Potentially misleading category, unless the intent of its creator was to arbitrarily define Juneau International Airport. Of the files in the category, only File:Wings of Alaska DHC-3 Otter (N338AK) at Juneau International Airport.jpg offers half a clue that it was actually taken at JNU, based on what's in the background. File:Wings Cruise 007.jpg and File:WingsJNU.jpg were very clearly taken in downtown Juneau, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 8–10 miles away. Other photos in the category appear to be part of a set or consistent with one of those two photos. There are probably related categories populated primarily or solely by photos not taken at JNU, but I didn't take the time to look yet.RadioKAOS (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. The remaining file, File:Wings Four.jpg, still appears to be taken in downtown Juneau and not at JNU, based on the boat in the background. Gastineau Channel seriously narrows between the mouths of Lemon Creek and the Mendenhall River, which is the stretch that passes by JNU. I seriously doubt that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would have one of its vessels based in or operating in such a narrow channel. Poking around some more, I found this news story, which may help clear up the confusion. From what I can tell according to that story, Wings of Alaska involved sister airlines, one which operated wheeled aircraft out of JNU and the other which operated floatplanes downtown. This could have had to do with conditions/limitations associated with its FAA certificate(s). Perhaps a better solution would be a category for Juneau Harbor Seaplane Base, airport code 5Z1, despite the lack of a Wikipedia article. Aviation operations out of that particular location predate those at JNU by at least a decade and a half, so if any PD photos of a historic nature appear, they would have a place to go which didn't confuse the matter further. @Gillfoto: might wish to be notified of this discussion, considering that he took many of the photos in question and actually lives there.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To say a sad thing frankly, I have a feeling my concerns on several CfDs have not been understood even after two years. Again frankly maybe it is me who does not understand the issues. However, just as there is "Arabic" (to my taste "Arab") music, there is also "Turkish, Greek, Armenian etc music" performed with the same or similar instruments. Therefore just as in the cases of Egypt and Lebanon we may be needing a second layer of cats for those "musics". Why did you (some-one among us) make Category:Greek musical instruments an RD to Category:Musical instruments of Greece? In Greece do they make "Arabic music"? In Turkey do we make "Arabic music"? Why? --E4024 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Islamic states, Category:Islamic countries, Category:Islamic republics etc and the abundance of cats -sometimes redundant- under which we see them:Islam, Islamism etc. I understand some people have a passion for Islam, but this should be reflected here in a better way, without overcategorization or obviously wrong categories. (BTW is there a struggle between people who want to propagate Islam and others who want to defame it? This is only in parentheses, but I really wonder.) Can we work altogether to make a better classification, without prejudices -from any side? E4024 (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it because it had no parent category. There is a "birds with other animals" parent category, but no "birds with big mammals" parent category; that may be because it is hard to define what "big mammals" are. The animal categories are getting overcategorized, divided into too many subcategories. It is getting nitpicky and this is not helpful for people trying to use categories to find the files they need. There should be a reason why big mammals should be separated from mammals of other sizes, for example. Change the categories however you want but help us out by making it clear why each subcategory is really necessary; some of us actually use the category system and if it becomes hard to use, we have to change it. Thanks, have fun Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first category of one type never hast a parent category. But there are possible sister categories as there are other birds like cattle egrets (Bubulcus sp.) which tend to do similar things. The mutual realtionship ist to big mammals - it doesn't eat the ticks on crocodiles or snakes - and as the category name has no sharp border, "big" is not exact, the border the animal uses ist no more exact than "big" - it won't sit on rabbits, to eat ticks, but maybe sometimes on sheep. The category tree should agree first with the reality. You will find the birds of the genus Buphagus alsways on the animals, while they feed on their ticks, cattle egrets are really often near the Mammals which they tend to clean. And in this case it is really nessesary to name the category for the mutual relationship "big mammals" as they clean Buffalos but eat mice.
I am not shure how to name the parent category, I think Category:Cleaning symbiosis would be a good idea. But for the species having a cleaning symbiosis I think it is in many cases better to do it as I did it in Category:Buphagus erythrorhynchus on big mammals as they have a cleaning symbiosis, but you seldom see the act of cleaning on the photos and often see the birds simply sitting on the animals they tend to clean. I would guess if the bird isn't hungry he sits on a Buffalo for protection. A lion won't catch a bird if there's a buffalo calf to catch and a carnivore of the size of a fox won't try to catch a bird on a buffalo, as the buffalo is too dangerous. The other way round the mammals are friendly to the birds which eat their ticks, but you usually wont find a hawk on a buffalo, even if the hawk might think it is a good place to hunt mice. But you will often find cattle egrets hunting mice near Buffalos! Additionally the birds may warn the mammals if a lion comes near, as they fly away when the lion comes. A Vulture in the same situation may think. "Wonderful if the lion is hunting, there will be scraps for me!" and sit and wait for the scraps. Simply sitting on the mammal is therefore part of the mutual relationship, which doesn't exist with other bird species like hawks and vultures.
A mutual relationship is useful for both partners and there are many possible uses.
I think it is a good idea to name the categories for what you see on the pictures (Buphagus sitting on big mammals) and catecorice the categories for what it is (cleaning symbiosis). It is highly significant that there is no photo in the category where the bird does something else in relationship to animals. Additionally there are parent categories for the different aspekts of the category name Category:Animals sitting on other animals, Category:Mammals with other animals, Category:Mutualism.
Definition: Mutualism or interspecific cooperation is the way two organisms of different species exist in a relationship in which each individual benefits from the activity of the other.
I thought that I explained that simply sitting on the mammal is part of the mutual relationship, as it is part of the use both partners have from it. therefore all interactions between both partner are part of the mutualism. --Kersti (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As to this discussion: the ecology of the species is so strongly tied to large mammals, that this subcategory effectively becomes a synonym of the species category itself: it is hard to find a photo of an oxpecker not on a large mammal. Removing photos from the base species category into this subcategory effectively leaves the base species category almost empty. Therefore, I'd advise that these 'on animal' subcategories should be discontinued in entirety, or redirected to the base species category. And it is reasonable to add categories like Category:Animals sitting on other animals and Category:Mutualism to the base species category itself.
If this option is not liked, at a minimum, this subcategory needs to be moved to the correct spelling, and the taxonavigation needs to be copied in from the species category, so that the images contained in it can be found more easily by web trawlers that pick up the taxonavigation template. - MPF (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could be referring to the same things with Category:Sefarad, although everything "Sephardi" -normally- refers to Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal; i.e. refers to them after their expulsion (only as place of origin). E4024 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This category is for media qulifiy to the article with the same name in wp. Removing files from this category is not appropriate. The Category:Sefarad is for the media qulify to the article with the same name in wp. -- Geagea (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redundant double category of "Prunus in flower". It had only four files, now moved to the more appropriate category. Cart(talk)23:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: , I do not believe it is truly redundant, Prunus are not all cherries. I, like most Americans, differentiate cherries, peaches, plums, etc. But I do not mind if it gets deleted. I was going to use it to categorize the large number (800+) of images in "Prunus in flower" but I obviously did not do it. What is the difference between "Prunus in flower" and "Prunus (flowers)"? There are two category chains for cherry/Prunus, Cherry trees and Prunus. Should all the "Cherry trees in ..." and "Cherry trees by ..." be merged with "Prunus in ..." and "Prunus by ..."? User-duck (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is really a jungle out there with catagories. ;) There are also all the "sakura"-related categories, since this is a popular subject in Japan. The original thought is to stick with Latin names since this is a multi-language project. I think we should try to keep the language-based sidetracks to a minimum. --Cart(talk)09:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of images in "Prunus in flower" and "Prunus (flowers)" cannot be categorized by species. Especially since they are cultivars. I have seen messages to separate categories with a "large" number of images into sub-categories. I do not recall a criterion for "large", but I think of 200+ as large. I would not want to page through a category looking for an image. —User-duck (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what to do with sakura (a 'language-based sidetrack'). Are sakura 'flowering cherry cultivars', 'Japanese flowering cherry cultivars', 'flowering Prunus', 'flowering Prunus cultivars', 'Japanese flowering Prunus', ... I did some editing based on my most concise interpretation, 'Japanese flowering cherry cultivars'. This includes hybrids of several species and maybe some Korean cultivars. I just looked up "Sakura" in the English Wikipedia, it redirects to "Cherry blossom", which is described as "flower of any of several trees of genus Prunus, particularly the Japanese cherry, Prunus serrulata". Maybe sakura should refer to just Prunus serrulata and its cultivars. This is almost equivalent to my criteria for "flowering cherries". —User-duck (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really did not get a response to, 'Should all the "Cherry trees in ..." and "Cherry trees by ..." be merged with "Prunus in ..." and "Prunus by ..."?' —User-duck (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging such huge categories as the ones you mention above (or indeed what to do with them), is a matter for another separate bigger discussion. Same goes for all the "sakura" which are closely linked to the "hanami" festival. This discussion is only about if the Category:Blooming cherry trees. We can't resolve all those questions here at once, we'll have to take this bit by bit. --Cart(talk)18:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User-duck: Just out of curiousity, if a prunus tree is in flower and we don't know what species it is, how are we do know if it's a cherry tree or some other prunus tree? Do cherry prunus trees all have different flowers/leaves than other prunus? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: , Excellent question! The short and most correct answer is we don't know. I will only address cultivars. (An image of an unknown species has little value to me.) To me, flowering whatever refers to ornamental varieties of whatever and should depend on parentage. For Prunus, I have heard of flowering almonds, flowering apricots, flowering cherries, flowering peaches, and flowering plums. Fortunately/Unfortunately Wikimedia does not have the same sourcing/referencing expectations Wikipedia has. If I am looking for images of "flowering cherry varieties", I do not expect to look under Prunus, P. serrulate, P. subhirtella and other species categories.
After a little research, flowering cherry cultivars often have P. serrulata as a parent. P. subhirtella and others are also often parents. Flowering plums have P. cerasifera (not P. cerasus which is a cherry) or P. mume as a parent. Since parentage is not always obvious, a little more description is warranted. Ornamental cherries have been cultivated for a much longer time. Flowering cherries tend to have larger or more intricate flowers. The cultivars 'Kanzan' (aka 'Kwanzan') and 'Mount Fuji' are good examples. (Have fun finding images 'Mount Fuji', I guess there needs to be a "Category:Prunus serrulata (flowers)". I tend to work from top down, so I would create the parent category before "Category:Prunus serrulata cultivars (flowers)".) The foliage is usually green and lightly serrated. The description for Prunus serrulata is typical. Flowering plums tend to bloom earlier than the flowering cherries parented by P. serrulata, often have a deeper pink flowers and purplish foliage. "Prunus × blireana" is a vintage hybrid/cultivar but is not typical. A popular cultivar is 'Thundercloud'. I am accustomed to it being called 'Thundercloud' plum. But I see many descriptions as 'Thundercloud' cherry plum.User-duck (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have many cats like Category:Jazz pianists to fill this cat; and, yes, nobody is stopping me from doing that, but at this moment this cat looks weird and seems to serve a more sophisticated order that I'm hesitant to enter. E4024 (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would work but still the definitoin is missing for me, so what media should remain in the cat and what shoulnd't be in the cat. OK torture reports can remain but pictures? Like the whole cat black site is inside that cat which is for me a little bit too much and also not in the US.--Sanandros (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything under black sites is related to the US. The proposal is to rename to "by the United States", not "in the United States". --Auntof6 (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK but still the term blacksite is for me to broad to categorise it in this cat. Also since Obama the torture practise became more rare or even stoped them.--Sanandros (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikidata Infobox has added a description that clarifies the category. I think the category should be kept as is. This term is pretty commonly used and refers to particular techniques used by the CIA. It can't be correctly applied to any and all torture perpetrated by the United States. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, detainee is not a neutral term, Bush Presidency spin doctors chose it to give an air of normalcy to a highly abnormal situation -- ie individuals who are not being accorded prisoner of war status, being held for years, without charge.
