiyonk" makarna (farfelle), "burgu" makarna, "çubuk" makarna, etc. I take your answer as we do not need this cat. If you do not agree, please correct me. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or move it to Category:Spaghetti dishes in Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 04:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect category name created by me, created a new correct one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kommuny_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk) 攝影師 (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- At the same time, it is required to change the erroneous address indication in the file names, namely "Krasnaya" -> "Kommuny":
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_01.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_02.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_03.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_04.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_05.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krasnaya_Street,_70_(Chelyabinsk)_06.jpg 攝影師 (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 04:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Why is this separate from Category:Collages? The concepts seem the same. On English Wikipedia there is en:Collage but montage is just a disambig which mentions the term en:Photomontage. Arguably Photomontage is a subcategory of one of those, but I don't see the need to split montages and collages. A quick glance also suggests that next to nobody sees the difference and nearly identical images are uploaded to one or the other at random. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Collages are specifically images which have been glued (from the French for glue) to a surface. Montage is a wider term which includes digitally-manipulated images. I see the need for a distinction, even if some are wrongly categorised. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- That makes sense, assuming you are correct. For that we would need to see some sources, which in turn would be good to use to improve Wikipedia articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus and Rodhullandemu: Would you consider both Category:Collages and Category:Photomontages to be subs of Category:Montages, as the latter is the more general term, and the other two are more specific methods of creating a montage? Josh (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I'd be happy with that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: Tentatively, but I am still concerned whether all those things are indeed separate. Particularly Montages and Collages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus and Rodhullandemu: Would you consider both Category:Collages and Category:Photomontages to be subs of Category:Montages, as the latter is the more general term, and the other two are more specific methods of creating a montage? Josh (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- That makes sense, assuming you are correct. For that we would need to see some sources, which in turn would be good to use to improve Wikipedia articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu and Piotrus: Closed (montages as parent with collages and photomontages as subs) Josh (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Not much cities by county POS78 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @POS78: It seems that parent Category:Cities in Razavi Khorasan Province does the job. Also notice that this parent category have the {{Cities in Razavi Khorasan Province}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Deletion in process. --Orijentolog (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Living people is not something that is used on Commons. It is a category commonly found on Wikipedia which is why it is present here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- observation - evidently, it is used on commons. since we are having this discussion (yet again). Lx 121 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful nor necessary anywhere. E4024 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- While its probably not as useful as Wikipedia it probably has some use for the same tracking purposes as WP since bad edits can be made to the categories, galleries and even images. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- See linked discussions above, which already resulted in its redirection. It has been deleted twice more within the past year or so. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - consistent with wp/en categorisation, policy for content related to living persons (wp:blp, etc.), & obviously useful (as per my comments in previous discussions). currently is well-populated. ALSO, considering that apparently at least 2 other ppl have RE-CREATED this category just "within the past year or so" (on top of my creating it in the first place, years ago), i would say that the deletionists are out-numbered here. Lx 121 (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also - there has been more category discussion on this subject over the years, & more recently, than just the 2 shown. (between this title & the very simillar "living persons by name" category; also deleted, by largely the same ppl) Lx 121 (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete. RZuo (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, personality rights usually apply more to the living than the dead,
I can see why this category could become a pain in the arse as it would require to constantly maintain who's alive and who ain't, butit makes sense to have this, especially since we have to be more careful with images of living people. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- "A pain" is a serious understatement. Category:People by name has 762,107 sub-categories. Living people has 428. Unless you're offering to help sort through hundreds of thousands of categories, please don't vote to keep. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- " please don't " tell other people how to vote. that is not appropriate. AND maybe part of the reason 'living people' has "only" 428 subcats (& growing) & 200-odd uncat. items, is because YOU KEEP DELETING IT & it keeps getting re-created & filled, by multiple editors - more than have ever bothered to hang out in the deletion debates section arguing about this. if you hadn't deleted the category, repeatedly, the entries would likely be in the low thousands by now. the entry-count WAS significantly higher the first time we argued about this category, a number of years ago.
- AND you are, yet again, mis-representing the nature of the problem. statistically, you would expect to have more notable dead people than living ones; given all of human history 'n stuff. excepting wiki-editor/personal-photo/user-page stuff, the total number of notable living persons with media files on commons right now would number a few thousand. Lx 121 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Going over it again it isn't "A pain" at all, in fact maintaining it would be super-easy, barely an inconvenience. As the saying goes "never let a man do a robot's work" as I just remembered that Wikidata exists; we can simply ask someone like user "Mike Peel" to
slipflip a few switches and let the "{{Wikidata Infobox}}" template automatically add this category where the qualifier "Live person" is used, all deaths will also simply be added through Wikidata (Q18093576) and the template will automatically change the categories here based on their connected items. In fact, this would require absolutely 0 (zero) maintenance from the Commons-side as we could just let our robot overlords do all the work and maintenance for us, then that frees up more time for us to go looking for free images of living people to upload.
We already do this with the "Wikidata Infobox" template for example for categories like "1931 deaths" and "1873" births, Etc.
- Going over it again it isn't "A pain" at all, in fact maintaining it would be super-easy, barely an inconvenience. As the saying goes "never let a man do a robot's work" as I just remembered that Wikidata exists; we can simply ask someone like user "Mike Peel" to
- Wikidata is horribly underutilised for simple tasks like this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- so much talk above, but how much action have they made to improve the code of wdib and solve some problems on Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox?
- lmao, that's an even worse idea. no one can update the yob and yod promptly. Category:Uses_of_Wikidata_Infobox_with_no_year_of_birth already has 30k cats. and there's no equivalent of "no year of death", because the template cannot be designed to determine whether the reason why no year of death is given is that the person is alive, or that their death is not reported by reliable sources, or that their death is not recorded in wikidata. given that so many people's life situations cannot be determined and they will be left out by this category, where is the claimed necessity for the socalled blp concerns?
- and wdib dont know whether 170k cats represent a human Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no instance of. RZuo (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- "lmao" - i am going to be nice & not spend time critiquing your grammar. but as to the other points you have raised: a) the technical problems you mention are all easily solvable. it is actually fairly easy; most people only live & die once, so they would only need to be recategorised in one time & out time. if implemented (whether via wikidata or not), the resulting bot(s) (&/or other automated functions) would work about as well as the myraid other useful bots on here. there are bots on here & especially on wikipedia that do MUCH MORE COMPLICATED tasks.
- & b) your comments show that you pretty clearly do not understand BLP issues, or that you are willfully disregarding them. i invite to go go look up WM POLICY on BLP, before you comment further on the subject :)
- aside from that, it really isn't hard to understand why it is useful to have separate working categories for "PEOPLE WHO ARE ALIVE" & "PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD". do you really need me to run up a list of how that is useful to editors, to end-users, AND for integration with other WM projects? Lx 121 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- talk is cheap. for people who dont code the easy solution they boast about, i dont find them trustworthy at all.
- read m:BLP before making any more wrong assertions about it.
- and there's no blp for commons. there's a large collection of defamatory, disparaging or factually incorrect stuff here, but they're hosted because they show what the real world is. but let's say if those people implement this category according to their socalled blp, then the minute their bot doesnt add a living person into this cat it's making a mistake and violating their blp. then i'll congratulate them shooting themself in the foot. RZuo (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1. - 3 of my nephews & one of my best friends are comp sci graduates; several of them are now in quite senior positions. & i've been playing with computers since before i got my first commodore vic20. i decided not be to a coder because that is not how i wanted to spend my time (& respect to those who do it! <3), BUT i know my way around simple-ass data-sorting functions like the ones we are talking about here. I could write the code for that. in BASIC. on my vic20.
- aside from that, it really isn't hard to understand why it is useful to have separate working categories for "PEOPLE WHO ARE ALIVE" & "PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD". do you really need me to run up a list of how that is useful to editors, to end-users, AND for integration with other WM projects? Lx 121 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- & 2. re - BLP: YEAH, you just kind of ^^proved my point there^^. thank-you for DEMONSTRATING how you do not know, do not understand, &/or do not care about BLP concerns. again i invite you to reasearch WM POLICY (& history) on BLP-related matters (not just cherry pick one stale draft proposal), before you have any further opinions on this, & hurt yourself... (seriously) xD as to your main talking-point: we DO NOT host libelous/slanderous content on here. there is no magic wand that makes the WMF immune to getting its' ass sued off. & the famous safe-harbour provisions of u.s. law come with conditions that MUST be adhered to. Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- they are cs graduates, but sadly this fella isnt. go write the code in BASIC, which can be translated into lua and python for wdib. unless this fella writes the code, he's just wasting everybody's time with his nonsense. RZuo (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- & 2. re - BLP: YEAH, you just kind of ^^proved my point there^^. thank-you for DEMONSTRATING how you do not know, do not understand, &/or do not care about BLP concerns. again i invite you to reasearch WM POLICY (& history) on BLP-related matters (not just cherry pick one stale draft proposal), before you have any further opinions on this, & hurt yourself... (seriously) xD as to your main talking-point: we DO NOT host libelous/slanderous content on here. there is no magic wand that makes the WMF immune to getting its' ass sued off. & the famous safe-harbour provisions of u.s. law come with conditions that MUST be adhered to. Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
AND - after leaving the discussion hanging open & mostly stale for the last YEAR (during which the "living people" category has been growing, in spite of efforts to de-populate it), the only pro-deletion arguement amounts to "it's too much work" (& nvm utility, & nvm blp issues) & the "score" is 4 delete, 3 keep, PLUS all the editors who keep re-creating & populating the category but DON'T spend their wiki-time hanging out in deletion debates. Lx 121 (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment I've coded up auto-adding this category in the Wikidata Infobox, if there is a birth year and no death year on Wikidata, and the birth year is less than 100 years ago. Please try {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}}. I'll include this in the next update, unless this category is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- LOVELY! & thank-you! :) given that this discussion has lasted about a year, i would think we can manage to wait for the wikidata implementation, before concluding it. Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- AFTER it's up & running, i can think of some tweaks we might want to make; for example: there IS a "dead people" category-set; so the script should automatically exclude items with the characteristics "person" & "dead" (or simply if they are included in the dead people, dead people by name, etc. cat & subcats) Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not quite how it works: the infobox only uses information from the Wikidata item, it can't use the data from categories or subcategories here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- pity! - isn't there a way for wikid to data-mine the other wm projects for stuff like that? Lx 121 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not quite how it works: the infobox only uses information from the Wikidata item, it can't use the data from categories or subcategories here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- AFTER it's up & running, i can think of some tweaks we might want to make; for example: there IS a "dead people" category-set; so the script should automatically exclude items with the characteristics "person" & "dead" (or simply if they are included in the dead people, dead people by name, etc. cat & subcats) Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- d:special:permalink/1624134799#Two_stats_about_humans: the estimates are roughly 30k people are alive and have commons cats but dont have dob. the percentage of aged-85+ among all people who have a dob and are possibly still alive is 8%, but in real life only roughly 5% of the population live past 80, so there are as much as half of all 85yo+ people who are dead but whose dod are not recorded.