Second, "inmate", really? A lot of apologists for the Bush Guantanamo plan try to conflate Guantanamo captive with "convicts", when, of course, most of these men were not only never convicted of a crime, they were never even charged with a crime. The highly biased term "inmate" implies criminal guilt, so is obviously unsuitable for men for whom there was never any evidence of a crime. Geo Swan (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I chose "captive", over "detainee", as the more neutral term. I did some google searches when I first started working on topics related to Guantanamo. Prior to the opening of that camp it was extremely rare for prisoners to be referred to as "detainees". The Bush Presidency decided to use this term to give the highly extraordiny situation a patina of normalcy.
It is not our role to use the terms of spin doctors, to back up their public relations efforts.
"Detainee" is the word for an individual who is detained. So if you have a problem with "detainee", the same problem exists for "Individuals detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention camps". I have no issue with "Individuals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camps" except it is unnecessarily long. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about "prisoners"? It's in the "prisoners of war" category tree, even if the US doesn't consider them or treat them as prisoners of war, but they are undeniably prisoners. I don't see that as implying conviction of a crime, but maybe you do, Geo Swan? Category:Prisoners of Guantanamo Bay detention camp ?
It was in the prisoners of war category until I removed it. That's a whole separate discussion that we can have elsewhere. I am fine with "prisoners" (or "inmates"). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we have discussed it *before* you move it if you knew it would be contentious? =) I might add, if it's good enough categorization for wikipedia, I think it should be fine for us. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm replying to you. Firstly , it's an obviously contentious issue, made clear by the discussion above, and by basic knowledge of the camp. It's not something that "some editors" are making unnecessarily contentions. Second, wikipedia categorizes the prisoners as "Extrajudicial prisoners" (a subcategory of political repression) and categorizes the camp itself as a POW camp. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary cat; let's delete it as there will not be countries using oxen to pull ambulances in the future (if a couple of countries do not drag us to a nuclear war catastrophe and life does not begin again) nor we will find pictures of past centuries easily to populate this cat. E4024 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that way but it'd be nice to wait a month or two because you might be astonished by what I turn up. You've had a hunt already? Eddaido (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you're sorry. Answer seems to be only me that always ensures there's one example in a new cat so then when people find more they are able to find where to categorise it and don't need to create the long mad chains . . . Seriously, I meant all of what I said in my first response — thought you might have settled down for a few minutes and tried to find more images of ox-drawn ambulances. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you don't understand what I've tried to explain. I think what is important (as the sterling worker you are who cares about all these things) you take the bit between your teeth and do what has to be done. To accomplish my own purpose I can't handle low level distractions like this one. Just throw away my new category, won't affect my sleep. You'll be wrong of course but here you're the boss. Now back to your other message. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm a litle skeptical as well. I'm all for keeping Category:Ox-drawn ambulances but I can't imagine we'll ever have a substantial number of photos requiring dispersion into country specific categories, or that any of the sub-categories of Category:Ox-drawn vehicles by country will ever have so many images of ambulances that they will really require their own category. @Eddaido: Side question, how do we know the images from India are for an ox-drawn ambulance? It's not currently being pulled by anything. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About the side issue, its the form of hitch on the pole. (p.s. and check the description on the file). Its my experience that as images of particular subjects accumulate they provide a clearer idea of the subject represented. This matters for horse-drawn vehicles because they seem to take on names which in other countries are used for rather different vehicles. Sometimes these distinctions depend not only on the country concerned but the period, even the part of a century. In the meantime its a case of putting like with like until some order is achieved.
As explained somewhere else I'm untangling horse-drawn vehicles and tossing out the other stuff that's been muddled in with it. It would be nice if this particular little pigeon-hole (and of course the others I expect you will also perceive to be too similar) might stay for the moment. Sorry I have to go off to total-immersion Turkish classes now. Will read your further thoughts/decision with interest. Eddaido (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite extraordinary. Where have all the ox-ambulances gone? I believe you wish to reduce the number of categories. You have been very patient and I will fight you no longer.
Unnecessary cat. Used wrongly. Category:Medieval Islamic medicine is more than enough for many items there. On the other hand, things like use of leech for bloodletting has no "islamic" in it. Traditionally it was practiced by Jewish -and other- physicians in Turkey and today by Romani people who are generally indifferent to religion. Anyhow, independently of who practices it, this practice has been there since much before Islam. Please leave Islam in peace. E4024 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you misunderstood. Islamic refers to islamic civilization and culture under islamic states and empires not religion. In the same way "American" refers to American culture and civilization which contains all ethnicities. The term "Islamic" rather than "Arabic" is more inclusive to avoid waste of time with muslim persians that insist on avoiding "Arabic", despite the fact that Arabic refers to language not ethinicity. And that Avicenna and Rhazes despite being persian muslims but they chose to write their books in Arabic language and not Persian, as it was the lingua Francaof science at that time. As you have mentioned leech for bloodletting was not discivered by muslim health practitionets, you may check the other categories that i have intiated to collect the blood letting practice allover the world. However including it here document a "traditional medicine" practice known to the muslim physicians. I open to any further discussion or any needed explanation. Thanks for bringing this issue.--Ashashyou (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that this category contains "Traditional medicine" i.e. health practices by common people or non-physicians. These practices are usually not fully approved by physicians as it lacked evidence of effectiveness in the point of view of physicians at that time. While medieval Islamic Medicine category contains the "approved" medical practice at that time. Also some of the traditional medicine is still practiced until today in the same way as it was back then. So traditional medicine is continuous rather than restricted to a specific time era. I would like also to point that i have intiated some other traditional medicine categories for other cultures and countries. The reason is that I believe, we need to differentiate between "Medicine" & "Traditional medicine". For example catarct surgery is performed by physician as a "medical" practice, while it is also practiced by traditional healers as a "traditional medical" practice. Check this link
AFAICS the only "national" leaders cat out of native Americans, which is a totally different issue. I doubt this cat is necessary. E4024 (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Part of "Category:Members of the Czech Pirate Party". Members of no party, if they have not assumed any considerable office have notability. Perhaps for this reason none of her pics are used anywhere. IMHO both the pics and the cat only serve to promotion of this junior politician and no educational use. E4024 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JMCC1, but I'm not sure that totally clears things up for me. Antiquity like classical antiquity, or any ancient story? How do we decide that outside a European frame? Can a creature be both legendary and mythological, or mutually exclusive, or is one a subset of another? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Myths are part of the religious system of a culture, which considers them as true stories.
Hi there! In wp:fr we use the main title "legendary creatures" for all theses creatures (or animals) and inside we can put specific sub-categories as "creatures of the greek (or corean, or anyhting) mythology" (mythologies been a past religion while legend is more broad, concerning all beliefs and folklores even current beliefs). So yes, totally agree to merge these two categories. Triton (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I started to work on other categories a few days ago and continued on other grounds to make something clearer (not totally done thouh). The categories discussed here are still existing and not emptied. I only emptied categories which didn't make any sens: "Mythological animal costumes" for exemple...is there any costume of rabbit, tiger, elephant,...coming from a specific mythology? There is however creatures from certain myths of legends (dragons,...). For Category:Mythological animals in heraldry, sorry didn't had the time to fully transfer everything and sorry also for my mistake in the renaming. Triton (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Лобачев Владимир: No, it's precisely the opposite: mythologies are groups of stories (myths), characters, ideas... constituting of a culture/religion/civilisation as JMCC1 said. Myths explain the world. They are sometimes mixed up with legends. But legends exist outside religions and civilisations, they tell stories (at least some adult people believe in at a certain point in opposition to the fable and tales). Nowadays legends are used in the broader sense: stories in which some people believe(d) and has never been proved. This included myths which have in addition a cosmological/explaining but also folkloric stories, some tall tales, ...
As the Themightyquill propose, Category:Mythological creatures by culture might be much more explicit (I would prefer attached to legendary creatures but fictional creatures would be fine). A myth is attached to a culture. A legend can be attached to a place or a name. For example Category:Leprechauns have legends (or folklore stories) but are not part of mythological stories (as far as I'm aware).
Yes, bad categorization there as well...Mixing past fictions from literature, modern, myths, legends, even real people... Triton (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this is categorized differently in different places (e.g. en:Category:Greek legendary creatures is a sub-category of en:Category:Mythological Greek characters). So I'd say we should pick our own logic and state it explicitly in the category descriptions, even if it doesn't mirror other wikipedia projects. So far, Triton's logic makes the most sense to me, but I'm open to other ideas. @Лобачев Владимир: If "legendary creatures" are a subset of "mythological creatures" what defines legendary as separate from other mythological creatures? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To sort this I propose to launch a vote. Please indicate below the proposition to clear this out. Once we identified the propositions from everybody we will launch a vote on the different propositions. Thanks. Triton (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No son lo mismo. Son dos institutos diferentes. Mientras uno es una sociedad de vida apostólica el otro es una nueva forma de vida consagrada. Fraychero (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Deve tradition"? We Turks sometimes do name peculiarly our stuff, and I'm sure the Turks of Western Thrace are no exception. Having said that, this half Turkish half English (is it?) "bayram" (festival) really has a weird name and the cat title could be developed. I guess the cat should also have some direct relation to Turks in Greece, in case this is not a local "bicommunal" feast. (I mean the Greeks may participate in a "Turkish" bayram or probably they have some festival in common.) I don't know. Who does? E4024 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @E4024: Google gives 0 hits to "Deve tradition". The files are used at Greece-related articles. To move on we probably need some Greek users. If no one answers, we can keep this category, but providing with the template {{Fact disputed}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the two subcats is about 2015-16, and I see no similar cats in other countries. Maybe we should foresee a general "Terrorism by country by year" arrangement because regrettably these events do not seem to end. E4024 (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I opened the Category:Terrorist incidents in Turkey; the discussed cat(s) being only about Turkey is not correct. Either we make an arrangement as I proposed above ("Terrorism" can be changed to "Terrorist incidents" in the title) or simply delete the cats about Turkey. While we have not had major terrorist attacks in Turkey lately, it is strange to have these cats; as countries that suffered more of this "lastre" (how to say this in English, hispanos?) do not have similar cats... --E4024 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been moved to "Category:Sheep heads (meat)" but I believe better this title, as we speak about -mainly- "offal". Let's rename the cat. E4024 (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In normal cases, all vehicles (on roads etc.) should have license plates." - it's not quite so. That apply only to motor vehicles an their trailers. Bicycles, carriages, carts etc. have no license plates generally. --ŠJů (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Naturally, we need a category of license plates (even though we can have millions of images of them). In addition, it is usefull to distinguish images of detached plates (or even diagrams of plates) from images of vehicles with plates. However, for this purpose, the categories should be called rather Category:License plates on vehicles than Category:Vehicles with license plates. Even though even motor vehicle should have the linense plate, surelly not every photo of a vehicle should display also the license plate. --ŠJů (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For ŠJů's remark to distinguish between images of detached and mounted license plates: for me this is an entirely different thing with the focus somewhat on:
Oppose - Because of privacy concerns such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) no images with readable license plates should be uploaded in the first place. That is the reason why they are in a separate category, in order to allow visitors to trace them back and eventually upload a new version without a readable license plate. Lotje (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. It is not a easy CFD. I just give a notice: when categorizing a file, we should focus on license plate not vehicle itself. Many cases the seeable license place is "de minimis". By the way, User:Lotje argument seems to be a strong and interesting one--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Devotion, which includes cemeteries, religious buildings, and nativity scenes, somehow a child of Category:Wayside shrines yet not in plural form, and anyways, normally defined as any expression of religious sentiment or practice. I think we need to rethink this. Themightyquill (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need categories for the GPW jubilee medals and other jubilee medals? These are very low-level/non-notable awards and just indicate they survived x amount of years long after the war, all of which can be calculated from the death date. It's a bit tedious to add these categories, and there's no importance to them. Please delete PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, would you be opposed to merging all the other related discussions into this one? I don't imagine anyone would want to keep one but delete the other.
Those categories are not for images, but for persons' categories. Also, before deciding something about Great Patriotic War categories, wouldn't it better to ask Russian-speaking users on Commons rather than deciding it solely by English-speaking users? I guess, English-speaking people aren't familiar with the GPW. At least ask the other site, whose contributions on Commons related to WWII (Eastern Front) aka the Great Patriotic War.
The nominated categories have interwiki links, and all medals have Wikipedia articles, including English-language articles. These medals are not boyscout badges.--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the jubilee medal categories are a bit redundant sometimes. For example, was anyone awarded the Jubilee Medal "70 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" but not the Jubilee Medal "50 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you read carefully the Wikipedia articles, you would know that the Jubilee Medal "70 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" was not established in Ukraine. In other words, Soviet WWII veterans in Ukraine, who have the [Ukrainian] Jubilee Medal "50 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945", weren't awarded.
I can't understand, how could these categories be "non-notable", if the nominated categories have a lot of interwiki links? See: Wikidata:Q7201719, Wikidata:Q9644092, Wikidata:Q20241104, etc. There is already a consensus among Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakhstani and other Wikipedians.
If you tend to think "no English Wikipedia category = non-notable/non-important", that's not right. You are on Commons, it's an international project (COM:INT), not a clone of the English Wikipedia with their strict policy toward categories. I remind you, we don't write articles here: categories are the main way of navigation on Commons, instead of wiki-linked texts in Wikipedia. Don't project the English Wikipedia's strict policy toward categories on Commons, otherwise it would result in removing a half of Commons categories, because they aren't "notable" per the En-Wiki standards. Also, there are plenty of categories of US medals recipients, that have neither own Wikipedia articles nor own Wikipedia categories (e.g.: Category:Recipients of the Air Force Commendation Medal (United States), Category:Recipients of the Army Commendation Medal (United States), etc), but it doesn't mean those categories and medals are less useful/notable than, for instance, Category:Nude women with green background.
IMO, you, as an English-speaking high school student (according to your Wikipedia page), are too confident in saying that you can calculate everything just from the death date. Even for a native Russian-speaking person, who is familiar with the subject, it won't be easy, because you should know well medals' statutes, history and biographies. For example, statutes of earlier GPW jubilee medals differ from the latest ones, i.e. the range of recipients is expended for the latest ones and includes Nazi concentration camps' underage detainees, civilians during the seige of Leningrad and other new categories of people. So, it doesn't imply that a person, who was awarded by a "50 Years of Victory" medal, has the previous medals. I haven't even touched on the nuances, like when a Soviet WWII veteran loses the right to receive jubilee medals (due to emmigration, conviction. etc).
By the way, it's not true that you can calculate recipients of the Jubilee Medal "30 Years of the Soviet Army and Navy"/etc from the date of death. Please, read the medals' statutes, before saying it.
I also remind that recipients' categories aren't created on a whim. There is a frequent practice of adding medals' categories to persons' categories (experienced Commons users know it well). So the normal option is to transfer them from medals' categories to recipients' categories. Especially when they are recipients of the awards with own Wikipedia articles, i.e. notable.--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh golly, where do I start? 1. I do not think the "no English Wikipedia category = non-notable/non-important" is true at all. Frankly EN wiki is a bit silly about this, and annyoingly doesn't even have categories for Recipients of the Order of the October Revolution and Recipients of the Order of the Red Star. ): The reason I bring this up is because I have begun categorizing several thousand photos and envelopes of Heroes of the Soviet Union, and adding all the jubilee medal categories is gets a bit tedious. 2. Russian-speaking users are welcome to come here to this discussion (we can each post in our preferred language and read responses. Google-translating+dictionary when needed) 3. Statutes do differ a bit, but for the most part while creating Soviet WWII veteran categories there's a huge degree of overlap. 4. Info on medal statues can be read in their respective articles. 5. Jubilee medals had far more recipients than other medals, look at numbers of recipients. the 30 years victory medal had over 14 million recipients, 40 years of victory medal had over 11 million recipients, 60 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR had 10 million recipients; compare that to something like the Order of the Red star with about 3 million recipients. 5. When I said "was anyone awarded the Jubilee Medal "70 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" but not the Jubilee Medal "50 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"" I meant: "Everyone currently in one of those categories on Wikimedia is currently in the other, certainly having a lost to do with the fact no one creating HSU categories has time to add every jubilee medal. Stange only a few in Wikimedia category with millions of recipeints." 6. In regards to Wikidata categories, example Q9644092 has 5 language wikis. Does not compare much to something like Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner with 23 languages and Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Star with 28. 7. What does an English-speaker learning Russian have to do with this? For starters, I wrote an article for every single redlinked biography on the English en:List of female Heroes of the Soviet Union (48 HSU redlinks done), and wrote or significantly expanded 19 more HSUs. In total I've written from scratch 70 Soviet WWII biographies, still working on improving others that are English stubs. I have a to-do list of very important HSU bios not in English that's a mile and a half long, and have uploaded hundreds of envelopes featuring HSU's to Commons and categorized them. On Russian Wikipedia I've done numerous digital restorations of historic photographs of Heroes of the Soviet Union, and worked with several Russian speakers, both Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians, in the process. 8. Since you went to my en wikipage you know I'm a native en highschool student, but ignored the fact that I've written a lot of Soviet WWII biographies yet continued to imply I have no experience with the subject. Why? 9. Jubilee Medal "30 Years of the Soviet Army and Navy" was not awarded posthumously as far as I know. Statue for being in the military on 22 February 1948. Checking dates people died, went to reserve, were in military, or if medals revoked can be used to calculate this. Since it's for being in the military on a certain date I wouldn't think it deserves it's own category. It's not even a long-service award. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Do you understand that the Order of the October Revolution is a commemorative award as well? First, you want to wipe out categories for GPW commemorative medals' recipients, then you (you, I stress) state that the category for recipients of the Order of the October Revolution is acceptable, a few posts later (below) you are insisting that all categories for commemorative medals' recipients should be wiped out. It looks inconsistent.
2. Is it a suggestion to gather Russian-speaking users? I'll think about it, but it would turn all into a vote.
3. FYI, 1st degree recipients categories overlap 2nd degree, 3rd degree, 4th degree recipients' categories. You are just suggesting to wipe them all out, instead of thorough categorization. This runs counter to the modularity principle (COM:C). Subcategorization doesn't allow to turn Commons into a mess, it's not just a whim.
4. Millions of award recipients, members of political parties ≠ their categories aren't notable or we should create personal categories about all of them. Nobody is going to remove Category:Republicans of the United States or Category:Democrats of the United States, because there are millions of members in those political parties (alive or dead). I remind, we don't create categories on Commons for every single person, only notable persons (from Republicans, Democrats and so on) have categories, i.e. those who have Wikipedia articles or are useful as illustrative material for certain articles (for example, articles about organizations due to persons' high posts like CEO, etc).
5. Not so strange to Commons. Take a look at Category:People by name. Potentionally, there can be hundreds of millions categories in this category.
6. Excuse me, but it's not constuctive to state that a category should have 20 interwiki links or it's not notable and should be removed from Commons. Please, be more serious. If you try to follow your own criteria and nominate the "non-notable" categories without 20 interwiki links, you will find out very soon that your "rule" doesn't work on Commons.
7. Go translate articles, that's a good option. Your obsession with category deletionism is not ok, especially when you know that there is the consensus in five Wikipedia projects, that such categories are acceptable. Not everyone has time to go somewhere and calculate something like you suggest to do. By the same logic you can wipe out all categories of people by century (everything can be calculated from birth/death dates). Commons is a huge catalog of files, it's not Wikipedia with their policies. Our goal is to categorize files, making navigation between files more convenient.
8. You have experience in translation, thank you for your contribution in the English Wikipedia. However, it seems you aren't familiar with Commons by reflecting the English Wikipedia's policies on Commons. Wikipedia and Commons have different goals, our goal is categorization/catalogization. Wikipedia doesn't need categories as much as Commons, because it uses text. I hope you can understand it.
9. Again, the statutes differ. I've already explained to what it leads. You can't say that the recipients are identical. We shouldn't play puzzles on Commons. It's not ok to suggest people to go somewhere and spend their time, just because you don't want to see certain categories. Meanwhile other similar categories are acceptable for you.--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Russian Rocky: Like I said in the past, the reason I didn't nominate for discussion the Order of the October Revolution recpients category is because the award, while it is commemorative, is high-ranking. On a ribbon bar it is worn only after the Order of Lenin, with everything else below. The Jubilee medals listed here are not relatively high-ranking. And for the fifth time, I DON'T WANT ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ON COMMONS THAT IS NEVER MY INTENTION. Stop accusing otherwise, Commons is different of course. Half a dozen jubilee categories does not improve navigation, and we do not have recipient categories for other countries equivalents of these medals. We don't have categories for recipients of Belarussian or Ukrainian WWII jubilee medals like "70 years of Liberation of Ukraine for facist invaders. To compare the Order of the October revolution, which is a much higher ranking award, is like comparing apples and oranges. These categories do not improve navigation, that are not a good provider of information. And I DON'T expect a category to have 20 interwiki links, I brought that up to bring context for the situation, comparing to other national medals. And please be a bit more civil, this is a serious discussion, not a game. Your numerous accusations are ungrounded and you seem to default to "assume bad faith". jesus christ you need to get a grip, not everyone sees the need for low-level commemorative medal recipient categories. One more super-snarky comment like that and I will be writing in capslock. And I AM familiar with commons, I spent my first year on Wikipedia categorizing aviation files here. I am NOT a deletionist and the only categories I asked to be deleted in the past were duplicate categories with typos or other duplication issues. Calm down, eat a snack, look at a few pictures of cats before coming back to your keyboard angry.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Russian Rocky: Please be civil. You've insisted that Russian speakers should be notified of this discussion for their input at the same time that you complain at being notified if the discussion on your talk page. Planespotter made a clear argument that awards simply for living for x decades after the end of the war are unequal to awards given to commend some special service or act. There's nothing nationally biased there. If similar awards from other countries exist as categories here, I'm sure Planespotter would be happy to include them in the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stick to the topic, please. I'm quite civil, though it doesn't mean I can't be strictly formal. If you haven't figured it out, she is trying to wipe out my categories. About a year ago I discussed with people about the medals, several other Russian speaking users helped to add them. Now a new person comes and insists that everything can be calculated, categories for commemorative medals' recipients should be removed and so on. IMO, this behaviour is not ok, expecially when a person hasn't spend a minute to discuss it with the relevant community on Commons.