- have fun correcting this large number of mistakes. where is the easy magic code some people say they can write? RZuo (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- & yet ALL the wikipedia projects, in all the different languages, manage it as a routine function of wiki-maintenence. Lx 121 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- AND follow-up: you are either grossly mis-respresenting, or you mis-understood the exchange you cited @ wikiD. quote: "Trying again, specifically for Commons I got 298 and 313; so about 305 with a sampling error either way of about 20. And maybe 30,000 such items across wikidata as a whole." the tl,dr = the number was ~305 NOT "roughly 30k people" that part was FOR ALL OF WIKIDATA, NOT COMMONS. also, the way you worded your questions @ wd was almost incoherent(!) Lx 121 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I went with 100 years since that's the oldest most people are likely to live to (except for some exceptions), and cuts out people who were born a very long time ago and we just don't have their date of deaths in Wikidata. The infobox can handle adding/removing them from the category, but the data does have to be managed manually on Wikidata - the good thing being that it's then a shared effort between all users of the data, not just a problem for Commons editors to solve. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- 100 seems like a good place to start; as long as it can be corrected (easily) when it needs to be. i.e.; for the odd centenarian+ out there. Lx 121 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with keeping this category if wikidata can be used effectively, but I'm not qualified to judge if that's possible. The discussion might be moved to the wikidata infobox talk page or somewhere else with a broader audience like Commons:Village pump. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- *comment* - this discussion has been going on for a year & it has been stale for most of that time. not to mention ALL the previous fights over this. net result: there is no consensus to delete. i am willing to wait & see how the new wd tool implements before closing this, BUT i do not think "forum shopping" the arguement to other locations is appropriate. we have talked this to death, you should pardon the expression... xD Lx 121 (talk)
- @Lx 121: Your arguments depend on the potential for this to be done automatically. If you can't confirm that it can be done automatically by "forum shopping", you have no new argument beyond multiple previous consensuses to delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: You might have missed my comment above, it's implemented in the infobox sandbox and should be ready to go (bar any extra testing people want to do), I can deploy it that so this category is added automatically when we're ready. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: Awesome! Thanks. I'm fine to close this discussion then. If it works well, there should be no need for future discussion at all. If it has problems, it can be discussed somewhere other than CfD. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: You might have missed my comment above, it's implemented in the infobox sandbox and should be ready to go (bar any extra testing people want to do), I can deploy it that so this category is added automatically when we're ready. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept The category is now being auto-populated by Template:Wikidata Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Subjective to the point of being meaningless Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I contributed to this cat, but hesitantly. I would not object to any decision about it. --E4024 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Yes this category is somewhat subjective, as is any category depicting an art-style or movement. That being said, it is not "so subjective to be meaningless," as there does appear to be a general public consensus as to what a cursed image is (though the category page can probably be trimmed a bit, as there are a few debatable photos in there). As United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said (regarding the definition of pornography), "I know it when I see it." I see the "level of subjectiveness" here as being roughly equal to something like Category:Minimalist photography, or Category:Erotic photography (aka clearly important to have, but hard to define unambiguously). Yitzilitt (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- But this category does not contain mages from "an art-style or movement"; it's a random collection of images, with no apparent relation to each other; as the gallery I've just added, above, shows. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- User:Yitzilitt, I think you should also say you have initiated this cat. As I said above, I was a bit confused about this cat, but I liked the images in Category:Cursed images of food and even made a subcat to it. (Indeed I like everything, or almost everything edible. :) Having said that, I remembered I had a very nice upload that would go well in there, File:Alligator in my plate.jpg. I cannot understand why, someone simply moved it to a dull name, without asking my opinion. The reason showed is "preposterous description". I have no idea what "preposterous" means. Normally each time I see a new word for me, even in cases where I can imagine the meaning, I go to dictionaries to learn about it. Probably the lack of tolerance towards a sympathetic description (name?) made me not to be curious to learn what that chic word means. I did not protest, I even forgot it. Now speaking about the Cursed images of food subcat, I remembered. However it is not the same thing putting there a file named "Seafood linguini". (I may show you what a seafood linguini is, something like this, although it is spaghetti and I had only mussels at home as seafood. Whereas, the above dish was about a fantasy film, where there was lots of water/juice in the plate, and animals swimming in it. The few sticks of pasta were like snakes accompanying the other animals... (And I ate this disaster in Italy, mamma mia! :) Whatever, delete it if there is little tolerance. Or keep it, it sounds much better to my eyes than cats like "Category:Nude or partially nude women with shaved armpits but unshaved genitalia sitting with legs wide open and smiling with teeth while giving a handjob to a seminude male". Bye. --E4024 (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- E4024 sorry I didn't mention that I initiated the cat; that's my bad. I'm not sure what the rest of your comment is about, though I certainly sympathize with the struggle of fellow Wikipedians not understanding a given naming schema. Yitzilitt (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Convert to gallery. I agree with Andy Mabbett; this doesn't quite fit into the Commons' category tree, but I think it is okay to have this as a standalone gallery. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Keep Nomination is based on false assumptions. "Cursed images" are a coherent concept discussed as such, even if a subjective one, and much more comparable to art movements than the nominator's dismissal of the concept permits. See discussion of the concept in e.g. the Intelligencer, the New Yorker, Paper Magazine, TheNextWeb, and Wired. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep but clean up and remove the “cursed food” subcat. The definition (mediocre-to-low-quality images with bizarre and/or creepy content) is semi-subjective but straightforward enough to not be arbitrary and meaningless. Some of the pics currently in the category are silly because they are too mundane to be called “bizarre and/or creepy” by the majority of viewers (i.e. a bad flash photo of a bidet shooting water) but that just means they should be removed from the category, not the category from WM commons. The “cursed food” cat however is completely subjective, since almost every single picture is simply some boring food item that is badly prepared, poorly photographed, unfamiliar to westerners, or being used for sexual purposes.Edit I’ve removed several images that I’m fairly certain nobody would ever seriously call “creepy” or even “bizarre”, including the photo of metal ritual objects seen above and the aforementioned toilet image (I was particularly amused and puzzled by the inclusion of a photo of a Hatsune Miku Dominos delivery vehicle). Dronebogus (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Edit I have now also cut “cursed food” down to just a few of the best/worst(?) images. Whether or not they justify a separate category is still up in the air, but at least the category is no longer just “bad food photography” mixed with “food I don’t like”. Dronebogus (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)- edit I am not opposed to making this category into a gallery, as an alternative to deleting. I feel like keeping it as-is will result in never-ending debates about what should be included, but there’s enough value to it that it shouldn’t be completely destroyed. Dronebogus (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete What counts as a "cursed image" is largely a matter of opinion, and isn't a clearly understood or defined genre of images. Essentially any image that can be interpreted as disturbing or strange can be considered a "cursed image". Different images can elicit different emotions from different people, so even assuming that there was a clear definition of cursed image being those that elicit a specific emotion, nothing could be objectively categorized in that way. This category is about as useful as something like "sad videos" or "ugly animals". Di (they-them) (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete It includes File:ABNORMALITIES; Tabulae ad illustrandam embry Wellcome L0032358.jpg and File:Eddie Leonard 1929.jpeg, pictures of human beings that effectively say that certain people, by existing, are worthy of mockery. File:のりくら高原温泉郷・湯川温泉せせらぎの湯 ２人入浴P8118150.jpg is a little more complex--is it just the censorship of the eyes?--but could be read as the same thing. Let's mock some guy's fursuit with File:LionatFrolicon.jpg! Here's another one--File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0801-131, Leipzig, Sportfestabschluss, Berliner Bären.jpg which gives the chance to mock cultural traditions along with fursuits! File:TOYOTA ist Pikachu Car.jpg and File:Oldreive's New Iron Horse tricycle, ca. 1882.jpg--cheap shots at sweet cars and old bikes!
- There's some which are more fair, but still, why do we need a selection of files from Category:Ectoplasm (paranormal) here? Or from Category:Cthulhu Mythos? Art form categories like Category:Impressionism are almost completely citable; if you were working off of cites, I would be more sympathetic, but I completely oppose any such category as a subjective creation. Perhaps Category:Outsider art is a better comparison; it is a very real category of art, but it could be very problematic if slapped on "own work", especially if done willy-nilly like this category currently feels like.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t think a lot of images were meant to be considered “worthy of mockery” by being in this category (i.e. 2 is just an unintentionally unsettling smile, 3 is the eyes, 4 is bad flash + uncanny valley, 6 is also uncanny valley) , although there are definitely some unfortunate implications of, say, the traditional arts/culture or deformities pics. But on second inspection I agree that even though I hoped that the category could be salvaged by establishing two main criteria (low image quality + odd, creepy, surreal content) it’s obvious this is never going to work and people are just going to fill it with “images that I think are kind of odd and/or funny”. Thus I have struck my original vote and will leave it as “convert to
galleryhidden category or delete” in the spirit of “blow it up and start over”. Dronebogus (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC) - Hide Really this is just a spooky version of Category:Commons' weirdest photographs (which it's already a non-hidden subcategory of), so it could just have a COM:HIDDENCAT. As an aesthetic that relies on the eye of the curator, though, cursed images work better from a single person's Twitter or Tumblr account. A swarm of Commons editors making individual calls about what they personally find unfamiliar is likely just going to give us another "Commons' weirdest photographs", minus the funny ones. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- That’s reasonable. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 16:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
enwiki has also en:Cursed image. So we probably want to keep this category--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I’ve hidden the cat if nobody minds Dronebogus (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: As multiple editors pointed out, this is an entirely subjective categorization; one person's cool hotel or exciting Saturday afternoon is another person's cursed image. While the enwiki article lists some common characteristics, they don't allow for consistent categorization as we would expect with, say, Category:Impressionism. The tendency of some editors to add images of things like cultural artifacts and people with unusual physical features to this category says a great deal about those editors. While some have called for a gallery, this is likely to suffer from the exact same subjectivity issues as the category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Category currently unused, no need for very small categories to which nothing will ever be added Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete one-member cat with little potential to grow--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I initially wanted to nominate Category:Views from Going-to-the-Sun Road as it was the only category using the hyphenated version rather than the spaced one, but as the Wikipedia article is also using hyphens, I think it makes sense to rename the other categories instead. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, the official name given by the NRHP is hyphenated and I see no reason why this cat and the ones inside shouldn't be as well eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4, @Eviolite I support this change to match the National Park Service official name as well as match the Going-to-the-Sun Mountain. Local tribes use the hyphens also. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Consensus for the change to match the National Park Service official name. Discussion started 23 May 2021 --Ooligan (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
To be deleted: old & unused category (I am the WiR for UBM) New pages will be created for reporting DanielleJWiki (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently unused, only ever contained one image, not specific to the book; unlikely any more images will ever be added Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Update: I see today that the editor who has created the category has populated it with a large number of irrelevant images, not taken from the book Positioning Yoga (it contains only a small number of monochrome images), and not used in the Wikipedia article w:Positioning Yoga either (though that would not be sufficient reason for adding them here). I am at a loss to understand what User:Allforrous's logic can be for either creating this pointless category, or for populating it with nonsense. The phrase "Positioning Yoga" is not a term in wide use, indeed it is an intentionally punning title by the book's academic author, Sarah Strauss, and it makes no sense as a category. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The Category:Notgeld der Handelskammer Saarbücken should be deleted, because localities and not institutions are required. 5snake5 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- This emergency currency is related to Saarbrücken, so the category ist subcategory of Category:Notgeld of Saarbrücken and it's related to the institution Handelskammer Saarbrücken (today Industrie- und Handelskammer des Saarlandes), so the category ist subcategory of Category:Industrie- und Handelskammer des Saarlandes. No reason for deletion given; media to be removed to category discussed.--Karsten11 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This category has fulfilled its purpose, so therefore it is not need for it and should be deleted. FanNihongo (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Almost — just 鷄 is not yet animated -- sarang♥사랑 05:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK, you are right. FanNihongo (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
ResolvedAlmost all subcats (58 so far) pertain to individual buses and are named «Category:Wagen nnn». That naming is grossly ambiguous and doesn’t follow language policy. I suggest wholesale renaming to «Category:Stadtwerke Aschaffenburg bus №nnn» or something of the sort. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Then change it if you really want to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverZenglein (talk • contribs) 2021-05-18 16:07:50 (UTC)
- It’s a go, it seems. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes that is a go. But please watch if you change the category names of the retired busses not to get them to the current busses like you did it wiht No 143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverZenglein (talk • contribs) 2021-05-21 23:20:35 (UTC)
- Guy, sign your posts. If retired buses needs separate categorization, then add it — you’re the one who knows this subject. Use your knowledge within positive collaboration, not as a way to score points in some sort of one-upmanship nobody else cares about. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- All Done. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: can we close this CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Renamed by Tuválkin -- CptViraj (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Category only ever contained one image, a piece of cover art which can fit well into Yoga in art. It seems very unlikely any further files will ever come into this category. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete one-member cat with little potential to grow --Estopedist1 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Dependent upon the outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/File:محمد كريم العبيدي.jpg this category is likely to be empty. It appears intended to contain vanity pictures of the named individual Timtrent (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: in the meantime, the other file is added to this category. I personally don't like one-member categories, but I guess that we have to keep this category--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Timtrent, @Estopedist1, referring to the original message for this request, I see the picture has been deleted but I believe the exact same has been uploaded again from Flickr under File:Massin Kevin Labidi.jpg. The Flickr account is under that person's name but this does not prove he has the proper rights to share this (knowing he is not the photographer).
- I add @Dyolf77 so we can check this case and attempt to close it. Moumou82 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Moumou82 Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Massin Kevin Labidi.jpg where I have suggested bith inappropriate licencing for the second picture, and also asked for admins to check whether it is the re-creation of a file created after deletion discussion. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 15:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio as empty. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Category:1850s events in Singapore
- Category:1870s events in Singapore
- Category:1880s events in Singapore
- Category:1890s events in Singapore
- Category:1920s events in Singapore
- Category:1930s events in Singapore
- Category:1950s events in Singapore
- Category:1960s events in Singapore
- Category:1980s events in Singapore
- Category:1990s events in Singapore
- Category:2000s events in Singapore
- Category:2010s events in Singapore
- Category:2020s events in Singapore
It's really a question of which way harmonizes these categories. The vast majority in Category:Events in Singapore by decade are named in the format of Category:1850s events in Singapore while this one follows the Events in Singapore structure. I think we should use the events in format but I figure it's better to ask thank keep on having this one alone moved. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've tagged the only other exception, Canada as well. Aside from Canada and Singapore, all the other categories in Category:1990s events by country are in the style "Events in [Country] in the 1990s." - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- if we look at the most superior parent cat Category:Events by date, by year and by millennium are "xx events" but by decade and by century are "events in xx". RZuo (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've tagged the only other exception, Canada as well. Aside from Canada and Singapore, all the other categories in Category:1990s events by country are in the style "Events in [Country] in the 1990s." - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Move all to "Events in Singapore in the XXXXs" as in the categories above. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 11:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Moved per consensus to "Events in Singapore in the XXXXs" format, for consistency with the other categories in Category:1990s events by country. Robertsky (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
What top views are not Category:Views from above? They seem redundant. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly looks redundant to me. Merge to Category:Views from above which is clearer and already better organized. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Top views should contain only photos taken from a point vertically above the object (perpendicularly). Category:Views from above should contain all images taken from a point anywhere above the object (angeled view).