And no. Unfortunately, she didn't made a "clear" argument. It has been revealed that she started the mass deletion just because she don't want to add certain commemorative categories. At the same time she is friendly to some commemorative categories (see above her opinion toward the Order of the October Revolution). In other words, it looks like a personal preference, not the consensus.--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Russian Rocky: I'll stick to the topic if you stop making personal accusations. If Planespotter wanted to wipe out "your" categories without discussing it, it's easy enough to create redirects and remove all the child categories without administrator status. Instead, the category was brought to a CFD - categories for discussion - to achieve consensus before deletion. No action has been taken besides initiating a discussion. That's absolutely the correct procedure to follow. The categories belong to the project as a whole, not to you or even to Russian speaking users. I've known you to be a good user in the past, capable of calm discussion, but your behaviour and response here is totally inappropriate. Please calm down and continue to discuss the matter with courtesy. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: If it's for discussion, I'm asking you to follow it, because it says for deletion (here, here). I've calmed down, thank you.
I apologise to Planespotter, if I upset you. No offence, I've made my posts more neutral. It really doesn't matter who you are. Let's just stick to Commons policies, without English Wikipedia's policies.--Russian Rocky (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Russian Rocky: Its not a personal whim. While commemorative the Order of the October Revolution has a much higher rank than any other medal mentioned previously here; it's placed ona ribbon bar only after the Order of Lenin and nothing else. I did make a clear argument: We don;t need these categories beecause the commemorative medals listed are low ranking and recipients can be determined from statutes. If we had recipient categories for other low-ranking commemorative medals like the Ukrainian medal "70 years of liberation from fascist invaders", it would be on this list too. If it makes you feel better, I can create that category and nominate it for deletion here too in order to prove this is not an anti-Russian thing but an issue about excess categories. And are we not "discussing it with the relevant community on Commons" right HERE? I'm confused...that's the whole entire point of Commons:Categories for discussion.--00:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
To cite precedent and clarify that there's nothing nationalistic about this, we don't have any category for recipients of the Ukrainian jubilee medals (thank goodness) 70 years of liberation from fascist invaders and 70 years of victory over Nazism (Ukrainian equivalents of Jubilee Medal "70 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945") Medal "10 years of the Armed Forces of Ukraine", as well as the Kazakhstani medal "10 years of Astana", the Polish medal "10th Anniversary of Independence"... just to name a few. And it should be that way, because nobody has time to add every commemorative medal to someone's category. Can we please just not have recipient categories for commemorative medals? After all, they are all VERY wordy and tedious to add.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have already stated above, that you want to remove categories for commemorative medals' recipients because you personally don't want to add certain categories. There are a lot of Russian speaking people on Commons who spend their precious time on adding Soviet/CIS recipients' categories, they aren't "nobody". Thereby, I kindly request you not to say for everyone, nobody force you to add any categories. Also, If you study Russian, you should know that our language is wordy and tedious. No joke, Russian categories do indeed have longer names, but it's not an excuse for wiping them out, especially on an international project like Commons.--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Russian Rocky: : 1. Yes, I am familiar with some of the many intricacies of Russian language. I can read it much better than I can write it. Either way, the full category names on Commons, which happen to be in English, are tedious to write out. Try to write out this without making a typo:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" Much longer than a simple [[Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Star]]. 2.What I meant by "nobody" is that "most people don't bother with them and don't find meaningful information from them" and therefore we are left with a lot of depleted categories. Note that 70 years victory as of checking ten minutes ago just had a few people in the category despite thousands of recipients with categories. 3. You still havent addressed how these categories are valuable; to me, they just make it harder to see in the category list at the top of the page if the person was also awarded the Order of Suvorov since the many jubilee categories take up so much space. 4. Of course commons is an international project, and English Wikipedia rules should not be applied here. The reason for deletion is about the functionality of the categories for navigation. With so many jubilee medal categories polluting category lists it has the opposite of the intended effect by making navigation harder. 5.It's not just because I don't want to add the categories: they have no practical function. 6."There are a lot of Russian speaking people on Commons who spend their precious time on adding Soviet/CIS repicients' categories" it would be very nice if they would...I don't know, write some articles and expand some stubs instead of typing out jubilee medal information into hundreds of categories? I know someone here that does add jubilee medal categories, but I would rather they categorize uncategorized HSU photos, envelopes, etc. Or maybe even write to TASS asking them to release all pre-1991 HSU photos to Commons (they haven't responded to me but maybe they will respond to a Russian citizen). Do not take this the wrong way, but typing out jubilee medal categories into HotCat is not as good a use of time as spending hours with your textbook, a dictionary, and good-old Google translate to translate a 15-paragraph article on a Hero of the Soviet Union. Certainly those individuals that add jubilee medal categories are not "nobody", but if you check the categorization of Heroes of the Soviet Union that survived the Great Patriotic War you would notice a definate lack of jubilee medal categorization. To sum it up: We don't need commemorative medal recipient categories because they are not necessary, be it the 10 years of Astana, 60 years of liberation of Ukraine from Facist aggressors, or the 70 years victory medal. They just don't have much information or navigation value. BTW, the reason I'm ok with the keeping the Order of the October Revolution medal is because while it may be commemorative, it is a very high ranking-medal. It's placed right after the Order of Lenin, the highest state Order on a ribbon bar (Hero of the Soviet Union and Hero of Socialist Labor don't have ribbon bars). If a certain Great Patriotic War commemorative medal was one of the highest-ranking state awards, then yes, keep it. I mentioned it as an example due to it's high rank.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Russian Rocky: I appreciate the thought, but upon closer inspection, only a small percent of HSU bios with images are there. Since only a few have entries and even some entries don't have pictures, it isn't enough for one-picture-per-person. I'm glad that mil.ru is Wikimedia-compatible, but sadly it lacks the bios and respective for many. (I couldn't even find a portrait-photo of Alexander Prokhorenko on that website, and honestly, I thought of all photos they put on their website, his photo would be not only published but prominent. Wish it was so we could use it in both his biography and in articles of related topics. Since the portrait is fair-use I can't put it in the article on last stands.) I have used mil.ru in the past for biographies, both for images and as a source, and continue to use it in citations. Nevertheless, I have written to TASS and Stupnik asking them to send OTRS permission for pre-1991 HSU photos but never got any response...maybe the email was automatically filtered and ignored because it was written in American English and US-Russia relations aren't great right now. If anyone on Russian Wikipedia, or even a group, could write the email asking for permission that would be great, because both TASS and the RIAN archive (owned by Sputnick) have donated lots and lots of photos to Wikimedia in the past, and I would love it if we had more photos of HSUs (and Heros of the Russian Federation as well, especially cosmonauts since most cosmonaut pictures in infoboxes are low-resolution postage stamps instead of real photographs.) Either way, as of the time I'm writing this we are still quite short of HSU photos for many biographies and lists.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you need better illustrations, try to find Soviet/Russian maximum cards. Our government releases maximum cards too, together with eponymous postal stamps. Here is an example for Hero of the Russian Federation Валерий Замараев (though, I think I can get a better sample of this card, if I search more thoroughly). Nevertheless, at first consult with administrators about their copyright status. I've some concerns, so I can't surely tell whether Soviet/Russian maximum cards count as postal covers (PD-RU-exempt) or not. If they are acceptable, I can later help to upload some maximum cards related to HRF.
Back to the topic, your arguments can be summarized as follows:
1. "Categories with long titles". We have no policy to remove such categories or to consider them non-notable (COM:C#Category names). Let's stick to the Commons policy, rather than to personal perception. There is no way to calculate a category's "usefulness" or "notability" just from its short or long name, therefore this criteria of yours isn't appropriate here.
2. "Categories of "non-notable" awards". Commons isn't a suitable place for deciding which awards are notable. Leave it to Wikipedia. If an award has own Wikipedia article and even its recipients' category in Wikipedia (!) like in our case, it's worth to consider it notable for a Commons category. It's only your personal stance, because you don't rely on any local rules.
Do a little research to find out that the nominated Russian medals (Years of Victory) are ranked higher than many of Russian state awards with unique names. Take a look at the Medal "50 Years of Victory" and the Medal of Zhukov, Medal "For Merit in Space Exploration", Medal of Ushakov, Medal of Nesterov and so on. The first (50 Years of Victory) is ranked higher than the above-mentioned awards, which aren't commemorative/jubilee and have unique names. Pay close attention that "50 Years of Victory" isn't even a Soviet award, while all Soviet awards are more higher (!) than this award.
So how do you propose to be with this? Do you really suggest to remove recipients' categories for such awards too? Sorry, but I suspect you judge awards only by their names, not by their value. All awards with "long/repitive names" are "non-notable" for you by default, despite of their ranks or types. With regard to USSR Armed Forces jubilee medals, they are ranked higher than some Soviet and many Russian state medals as well. You can also notice that these medals are ranked higher than some long-service awards.
3. "Quantity of recipients". You've already admitted that the English Wikipedia's policy doesn't work here, including their strict category policy for the number of recipients. I hope you understand that Commons categories like Republicans of the United States, Members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (>90 million members) and Physicians from Russia aren't designed for each USA Republican, CPSU member or Russian physician. On Commons, we have no intention to create personal categories for each and every of them, the same applies to recipients' categories. Also, it's not coherent to say that some categories should be removed because there are too many recipients, while other categories with the same issue are acceptable (even if there are almost 4 million of recipients, like for Recipients of the Order of the Red Star (no EN interwiki), which you said is ok). There are awards like the Medal "For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" (almost 14 million recipients, 8,291 biographical articles use this category in the Russian Wikipedia). This quantity is much higher than for any of the nominted medals, and it's not a jubilee medal, but a military campaign medal.
The suggestion to create a Wikipedia list isn't an option too. First, there are no such lists in the Russian/English Wikipedia even for the Order of October Revolution and Order of the Red Star (more notable awards according to PlanespotterA320). Second, Wikipedia doesn't countenance the creation of lists for recipients if there is a large amount of recipients and/or an award itself isn't of the highest ranks. By the same logic, we can send everyone to create Wikipedia lists instead of any recipents' categories, because all of these categories are replaceable by Wikipedia lists.
4. "They take too much space/overlapping". You've complained that the nominated categories take up too much space. You got the wrong impression that Soviet WII veterans' categories are "polluted" by awards due to the following reason: Because it's much easier to get images for contemporary/long-lived veterans (due to copyright issues), you notice many of full cavaliers here, but they are the minority in reality. The majority of notable Soviet WII veterans (with own Wikipedia articles) don't have full sets at all. For instance, "70 Years of Victory" is quite a rare award, only around 200 notable people (with own Wikipedia articles) have it.
Overlapping is a frequent situaton for awards by degree. Recipients of such awards often can't get a higher award before getting a lower award, especially it concerns military and long-service awards. Do you really offer to refrain from categorizing by degree and throw everything together? Even the English Wikipedia makes no such thing. Take a note, it doesn't work for USSR Armed Forces recipients, they aren't bound to a starting point. It's not constructive what you've suggested earlier. Nobody is obligated to go somewhere and calculate something, because someone doesn't like full cavaliers of certain awards.
I hope I haven't forgotten to mention any of your arguments. In conclusion, I've to say it's quite disappointing to see how the nominator ignores interwikis, articles, even awards' ranks in the Soviet/Russian honours system and offers us to judge state awards by their names. I think your position should be based on documents (like the list provided above), not on your personal preferences.--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here actually think these categories are functional for categorizing images? If you ask the fundamental question "Do these categories make Wikipedia better?" I feel the answer is no - they are jubilee medals, not the title of national Hero, a medal for valor in combat, or something a bit more notable. There is a high degree of overlap (many recipients of the 20 years victory also have the 30 years victory medal), and they do little to assist in navigation - in fact, most recipients of such medals that have a category on commons are not categorized as recipients. In fact, very few HSU biographies with jubilee medals on ribbon bars are categorized as recipients on commons. Hence these categories have very little functionality, and no precedent on Commons to do so. The primary voice against this, RussianRocky, has appealed to ad hominem and assigned bad intent, but that is not the case: these categories are not serving their purpose with a high degree of non-use, and are not a good way to categorize media.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ask "Do these categories make Wikipedia better"?
First, which one of the official Wikipedias do you mean? FYI, each category (nominated by you) has at least 2–6 interwiki links.
Second, it's Commons. I don't nominate categories for deletion on Wikipedia, just because I don't feel those categories make Commons better.
P.S.: Excuse me, but you've said nothing new, repeating your initial arguments that you already have the answers to. Why don't you provide reliable sources for your words like "very low-level/non-notable awards" (disproved by the honours system, the link is above) and similar statements, instead of labeling your opponent only by "has appealed to ad hominem and assigned bad intent, but that is not the case"? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you are trying to portray me as a rude person, who is unreasonably unfair to you, like there were no constructive arguments from me at all (which is not true). Besides, if this wasn't "the case", you wouldn't portray me by the words favoring your side in the first place. I really don't want to deal with such a card, especially when you've already got an official apology.--Russian Rocky (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Russian Rocky: By "Wikipedia", I mean the entire Wikimedia Foundation project colloquially reffered to as Wikipedia, here on Commons. And um, have you read some of your statements here and on other user-pages? You've called me "ignorant about the GPW" (I'm not, tone down the arrogance), said I was "playing a deletionist game" (false: this is a category for discussion permitted by Wikimedia guidelines, not a redirect editwar), "unfamiliar with the honors system", (actually, I do know what order things go on ribbon bars: high-ranking awards first (Order of Lenin, Order of the October Revolution, merit orders, some campaign medals, then jubilee medals, then other campaign medals, then other jubilee medals...etc), and "she is trying to wipe out my categories" (dude, categories are not your property. They are to help find images on Commons.) While some jubilee medals are higher-ranking than some low ranking campaign-medals, that doesn't help the fact that they are not merit/action-based or campaign medals (that show where someone went in war). They are literally just jubilee medals for living after the war, awarded for being alive X number of years after the war's end, which is not something that defines people (participating in a war is what defines people, not number of years lived after. The GPW veteran who died of cancer before the first jubilee medal was released is not somehow less of a veteran than a veteran who lives to be 100). And your official apology wasn't actually an apology...you literally said "I apologise to Planespotter, if I upset you." — to Themightyquill. That's not actually an apology. As for "seems you are trying to portray me as a rude person"; I'm not, but you are doing a great job making yourself look like one IMHO. You needed several reminders to be civil, and not from me. It's not unreasonable to think the smaller medals awarded for being in the military on a certain day or being a veteran who survived a certain number of years after the war is not worth a commons category. In fact, they just add clutter to category boxes.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you wait more than three months just to tell you have some grudges against me?
I can't figure out why you come back and give me one-sided characteristics, then complain about your experience of being offended in the past. What are you up to? It's not ethical to pick up only 'ad hominem', while it clearly wasn't among the main arguments of your opponent. Also, don't make it look like no deletion issue was there. Themightyquill can confirm that you nominated a part of the categories exactly for deletion, not for discussion. It's quite regretful that you allow yourself to behave in a familiar manner ("dude", huh?) and, at the same time, demand a respectful attitude towards yourself. It's already September, your current tone definitely out of place. Refrain from off-topic, please.
"Add clutter", well... Once again, you ignore a large number of interwiki links. Do you think other Wikipedians in different language editions of Wikipedia are less reasonable than you?
@Russian Rocky: My statements have been accurate, and I came back to this discussion because it was still open for a long time and I had found a lot more HSU photos that needed categories. I don't like to use the word "offended", but it is 100% true you had to be reminded to be civil. As for the interwiki link, jubilee medal categorization for biographies in different language wikipedias is one thing, but using them to categorize images is another thing. I waited a few months to see if the discussion got anywhere...it didn't. Seeking input from @Kges1901: . But any reasonable person would see that categorizing recipients of jubilee medals is not very productive for Wikimedia.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed more than once, but it rises again: "jubilee medal categorization for biographies in different language wikipedias is one thing, but using them to categorize images is another thing". The nominated categories should never be used to categorize images. They are only for people categories, as it happens in the case of their counterparts (biographies) in different language editions of Wikipedia. Also, it's quite rude to imply that Wikipedians from the mentioned editions of Wikipedia aren't considered as reasonable persons.--Russian Rocky (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't seem to understand my argument; being a recipient of a jubilee medal does not render a notable person (like a Hero of the Soviet Union or a famous military general), BUT being a recipient of such jubilee medals is NEVER alone a reason for notability. Most (of the hundreds) of language wikipedias do not have such jubilee medal recipeint categories, because they are very important. Being a recipient of a jubilee medal does not define a person: is the HSU that dies in a car accident one year after the war somehow less notable than the HSU that lives 80 years after the war? Of course not, living X number of years after a war is not notable in itself, and is not a good way of categorizing people.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PlanespotterA320, it was discussed as well. It's not our job to determinate notability, let Wikipedians decide it. Commons only provides illustrations for their articles. A whatever medal itself doesn't make a person notable, so we aren't going to create individual categories for each and every medal recipient on Commons (or each and every U.S. Democrat/Republican/etc). In practice, a person should at least have own Wikipedia article (or be related to a notable subject, as valuable illustrative material for its article).
Most editions of Wikipedia don't have articles about notable Soviet veterans presented in the Russian Wikipedia, but it's not an excuse to forbid Russian Wikipedians to create individual categories with illustrations for such articles.
The main flaw in your argument -- you talk only from your perspective. You think if there are no such categories in the English Wikipedia (due to its strict category policy), it's natural to come to Commons and do the same. Commons isn't a property of English Wikipedians, it's an international project used by Wikipedians from every language edition. Other Wikipedians don't need someone's permission to create categories for things they consider notable. Especially when it's clear that these categories used for years in the mentioned language editions of Wikipedia (i.e. Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, etc. consider them useful).
Furthermore, since Commons uses information from Wikidata more frequently (e.g. Wikidata Infobox), I think it's a matter of time to make adding recipients' categories easier. It works fine for surnames, given names, birth and death years and other categories, so information about medals could be also transferable in the future.--Russian Rocky (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commons does not appear to have CATDEF requirements, unlike the English wikipedia, so this category is otherwise valid given the lack of a policy on category notability – though I personally would not consider this a useful categorization. @Themightyquill: I am not familiar with the Commons category policies, can you provide your more experienced opinion on the outcome of these types of discussions? Planespotter, if you do not want to add the category, you do not have an obligation to, so I would suggest you not use reasons of personal convenience for deletion rationales – your stronger argument is likely on notability and usefulness. Kges1901 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901: When there is an determined dispute between two individuals with little input from others (and neither has an obviously weak or worthless argument), it usually results in a stalemate and nothing happens. Sometimes others get involved, alternative proposals are made and consensus is reached. If you want to take this issue to the village pump to solicit further input, you can, though it doesn't always result in anything. We have a lot of categories on commons that I would argue are completely useless, but which the creator stubbornly defends and so they remain. -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RussianRocky: (Double facepalm) Like I have said before multiple times, I do NOT want to bring English Wikipedia's category policy to Commons. This is not about some imaginary proxy war between English and Russian Wikipedia on Commons categorization, but a question of why should "default" and jubilee medals take up so many categories. Yes, a few wikis do have categories for them, but that is not a reason to keep them on Commons; helpfulness in navigation should be the reason (but it doesn't seem to be). Anywho, you brought up the fact that many notable Russian military people don't have other Wikipedia articles. "Most editions of Wikipedia don't have articles about notable Soviet veterans presented in the Russian Wikipedia" Well thank you, captain obvious, no kidding. In case you haven't noticed, we are trying REALLY hard to fix that. If you take a look at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Russian/Biography, you would notice that over 90% of people list are Soviet WWII people. If you're wondering why I haven't just listed every single HSU, it's because 1. Listing 12,000+ names in alphabetical order makes it harder to find the extra-super-notable cases (ex, first person to shoot down a specific aircraft type, record holders, double HSU's, etc) 2. Finding multiple secondary sources for some of the less well-know HSUs can be a pain. 3. People become REALLY overwhelmed with a list 12,000 people long, better to start small.
Please stop making the appeal to "but at Russian Wikipedia..." Yeah, we know. English speaking does not mean "knows nothing about GPW". If it did, I wouldn't have written a single HSU biography. (I've written over 100 GPW biographies and lists in English, and have done categorization on Commons for many more GPW participants...no need to pretend I'm ignorant)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only the Russian Wikipedia. Don't pretend that it's only one edition of Wikipedia. You "do not" want to bring English Wikipedia's category policy to Commons, but do it over and over. I can't interpret your open disregard for non-English editions of Wikipedia otherwise. The people, who write articles about GPW biographies, consider them useful. I think they know better than you what's helpful in this case. Whereas, articles in the English Wikipedia are just translations of their texts. Also, it's pretty selective to complain about category quantity, when royalty and high-ranking politicians have dozens of awards categories at times. There is no certain quantity limit for categories, so it's not really the case. Especially on Commons, where categories are the main way to connect and catalogue subjects (unlike Wikipedia where the main way is wikilinks).--Russian Rocky (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Russian Rocky: Like I have said at least three times, THIS IS NOT ABOUT ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. I am NOT bringing English wikis category policy here, if i was then you would see a lot more categories here. There are a FEW wikis with all the jubilee medal categories (albeit not very many), but that is no readob to impose these absolutely useless categories on Commons. And I dont JUST translate gpw biographies, in fact, quite a few of the english articles ive written could be used to expand the russian and other language versions. For example, just see the articles on tamara kazarinova and galina petrova and compare to the Russian counterparts that are stubs, among many whete the english one i wrote has more informational content than a russian language version! Categories are intended to help navigation on commons but these ones dont. In case you have noticed, nearly every single person in a gpw jubilee medal category also has the medal for victory in the war, showing how useless these categories are. I dont see how you find them helpful, in fact i doubt you do and just want to "keep your categories". Now i couldnt care less about english vs other wiki categories, but you need to drop the wiki-cold-war, this is only about jubilee medals. Its not like those few wikis are the only ones that write about the gpw. What i can tell you is that all the jubilee medal categories are a detterent to creating Wikimedia categories for gpw people, because instead of a few reasonable and genuinely useful categories one finds themself obligated to add every darn jubilee medal category, in such a way that ends up becoming categories for being alive every ten years. What the categories boil down to in practice, is catgorizing years of being alive to get a medal for being alive, which is not worthgaving on commons. Not a radical idea. As for some kind of unspecific royal medal (no idea what exactly you are referring to), if it is a medal awarded just for being alive a given year, i would nominate it. But as far as i know, no other military jubilee medals have categories at all. Countries like belarus, ukraine, and kazakhstan have jubilee medals as part of their award system, but fortunately nobody has decided to waste everybodys time by creating them. If you feel like the ussr is being picked on, i will happily create ukraine and kazakh jubilee medal recipient categories and then add them to this discussion, but i really hope youre not that thinskinned. You really have to stop making this about ENGLISH PEOPLE! RUSSIAN! 5 OTHER WIKIS! ME USE GPW CATEGORIES MORE! MY CATEGORIES! and start to analyze the category trail (what is in each of these categories and the reptetiveness) and how the existance of them is nonsense. Russians arent the only people creating categories for people of the gpw, and even if you were, these categories would still be of little use.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that you and one other person like the categories does not change the fact that there are dozens of veru large wikis that dont have jubilee medal categories. I wouldnt be surprised if lots of people at the few wikis that do have them (certainly chuvash at least) were really annoyed with the existance of them. Warheroes.ru, which works bery closely with wikipedia, had a discussion about listing jubilee medals (listing in a biography, bot even going so far as categorizing by) and the result was against doingbso except in extenuating circumstances (ex, person loses right to be awarded jubilee medals but later gains right back, etc).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using caps lock and mocking me. We don't discuss me here or you and your achievements in the English Wikipedia. I really didn't want to bring it, but there's reasonable doubt of your translation quality. Here, for example, you translate "Honored Agronomist of the RSFSR" as "Honored by the agronomist of the RSFSR" It's quite a raw translation, to put it mildly (perhaps, Google Translate or similar). It's admirable that you translate GPW-related articles, but you shouldn't behave so high and mighty. Especially considering the fact that your translations might be inaccurate. I think you're still missing my point, those "not very many" (as you said) Wikipedia's editions create the vast majority of GPW biographies. So, with all due respect to you, I can't say that you are more competent than whole Wikipedia communities.