-
top view -
view from (somwhere) above -
top view -
view from (somwhere) above
- To answer the question: Every "top view" is a "view from above" (but not the other way around) and so the Category:Top views should be an subcategory of Category:Views from above. At the moment the content of both categories is mixed up. -- Common Good (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Common Good: That sounds reasonable, but maybe something like Category:Views from directly above would be clearer? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Renaming it might clarify the purpose of the category. But we have
- So Category:Top views, Category:Top views of vehicles, Category:Top views of automobiles, ... better fits this systematic naming scheme. -- Common Good (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Common Good: You're right, and systematic naming is certainly important. So then the question is, do we value systematic naming over clarify? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Consensus to treat Top views as a subcat of Views from above. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Per Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Surnames by original language. CptViraj (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. --E4024 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete so do I --Bohème21 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Category without comprehensible sources, please delete. --HarryNº2 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete While this second-level category is problematic, the first-level Category:English-language surnames is an issue as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Broichmore (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, clear consensus. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sir Thomas Godsalve and his Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister)
editReplaced by Category:Portrait of Thomas Godsalve and his Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister). Ammelida (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ammelida: do we redirect or delete the nominated category--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please delete the nominated category. Thank you. Ammelida (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
We do not have any "Category:Carpet & Drapery Stores in ..." cats and I doubt we will have in the near future. Is this a proper name BTW? "Carpet & Drapery Stores"? Where else do they have branches? E4024 (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete orphan, out of system--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: as discussed - out of system, no images in this category and only one subcategory. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hard to see what this might be for; the sole subcategory once contained one cover art image, so Yoga as art handled it fine. If we had videos, animations etc the category might be useful, but we don't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Done: empty category. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sir Thomas Godsalve and His Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister)
editreplaced by Category:Portrait of Thomas Godsalve and his Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister) Ammelida (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Both are currently empty anyway. Is one of them going to be populated? If so, populate it, then tag the other with {{Bad name}}. Is there need for any other discussion? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Auntof6, Category:Portrait of Thomas Godsalve and his Son John (Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister) is the right one. The other two won't be populated and (if there's no objection) can be tagged with {{Bad name}}, no need for for further discussion. Ammelida (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Done: was speedily deleted. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
What is this age with capital letter here? Is this a really necessary cat, BTW? E4024 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: Do you happen to recall why you moved this from Category:Young and old? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: There are Category:Young and old animals (since 2007) and Category:Young and old people (since 2017).
- Young and old / Youth and Age, Two are different meaning? --Benzoyl (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: Sorry, I mistakenly thought you had moved it in 2015 - but you just redirected Category:Young and old to the pre-existing (since 2006) Cateory:Youth and Age. Still, it seems to me that "young and old" that would be the way to go. However it started, it's now about Category:Age comparisons, not simply a merger of Category:Youth and Category:Age. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Youth and Age means Category:Youth and Aged? The word "Youth" used in only human (not in animal)? --Benzoyl (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: Sorry, I mistakenly thought you had moved it in 2015 - but you just redirected Category:Young and old to the pre-existing (since 2006) Cateory:Youth and Age. Still, it seems to me that "young and old" that would be the way to go. However it started, it's now about Category:Age comparisons, not simply a merger of Category:Youth and Category:Age. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Benzoyl: Maybe that was the intention, but then it's redundant with Category:Young and old people. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Considering who created this category and in particular their (lack of) knowledge of English, this should have indeed been Category:Young and old instead. Keep in mind to also rename Category:Youth and age in art once the CfD concludes. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Young and old, per consensus. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Need to be renamed to Category:Mindaugas Hill, Novogrudok. The English name is obviously Mindaugas Hill. The search of Mindaugas Hill gives 900 results, Mindoŭh Hill gives 197 results, most of these are Wikimedia projects or texts copied from Wikimedia projects. There are a lot of sources in English which use Mindaugas Hill and Mindaugas Castle: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] just from the beginning of the search. Mindoŭh Hill uses diacritics and can not be the most common English name.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The geographical place with the proposed name Mindaugas Hill is situated in en:Kernavė [10], which is in different country with different local language and so different local place names, so the provided search results are not relevant. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was searching for "Mindaugas Hill" AND Novogrudok vs "Mindoŭh Hill". Fully relevant--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Mindaugas Hill" AND Novogrudok [11] actually gives just 16 results. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keeping Novogrudok after the comma is enough to distinguish different hills, For example, the same standard is used when there are dozens of churches named after the same saints, whose names are unified with the most common variant (see: Category:Buildings named after Saint Anne), so in this way it would be Mindaugas (see article about Mindaugas in Encyclopaedia Britannica). There is no need to exclude this location with a different name of a foreign ruler in the present-day Belarusian territory as such ill practice only creates confusion whenever it is the same person or not. Google search offers 5,910,000 results for Mindaugas and only 2,190 results for Mindoŭh, so such name is not recognized internationally and only creates confusion. Such exceptionally low amount of usage could possibly be qualified as an original research. -- Pofka (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Mindaugas Hill" AND Novogrudok [11] actually gives just 16 results. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was searching for "Mindaugas Hill" AND Novogrudok vs "Mindoŭh Hill". Fully relevant--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The current English name is in use (example 1, example 2) while there is only one [12] really related example of using the proposed English name for this specific Belarusian geographical place (the hill, not castle or the Lithuanian king). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure there is more [13]. and Mindaugas Castle is on Mindaugas Hill, no reason to discard these.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- One more example is not much more. And the castle is actually not situated on the Mindoŭh hill [14]. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure there is more [13]. and Mindaugas Castle is on Mindaugas Hill, no reason to discard these.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Quote the reasonable comment by User:Homoatrox [15] from the related discussion: «It seems that the name of the original person (Mindaugas/Mindoŭh/Mindovg) is irrelevant in this case because the hill is in Belarus where the local name of the hill was formed. And as all toponyms in general it should be called based on its local name, not on the etymology (even for unification purposes). The etymological way seems dangerous: for example, in many Slavic languages Rome (city) is called Rim/Rym, and therefore we have Rimskaya metro station in Moscow, Římská street in Prague, Rimski spa-source in Serbia, etc. There is a filled P138 "named after" in Wikidata for the interested people.» --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Because Mindaugas is a foreign monarch to Belarus, which did not existed when the Lithuanian King's castle was built on this hill. The name is older than Belarus itself as it is only a 20th century state. See Category:Buildings named after Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Category:Things named after Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as an examples of things named after foreign monarchs. There absolutely is no need to keep one location with a modified name of the same monarch as it only creates confusion. -- Pofka (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)- Support There already is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18380321 and the name in general internationally is better known under "Mindaugas hill", as Pofka rightly points out. Moreover, it seems to me that Mindaugas is easier for English speakers to pronounce in contrast to Mindouh. In addition, even Belarusian websites oriented towards foreign tourists use the term, e.g. https://vedaj.by/index.php/en/towns/grodno/navahr/navahrudak . Plus, it already is mentioned under the name "Mindaugas hill" in the article about Mindaugas. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose That's a toponym, so the "native" name of the original person is irrelevant, even if he's a "foreign ruler". There are a bulk of places named after Alexander the Great which use the Arabic—Persian—Turkish version of his name (Iskander/Iskandar), not the Greek Alexandros: Iskanderkul lake, Iskander Darya river, Iskandariya city in Iraq, İskenderun city in Turkey, etc. (Alexandria in Egypt is a prominent exception). I think that "named after" parameter in a template and redirects should be enough. Homoatrox (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- As presented by Itzhak Rosenberg, name Mindaugas is also used in Belarus, therefore name Mindoŭh is an original research of a very small group. The comparison of 5,910,000 results versus 2,190 results proves that. -- Pofka (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Both official languages in Belarus use Cyrillic script and therefore are excluded from your analysis. It's like making decisions comparing 0.7% and 0.3% without noticing 99%. Once again, I see the established tradition to name toponyms in their local forms, not based on the etymology. I don't challenge the name of the original person, I claim it doesn't matter in this discussion. — Homoatrox (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- As presented by Itzhak Rosenberg, name Mindaugas is also used in Belarus, therefore name Mindoŭh is an original research of a very small group. The comparison of 5,910,000 results versus 2,190 results proves that. -- Pofka (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Keep uniform naming of toponyms which are parts of the title: both should be in same language, because there are no obviously common names in English due to rarity. The name of the person irrelevant. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not always understand the names in the Belarusian Latin alphabet. But I agree that place names should not be translated. We are not now writing WhiteRussia, but Belarus. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | None | |||
| Actions | None | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | The last comment on this is from three years ago and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change the name of the category. So I'm closing the CfD as "no consensus." | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
It looks like the cat-opener retired; what do others think about the necessity for this and similar "open mouth" cats? If they are so indispensable, should they not use "open" better? E4024 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- DeleteThe person who created this category caused a massive amount of problems across multiple projects with their careless creation of redirects and categories, this is just another example. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were many, many more. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not a useful category --Kritzolina (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- revise the content - most of included photos contain not really open but just ajar (slighty open) mouths. --ŠJů (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with user:ŠJů. We have already Category:Women_with_opened_mouths, and other similar categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Useless, delete all of the subcategories and brother categories Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 02:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete but we need to list all the subcategories and get rid of them individually. I don't see what needs to be revised. No one is objecting to whether the wrong images here; people debate the need for this category at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and would like to see a broader discussion of this sort of categories. As I recently mentioned on the Village pump, a photo I took of a reasonably prominent writer about music, File:Evelyn McDonnell 02.jpg has had its categories modified over time so that it now has categories such as Category:Female human hair, Category:Women's faces, Category:Women looking at viewer, and Category:Women with opened mouths. These seem to me to be terribly objectifying categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree about the objectification issue. See the VP discussion. Brianjd (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Just as useful as Men by facial expression, Women by facial expression, etc. (and other subcategories), which are just as useful as Men by posture, Women by posture, etc. Brianjd (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- All of which I would consider problematic, at least when applied to photos that were intended simply as portraits of identifiable individuals. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- How does stating a facial expression violate personal rights? Trade (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Trade: It's not rights in legal sense; it's a matter of a human being described in terms that overly focus on their appearance rather than who they are (an object rather than a subject). If we could somehow confine categories like this to images of performance, I'd have no problem with them, but in practice we can't. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Concerning the assertion that this is about a «human being described», I think it’s not. This is about describing media files, in this case, photos. (Are any of these categories applied to categories about people? That’s would be wrong in most cases — except stuff like this one.) In an ideal world devoided of weirdos and creeps, there should be no fuss over this the same way there’s no fuss about Category:Rail vehicles with open doors.