Of course, you can say whatever you want, but, factually, you reflect the English Wikipedia on Commons, with all their notable non-notable things. Though, even in the English Wikipedia there is no quantity limit for awards recipients' categories. Fidel Castro, for example, has 24 awards-related categories, all of them are notable awards. So I really don't know what you are relying on, when you talk about quantity. Can you clarify, which rule on Commons you are referring to? I remind you, it's Commons.
Categories, indeed, are intended to help navigation on Commons, but I doubt that no categories is more helpful for navigation. "these ones dont" is only your personal opinion, openly disregarding other Wikipedians' opinion and well-established practice. Nobody is obligated to do some research, calculation or whatever for a picture of a certain award recipient. We shouldn't make it more difficult for people to access media on Commons. After all, Commons is a huge media catalogue. It's not for reading. We shouldn't waste time on attempts to make pages shorter just because there is a somewhat uncertain convenience (for readers?). The English Wikipedia does, but that it's their case.
Nobody forces you to use categories. In fact, you aren't even bothered to add a lot of common categories (by name, by century, by place of birth, etc), when you create categories for people. I've got no clue why you dramatize it, if you aren't interested in thorough categorization at all. Don't you see them useful? Fine. Other Wikipedians in the different editions of Wikipedia seem them useful and have them. You can't dictate everyone what is useful and what is not, if it's based on your personal taste. They are not recent or marginal categories, Wikipedians use them for years and in hundreds of articles.
Also, behave yourself. Please. I ask you to refrain from pointless acussasions and provocative tone ("i will happily create ukraine and kazakh jubilee medal recipient categories and then add them to this discussion, but i really hope youre not that thinskinned" and similar). There are no "wiki-cold-wars", but a clear fact that other Wikipedians aren't less compete than you. You just don't want to accept it. You are even daring to talk like you know me: "i doubt you do". I have no mental issues to think and behave contradictorily. Stop acting like this.
And it's not me and "one other person". Fine, let's not count people who added the categories on Commons (it wasn't only me). You know perfectly well who is that "one other person". I can't understand why you are using such remarks. Is this some sort of way you're trying to make it less relevant? You're not on Warheroes.ru or whatever website, show some respect to your colleagues and higher-ups.
1. En mass-wikidata edits so that items have visible labels (for keyword searches) are done with significantly less attention than actual articles. Wikidata = as many simple edits as fast of possible vs Wikipedia = spend a week drafting an article in the sandbox, consult teachers, proofread several times, then publish. 2. You previously said that you doubt I know anything about the GPW, so I brought up my writing to prove a point - that I actually do know about the GPW, hence it was necessary to bring up here. 3. Don't slander the quality of articles you haven't read - sure, in the articlespace (not wikidata designed for mass keyword searches) there may be a typo once in while, but I have submitted articles I have written for school assignments and gotten excellent marks on them. I dare you to read the before-and-afters for Nikolai Gulayev, Marina Chechneva and Amet-khan Sultan - but it may hurt your preconceptions of me. 4. You can here with a pretty snotty holier-than-thou attitude (as one would expect for a person who calls themself "Russian Rocky"), and I respond appropriately. 5. I can't even understand the meaning of some of your writing, it's borderline patent nonsense. 6. It's not exactly an unreasonable assumption that you don't think "hmm, I wonder who was alive for 20, 30, and 40 years after GPW. I guess these categories can help" (LOL, that why we have birth and death year categories) 7. "clear fact that other Wikipedians aren't less compete than you" Umm, I'm laughing at the irony here - if you meant competent, that was not a good way to express it. :) 8. I never thought you had mental issues, you just seem really petty. 9. Last I check, you were the one that had to be told how to behave themself - and butchered the apology! But I guess I'm supposed to smile as you slander my name? 10. "Nobody is obligated to do some research, calculation or whatever for a picture of a certain award recipient" They are jubilee medals not merit medals. Hence if they were awarded for doing something in particular, they should have category. But there's no point in having so many categories for medals awarded just for being alive! 11. "show some respect to your colleagues and higher-ups." Whoa, whoa, whoa! It perfectly reasonable to point out that only you and User:Butko have voiced support in this discussion, if you find that offensive...there's not much hope here. You+Butko = 2 people. I'm not seeing how bringing up the numbers is offensive. 12. Am I a writer on warheroes.ru? No. Does that mean I'm not allowed to read it, use it as a source for articles, or so much as mention it? Hell no. Heck, I even send in suggestions and comments. (Mostly minor stuff like better quality versions of portraits of people with articles) 13. Respect is something that can be lost, you have done so with your repeated and blatant disrespect. 14. Not every person who adds jubilee medal categories does so because they like them...I used to add them because I thought I had to, and hated doing so. You can't assume other people's opinion's and count them as yours if they do not bother to show up and vote here. Based on the voices from other users here, as well as the lack of precedent, I am looking forward to having these categories deleted - then everyone can be more productive. Me? Instead of categorizing jubilee medal recipients, I'm searching old GPW newspapers for public domain photos, and I hope you make better choices than jubilee medal categorization. 15. Stop assuming bad faith about me, it's gone WAY to far.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has become an uncivil debate, and I'd appreciate if you would both refrain from further personal attacks. You both seem to be claiming an enormous amount of support for your positions but it hasn't materialized here. @PlanespotterA320: I don't get the sense that consensus is going to be reached to delete these categories. Can you come up with any other potential compromises that Russian Rocky might agree to? If not, I'll likely close discussion. You could take the issue to the village pump where you might get additional input (though I wouldn't count on it.) -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Great idea. How about something like Category:Recipients of Soviet military jubilee medals and Category:Recpients of Great Patriotic War jubilee medals, to condense the categories and reduce the level of redundancy? As for civility...I don't take kindly to people who haven't read any of the articles I created just insulting them, and when someone assumes the worst faith about me I will correct all incorrect assuptions.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there are several thousands of GPW biographies in Wikipedia. It results in a lot of people categories on Commons. Even if we accept your suggestion, we'll face multiple inclusions very soon. Further subcategorization is inevitable in this case. Something similar happened to Category:Recipients of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland". There were too many categories, so I had no choice but to start sorting the recipients by class.
Besides, our goal is to make navigation easier, not complicated. We shouldn't force users to search certain awards recipients in a pile of categories, if there is an opportunity to sort it thoroughly. Though, "Category:Recipients of Soviet military jubilee medals" and "Category:Recipients of Great Patriotic War jubilee medals" (a subcategory of the previous?) could be used as subcategories of Category:Recipients of Soviet Union military awards and decorations, but this isn't the time to do this. There aren't many categories in it, and we still haven't used further categorization (e.g. by "Category:Recipients of Soviet Union military orders", "Category:Recipients of Soviet Union military medals", etc.)
P.S.: I've never insulted your articles. The question was about the qualification to judge medals, but you consider it as personal attacks. You may not remember it, but I invited you (since you're a Russian-to-English translator, as you said) to communicate in Russian on Butko's talk page. I guess, you weren't interested. Well, with all due respect, but I tend to trust the consensus in the Russian or Ukrainian Wikipedia, since those communities have numerous experts on GPW-related topics and Soviet awards. This would be the case, if only one "marginal" edition of Wikipedia had these jubilee categories, but at least 8 editions are involved. It's quite doubtful that all of them are wrong. That's was my point.
You speak Russian. So, it won't be hard for you to give convincing arguments for your colleagues in the Russian Wikipedia, for instance. As you said, it's obvious that the categories are "absolutely useless", many others are just unaware. Then, it won't take much time, you can nominate them here. As you know, they're not "my categories", to be precise. I've only incorporated the existing categories (since 2013) into Commons.--Russian Rocky (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can read Russian..but that is very different from speaking it! Language should not be a reason somebody's vote counts more in any categories for discussion! I am qualified to judge medals, and we do have experts on GPW awards at en wiki. And please to note that while Recipients of the Order of the Red Star has 19 wikilinks; Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "60 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" has 6! So it appears that 13 other wikis found en wiki category policy silly, but seem to think that jubilee medals are not worth categorizing. For "Category:Recipients of Soviet military jubilee medals", i meant "Category:Recipients of Soviet military anniversary jubilee medals" (number of years of army and navy) hence "Category:Recipients of Great Patriotic War jubilee medals" would be separate. Besides, most jubilee medal recipients have several of them. As for "but at least 8 editions are involved. It's quite doubtful that all of them are wrong."...you do realize there are over 100 editions of Wikipedia, right?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Boris Vasilyevich Kravtsov has received several medals, but it doesn't mean that ohter people have received thease medals too. This is because award committee can decide to award some person which don't have previous medals --Butko (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: There is a problem. Soviet and Russian jubilee medals have different statutes (Russian medals have new recipient categories, for example, concentration camps' minor inmates). Simply put, Soviet and Russian GPW 1941–1945 medals are two different types of medals, technically. Their names shouldn't mislead you (If we talk about your proposal, that's at least 2 required categories).
I've thought about your proposal. Well, it'll be difficult to implement it.
First, we need to add notes in each category (to inform others, that recipients of this award = recipients of the previous awards). Second, some veterans weren't awarded due to various circumstances (i.e. they haven't got all the previous medals). We have to deal with this problem somehow too. Third, and the most difficult part, someone should permanently maintain the categories. If someone puts additional medals, it would lead to edit warring.
Take a note, that it applies only to GPW 1941–1945 medals, not to USSR Armed Forces jubilee medals. The USSR AF medals were awarded to active military personnel at that time. In other words, only professional military personnel (who served in military more than 10 years) could have several medals. Usually, a regular soldier or sailor has only a single medal, if he/she is a recipient of this type of medal.--Russian Rocky (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The categories aren't only for full cavaliers - each of the two categories is for a person awarded any one or more of the respective medals. Not that they received all of them.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased it, Themightyquill's point was to sort only by latest medal. In that case, the problem is incomplete recipients due to some circumstances.--Russian Rocky (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Important Info: @Themightyquill: , @PlanespotterA320: Recently, I've noticed that {{Wikidata Infobox}} was modified. Now, the template also adds recipients categories (a person's medals, orders and decorations from his/her Wikidata item).
That means manual work is no longer required. Recipients categories will be added automatically, if they exist on Commons and are connected with their counterparts on Wikidata.
Delete These categories are totally pointless minutia that make extremely hard to read what other categories the category is connected to because they always contain 15 other "Recipients of the Jubilee Medal." It's also totally pointless to have one for every year that someone got the award since it's insinuated in someone receiving the 70 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR medal that they also received the one for 60 years, 50 years, and so on and so forth. Not to mention they can't be removed or change due to being connected to Wikidata, which is just ridiculous. People should be able to change or remove categories from things if they want to without having to do it by editing something in another project. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Why do you want to "change or remove" Russian medal categories from Russian people categories on Commons? Nobody is forcing you to edit Russian categories in the first place. These Commons categories have their own categories in other Wikipedia projects (check out their interwikis in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, etc.).
For your information, the nominator User:PlanespotterA320 who has started this stupid crusade against Russian medal categories is indefinitely banned.
If you think that some Russian medals are "totally pointless", then avoid editing Russian categories. I've checked your contributions for last months and there isn't a single Russian category there. So why do you want to force your opinion on people who actually edit Russian categories? There are a lot of "pointless" categories on Commons, but somehow you picked a fight against Russian ones.--Russian Rocky (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Russian Rocky: I actually edit things related to Russia quite a lot and will Russians every time they get smear on here because of the war. Although people have the right edit in whatever areas they want to regardless. So spare me the xenophobic rhetoric. Your barking up the wrong tree if your going to act like this is some kind of anti-Russian crusade on my part or that I have no business giving an opinion because I'm not Russian. More on topic, we don't create categories purely because they have their own categories in other Wikipedia projects. Although it's not like I'm suggesting "Russian medals" or even categories for images of them are totally pointless. To repeat myself since you seem think I just don't like Russian medals for some reason, it's pointless to have individual categories "for every year that someone got the award since it's insinuated in someone receiving the 70 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR medal that they also received the one for 60 years, 50 years, and so on and so forth." In other words, the categories are essentially duplicates of each other. Baring a few people who are in one of the categories but not the others, but I don't think that justifies the whole thing though. There's no reason the categories can't just go in a single parent for the medal itself. Otherwise it really is pointless minutia on our end. Plus the category names are to long anyway. Just have a Recipients of the Jubilee Medal category and call it good. There's zero reason there needs to be need the long-winded and obtuse sub-heading in the category name. And no I don't care that Wikidata or Wikipedia has it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Spare my time, please. You didn't even bother to read our entire conversation with your colleague User:PlanespotterA320. Even PlanespotterA320 was more rational in her crusade, because her best point was that each medal category is added manually (this was before Wikidata Infobox existed). Okay, let's go through this point by point.
1. "I actually edit things related to Russia quite a lot and will Russians every time they get smear on here because of the war. Although people have the right edit in whatever areas they want to regardless. So spare me the xenophobic rhetoric. Your barking up the wrong tree if your going to act like this is some kind of anti-Russian crusade on my part or that I have no business giving an opinion because I'm not Russian."
— I sincerely appreciate your sanity at this time, but it doesn't tell me much. PlanespotterA320 was also a "fan of Russia" (especially Soviet strong women), but she was also a co-author of "De-Tatarization of Crimea", a now-extinct article in the Russian Wikipedia which implied that Russians committed a genocide. Of course, you can give your opinion, but before that please read the entire conversation and, especially, the medal statutes. I'm "barking up" because it looks like you have no idea what are you talking about. I'll explain it below.
2. "More on topic, we[citation needed]don't create categories purely because they have their own categories in other Wikipedia projects."
— "We"? Who said that? I can't find these prohibitions in the official policy Commons:Categories. If there are some prohibitions regarding jubilee medals, please, provide a link.
3. "Although it's not like I'm suggesting "Russian medals" or even categories for images of them are totally pointless."
— Please, don't beat around the bush. You're suggesting exactly this, i.e. there are some "pointless" awards (the Russian ones) and "we" need to delete their categories. I can understand Wikipedia editors who remove "pointless" medal categories (their main point is "Wikipedia is for readers", hence extra categories make articles unreasonably long), but Commons doesn't have this problem. Commons is a media file repository, it's not intended for readers and categories are an essential part of it along with its media content.
4. "To repeat myself since you seem think I just don't like Russian medals for some reason, it's pointless to have individual categories "for every year that someone got the award since it's insinuated in someone receiving the 70 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR medal that they also received the one for 60 years, 50 years, and so on and so forth." In other words, the categories are essentially duplicates of each other. Baring a few people who are in one of the categories but not the others, but I don't think that justifies the whole thing though. There's no reason the categories can't just go in a single parent for the medal itself. Otherwise it really is pointless minutia on our end. Plus the category names are to long anyway."
— What you repeat is the same fallacies used by PlanespotterA320 above. Long, repetitive, stupid Russian awards... yeah I know. If you had read the medal statutes (you hadn't), you wouldn't say things like "for every year that someone got the award since it's insinuated in someone receiving the 70 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR medal that they also received the one for 60 years, 50 years, and so on and so forth".
FYI, the Jubilee Medal "XX Years of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army" was awarded only to active (at that point in time, i.e. 23 February 1938) chief and commanding officers, combat veterans (of the Russian Civil War, etc.) and those who served for at least 20 years in the armed forces. The Jubilee Medal "30 Years of the Soviet Army and Navy" was awarded to all active (on 23 February 1948) military personnel of the Soviet Union. The Jubilee Medal "40 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR" was awarded to active military personnel of the Soviet Union, excluding regular conscripts (only extended-service sailors and soldiers were awarded i.e. those who served additional 2–6 years). The Jubilee Medal "50 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR" was awarded to active military personnel of the Soviet Union (excluding regular conscripts), as well as to cadets and students of military educational institutions, those who served for at least 20 years in the armed forces or internal troops, Heroes of the Soviet Union and recipients of the Order of Glory (a military order for bravery) in all three classes. The Jubilee Medal "60 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR" was awarded to active military personnel of the Soviet Union (excluding regular conscripts), combat veterans and those who served for at least 20 years in the armed forces/internal troops or those who received orders and certain medals ("For Courage", of Nakhimov, "For Battle Merit", "For Distinction in Guarding the State Border of the USSR", of Nakhimov, and "For Distinction in Military Service") during their military service. The Jubilee Medal "70 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR" was awarded to active military personnel of the Soviet Union (excluding regular conscripts), combat veterans and those who served for at least 20 years in the armed forces/internal troops or those who received orders and certain medals (the above-mentioned medals, as well as "For Labour Valour", "For Distinguished Labour", and "For Excellent Service in the Protection of Public Order") during their military service.
In short, only career (!) military personnel had a set of medals. Civilians (conscripts who served in 1948, some extended-service sailors/soldiers and those who received orders and certain medals during their military service) usually had only one medal.
Jubilee medals dedicated to the Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945 are even more valuable (!) than the above-mentioned medals of the Soviet Armed Forces. At first, only military personnel, members of the Soviet armed forces and recipients of the Medal "For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" (a medal for military-related people only; civilians (home front workers, etc.) had their own Medal "For Valiant Labour in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945") were awarded with the Jubilee Medal "Twenty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945". Then home front workers with the Medal "For Valiant Labour in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" were included, starting with the Jubilee Medal "Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945". For the Jubilee Medal "Forty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945", home front workers with "For the Defence" and other Soviet medals were added as well. Recipients of post-Soviet medals include home front workers who worked for at least 6 months, residents of the besieged Leningrad, non-Soviet Resistance foreigners, juvenile prisoners of concentration camps and ghettos.
To sum up: It's NOT a job of Commons to decide which Russian award is "notable" and which isn't. Commons is just an auxiliary project, let's Wikipedia editors decide it. I'm pretty sure I'd have NO problem if I created categories for minor Russian awards (which have NO articles or categories in Wikipedia, but have unique and short titles). Intentionally or not, PlanespotterA320 and Adamant1 use the same fallacies to mislead the public. 1) The original titles in Russian are even longer (see the Russian Wikipedia). Sorry, but it's a feature of the Russian language; we often have very long titles. If there is an official policy on Commons regarding the length of category titles, than provide a link to this policy. 2) As shown above, "repetitive" awards don't mean that each person has a full set of medals. I also highly recommend to get familiar with the hierarchy of Soviet and Russian state awards (see Russia's award list in the Russian Wikipedia and the Soviet Union's award list at the Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius). It's disappointing when clueless people try to eradicate categories for medals only because, from their point of view, they have long and repetitive titles. For example, the Jubilee Medal "70 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" is MORE valuable than the Medal "For Courage", Medal of Ushakov, Medal "For Battle Merit", Medal of Nakhimov, Medal "For Labour Valour", Medal "For Distinguished Labour", Medal "For Courage in a Fire", Medal "For the Salvation of the Drowning", Medals "For the Defence of Leningrad" ("of Moscow", "of Odessa", "of Sevastopol", "of Stalingrad", "of Kiev", "of the Caucasus", "of the Soviet Transarctic"), Medal "For the Victory over Japan", Medals "For the Capture of Budapest" ("of Königsberg", "of Vienna", "of Berlin"), Medals "For the Liberation of Prague" ("of Warsaw", "of Belgrade"), and so on and so on. Unique and short titles, as you like it. It looks like certain people think that "jubilee" in the title means a downgrade, because they aren't (or don't want to be) familiar with Russian and Soviet awards. Let's also keep in mind that there are notable Russian non-state awards (issued by the Russian Orthodox Church, NGOs, etc). They have unique and sometimes short titles, but they are LESS valuable that the above-mentioned state medals.
"Just have a Recipients of the Jubilee Medal category and call it good. There's zero reason there needs to be need the long-winded and obtuse sub-heading in the category name. And no I don't care that Wikidata or Wikipedia has it."
— Thank you for saying it loud and clear. You've confirmed my suspicion about your true intentions. Now everyone can see it. And I have no idea what "The Jubilee Medal" is. If you want to ban Commons categories for jubilee medals (or specifically Russian jubilee medals), then it's not the right place for you.--Russian Rocky (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one wasting your time, yet your the one writing long winded comments that either have nothing to do with what I said or completely misconstrue my position. To reiterate what Themightyquill has already told you, stop making personal accusations. The categories belong to the project as a whole, not to you or even to Russian speaking users. Really, I can't even parse out what your argument for keeping the categories is even if I wanted to because it's completely incoherent and your the only who has an issue with changing things. So either address the points I'm actually making in a coherent, non-insulting way or I'll probably just make the changes if no one else comments. It's a massive waste of everyone's time having to respond or listen to someone with your attitude and approach to this though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's you who is wasting my time. Please, don't play a victim here. You came here with your opinion while knowing nothing about Russian medals, their value, the hierarchy of Soviet and Russian awards, and so on. You didn't even bother to read our conversation with PlanespotterA320 and used the same "arguments" over and over. You and PlanespotterA320 just think that you know better than Russian and other Wikipedia editors. You literally said that you "don't care" about their opinion.