- That said, I often get a weird feeling when photos of people in Commons are categorized in great detail concerning posture and looks while lacking categories about, say, time and place and other event context — or when of several people depicted one (often, a woman) got disproportionately more attention from the detailed categorizer. However that issue should be dealt with by reaching out tho the editors (mis?)using the categories, not by deleting the categories.
- (Not to mention when this kind of potentially problematic categories are misused — as when this one is applied to a group photo where only one mouth is open. However, as in any other case of miscategorization, it should be corrected where occurring, not by deleting the misused category itself.)
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin I agree with everything you said in the first two paragraphs.
- But applying this category to a group photo where only one mouth is open (and that mouth belongs to a man) is consistent with normal practice, at least in my experience (if we wanted photos with multiple opened mouths, then it should be something like ‘Groups of men/people with open mouths’). If we now regard that as miscategorization, we need to discuss that too. Brianjd (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Jmabel. Brianjd (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's much harder to tell the location and time from a photo than it is an individual's facial expression or appearance. It's not surprising that the later is far more used. Trade (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still say that these categories are problematic at best. If kept, should be confined to things that are in some sense a deliberate visual performance (an actor on a stage, a figure in a painting that is not specifically someone's portrait, someone in a parade, etc.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- E.g. it might be right to use appearance-focused categories for an essentially anonymous person in a parade, but I think they become extremely inappropriate when applied to portraits of notable people. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Is it really any different what image hosting sites like Flickr does? Trade (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jmabel Are you saying that it is OK to objectify people as long as they are essentially anonymous? Even if we set aside the objectification issue, you are still saying that it is OK to draw attention to an essentially anonymous person, but not OK to draw attention – at least in this way – to people who are already the main focus of the image. That does not seem right. Brianjd (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: again, I'd rather see these categories just plain gone but, yes, it's much more of a problem when their name is on it. - Jmabel ! talk 06:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Trade: It's not rights in legal sense; it's a matter of a human being described in terms that overly focus on their appearance rather than who they are (an object rather than a subject). If we could somehow confine categories like this to images of performance, I'd have no problem with them, but in practice we can't. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- How does stating a facial expression violate personal rights? Trade (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd Are they? There are twenty-five subcategories in Category:Joe Biden by posture and twenty-two ways of splitting Category:Kamala Harris by posture because I assume those have been the most thoroughly diffused but are people really looking through the pictures of Kamala Harris we have on Commons and going down the tree into the five variations of her standing because they can't find the particular image of her standing a particular way they want? This feels like categorization for the sake of creating categories and in the end you lose out on the generic photographs of Harris because it's all within layers of categorization. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682 Given that many of these subcategories have hundreds of files, and some have over a thousand files, maybe this diffusion is a good thing. Anyway, all the ones I checked were created by Missvain; perhaps they would like to comment here.
- Also, we have tools like PetScan to extract useful information from layers of categorisation. Not working for you? Then let’s improve those tools instead. Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- All of which I would consider problematic, at least when applied to photos that were intended simply as portraits of identifiable individuals. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Useless category. We should delete this and similar categories. The hyper-categorization has gotten out of hand. Nosferattus (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per others above. Yann (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, per Brianjd. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, as per Jmabel, Nosferattus and others. Useless category. Delete with all sub-categories. --Bohème (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Humans have various facial expressions. Don't be abstract, More subdivision is necessary. --Benzoyl (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not surprised to see you taking this stance, but I think you may be a bit of an extremist in this regard, as I've said before. This kind of extremely granular sub-categorization is not helpful. More subdivision just makes things needlessly complex. Just Step Sideways (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I should clarify that I recently changed my name, I used to be Beeblebrox. Just Step Sideways (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Extremist? Trade (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. We had a discussion some years ago about the way they create categories[16]. Nothing came of it, kind of like this discussion. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not surprised to see you taking this stance, but I think you may be a bit of an extremist in this regard, as I've said before. This kind of extremely granular sub-categorization is not helpful. More subdivision just makes things needlessly complex. Just Step Sideways (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | ||||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | There's clearly a consensus to delete the category. This is way to subjective and granular anyway. Most of the images in the category aren't of people with their mouths open to begin with either. And yes I'm aware that there similar categories, but I don't think they have the same problems. So I'm closing this as delete. | |||
| Closed by | --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Unclear what this is and how this helps Commons Multichill (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Good catch, user:Multichill! Unfortunately the category creator (user:Jenaesthetics) is left from Commons (last contribution in 2013). This paper/scientific article has some connection with Commons. Deletion is easy, but maybe we get some input yet (eg user:Oursana)--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe we can now delete it. It is without anybody knowing what it is for online since 3 years. Carl Ha (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Deleted Multichill (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)