Also, don't threaten to remove categories in any way ("or I'll probably just make the changes if no one else comments"). It's not a voting. I can mobilize Russian speaking users, but I don't do it. You can call Themightyquill. I don't mind if he'll be fair and spend time researching the subject. My only problem with him was that I wasn't civil towards PlanespotterA320. Though, it's hard to be civil to those who don't care about Russian medals, ignore your points, ignore Wikipedia and other projects, ignore interwikis, ignore medals' value and want only to remove Russian categories for some reason. I remind that the original nominator, User:PlanespotterA320, is a globally banned user. --Russian Rocky (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that I don't care about the opinions of Wikipedia users, its that we don't create categories or ways of categorizing things based purely on how they are organized on Wikipedia/Wikidata. I'm sure you get the difference. Regardless, if someone from Wikipedia wants to rpovide an alternative way of dealing with the issues caused by how things are currently categorized, cool. I don't see you or anyone else fro. Wikipedia doing that though. And throwing a tantrum about how everyone who disagrees with you just hates Russia or Russian medals isn't a valid excuse to keep things how they currently are. Be my guest and propose something though. Othwrwise I'm going to just make the suggested changes for lack of an alternative and because your overwrought capitulating is borish at best. Sure its not a vote but then you don't just get your way by writing long screeds and insulting people either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Hello again, Themightyquill. Since Adamant1 mentioned you, can you close this old discussion once and for all or let a neutral administrator who is familiar with Russian awards to do it? The original nominator, PlanespotterA320, is now globally banned for disruptive behavior while Adamant1, a new deletionist who didn't even read the whole discussion, doesn't want to listen at all and, for the second time, threatens to delete the categories in any way ("I'll probably just make the changes if no one else comments", "I'm going to just make the suggested changes for lack of an alternative"). He constantly uses "we", implying that my opinion is marginal and ignoring opinions provided by Kges1901 and Butko (maybe it's also because I'm a voluntary "red" user, I don't know). He literally said that he, quote, "do[es]n't care that Wikidata or Wikipedia has it".
For convenience, I'll sum up the main points for administrators:
Length: There is no restriction on the length of category names in COM:CAT. I can't change the medals' actual names simply because someone thinks that long names are bad per se. Also, this isn't the right place to decide the length of category names.
Quantity: There is no official policy on Commons regarding the quantity of awards per person. Each notable award with an article in Wikipedia can potentially have a category for its recipients.
Convenience: PlanespotterA320 found it inconvenient to add the categories manually. This has been solved by Wikidata Infobox, i.e. medal recipient categories are added automatically; all work is done in Wikidata.
Notability: There is no specific policy on Commons, regarding the notability of medal / medal recipient categories, but the official policy COM:CAT#Creating a new category encourages to create categories with interwikis: "A category page should contain the following information... Interwiki or interlanguage links to the article or category with the same topic in Wikipedia". In our case, each of the medal recipient categories, PlanespotterA320 and Adamant1 want to get rid of, has multiple interwikis in Russian, Czech, Chinese, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Kazakh, Azerbaijani, Kazakh, Uzbek, French, etc. As for the medals themselves, they are notable, have Wikipedia articles in multiple languages, and are Russia's state awards (see this list), i.e. Russia's governmental awards of a higher grade, because there are also Russia's governmental awards of a lower grade like those conferred by Russia's federal subjects(Commons category) and ministries(Commons category), which have their recipient categories on Commons as well. Also, the notion that each recipient has multiple jubilee medals simply by default is false. I've already explained above that a person could have only one medal. For example, North Korea's Kim Jong Un (born 1982) was awarded with the Jubilee Medal "75 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" "for his efforts at preserving the memory of Soviet soldiers who died during the Soviet–Japanese War".
And the last: If PlanespotterA320 (now banned) and Adamant1 have something against jubilee medals and their recipient categories in general, then it's not the right place for them. Go and open a discussion in COM:Village pump instead of targeting only certain categories for some unknown reason.--Russian Rocky (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Might I also suggest a block on Russian Rocky for continuing the insults, bad faithed accusations, and false statements after receiving multiple warnings to stop making them? It's impossible to resolve something when one side refuses to address the points being made or just resorts to ad-hominem attacks and misconstruing things instead of discussing the actual topic. Literally nothing in any of your replies has anything to do with what I was saying. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange to hear it from Adamant1 who was banned 2 times for "disruptive editing" in the English Wikipedia (talk·contribs) and 2 times for "trolling" and "edit warring" on Commons (talk·contribs). He has even accused me of "gaslighting" while saying that "Literally nothing in any of [my] replies has anything to do with what [he] was saying" (diff), but whatever.
You clearly have nothing constructive to say about this if your only argument for why you should get your way is that I was topic banned from Wikipedia a year ago. At least I learn from my mistakes and changed the comment saying you were gaslighting because I didn't want to be rude and have asked you multiple times to propose something. Although admittedly I shouldn't have said in the first place, but one accusation towards you in response to the many you've lobbed at me is nothing. Let alone is at all comparable to the insulting way you've been treating me. The fact that your acting like they are is exactly why I said your gaslighting to begin with BTW. Your whole arguments from the start of this has been nothing but completely baseless ad-hominem attacks. You've repeatedly acted like the victim when your the one attacking me. While I've done nothing but bent over backwards to explains the issues with how things are currently categorized and asked you multiple times to propose something. All you've done is whine about how I just hate Russians and want to delete Russian medals from Commons though. In the 5 years of this being open you've literally proposed absolutely nothing to fix things and you've made no argument what-so-ever for why the categories shouldn't be up-merged or otherwise dealt with except for treat everyone like their racists who just hate Russian medals. And 100% you should be blocked for the bad faithed, insulting way your acting about it. Have fun going off about my behavior on Wikipedia while the categories are changed because you weren't willing to make an actual argument though. But hey, I said one thing that I retracted once. So clearly your right lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you omit that you was banned for trolling on Commons? And fix what? These categories are harmless and added via Wikidata Infobox. You're just pushing your POV which isn't supported by Commons's official policy.
The stuff on Commons was complicted, not one sided, and I wasn't "banned." Otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation right now. As to what needs fixing, I think I've been pretty clear about it. The current names for the categories are just convoluted, not proper English, and mostly pointless because of the massive amount of over-lap between who gets what medal. If you could even call them different medals to begin with. Regardless, we don't usually put descriptions or subheadings in the names of categories. There's also other issues to that I've already covered and don't feel like rehashing. You can call that "pushing a POV", but it's based on policy, how the English language works, and it's not like you haven't been literally doing exactly that this whole time anyway. Since essentially everything you've said to me is nothing other then personal grievances based your personal opinion about my motivations. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If you could even call them different medals to begin with." — That's exactly why I want an administrator who is familiar with Russian awards (medals and their statutes) to close this discussion.--Russian Rocky (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've told you several times now we don't name categories based purely on the titles of Wikipedia articles. Regardless though, it's not like there aren't multiple names for the medals on Wikidata's end. So your assertion that the categories have to be named "Jubilee Medal "Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"" is ridiculous anyway. Categories still have to follow proper English even if whomever created the Wikipedia articles decided not to though and "Jubilee Medal "Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"" is clearly bad English, as well as just being nonsensical. No one says "so-and-so received the Jubilee Medal "Thirty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" medal." I've already asked you once already without receiving an answer, but what's the shorter name of the medals as a group? I assume they aren't called "the Jubilee Medals "Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" medals" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what they are; but the main cat is titled "Category:Mummers plays". Therefore a move is needed here and maybe also somewhere else. E4024 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Canary Islands they can use this name for what is called "flan" or sometimes "pudín" in other parts of Spain. That is a "naming" issue. The Chilean and neighbouring countries' "leche asada" is another thing. Take the escudo and the Spanish plates to their home cats, Category:Flans of Spain et al, IMHO. E4024 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To judge by our images, "flan" and "leche asada" are not the same thing. "Leche asada" is widespread -- Chile to the Canaries at least -- and may turn out to have the longest history. Andrew Dalby (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
E4024 sent me an email in reply to my comment, but I'm afraid I did not understand the email message. In any case, if there is to be discussion, I suggest it is better to continue the discussion here. Andrew Dalby (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"If this category is created it should probably be called "Urination in public places" or something, as "Public urination" could also refer to that other thing."
It's not very clear anyway. Are people urinating in front of the public? Is the public urinating? Does this category also include public toilets? - Alexis Jazzping plz11:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not at all confused by "Public urination" as the adjective (here) "public" governs the activity "urination". As for Urolagnia, if it takes place in public (which doesn't mean it is generally visible, just that it occurs in a place to which the public are allowed access), then it is alsoPublic urination. Not that I support either activity, but the images we have are adequately described by the category we already have. Public toilets are buildings in which urination occurs and should be covered by Public toilets. If an image shows someone urinating outside a public toilet (since it might be closed), it's in both Public toilets and Public urination. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: I was actually referring to these things. I didn't know what they were called and it looks like it's a Dutch invention, I don't know if there is an English word for them. - Alexis Jazzping plz13:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call that a public toilet, but if anyone had been using it I'd also categorise as public urination. I think you have to distinguish between the place and the activity that may happen there. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone urinates on camera, but in a private place, is it public urination? What if someone urinates in a place that isn't public, but does it in front of a crowd? What if someone urinates in a public but completely deserted place? Maybe we only need to add a bit to the description of this category, but first we should determine what this category is (not) supposed to contain. - Alexis Jazzping plz13:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of Occam's Razor? I see no reason to fantasise about things that don't necessarily exist for the purpose of deciding whether this is a useful category. It clearly is, because it has content, and should it grow seriously larger it might be useful to devise sensible subcategories. Until then, it's fine. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"for the purpose of deciding whether this is a useful category" Maybe that wasn't clear, but I'm not questioning that. This cat is useful and this is not a DR. I just think it could have a better name. Thinking about possible (future) subcategories may help to determine the best name for this cat. - Alexis Jazzping plz13:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: sounds sensible and better says what we mean than "public urination". A "People urinating in pissoirs" category or something like that could perhaps be a subcategory of "Outdoor urination" so there would be a clear distinction. "People using a plaskruis" or something like that could be a subcategory of "People urinating in pissoirs". Just some thoughts. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This cat is meant to gather media items pertaining to urination (being) performed where there is no suitable facility, usually with splashing / draining of urine on common use areas: This is the case of most outdoor/public urination, but not always, as discussed, and some of this improvised / vandalistic / unlawful urination does occurr indoors. I’m sure we all know what’s this about, anyway (judging from the kind of media that was used to populate the category so far, too), and that the most adequate name will emmerge from this discussion. -- Tuválkin✉✇18:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not specificly, as far as I know, but in other languages that adjective is used to denote something that’s done unlawfully, like car parking or camping (pt: campismo selvagem). It does have a ring to it — wild urination… -- Tuválkin✉✇19:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Category talk:Guantanamo captives.
Keep Islamic countries and redefine the category as countries with the state religion being Islam. I have created Countries by state religion and categorized the nominated category. Just because some categories don't exist does not mean that this category shouldn't exist. I have also created Christian countries for the same purpose. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete @User-duck: If you know the precise species, they can be placed in one of the sub-categories of Category:Prunus in flower by species. If not, I'd say stick to Category:Prunus in flower. "In flower" is for the whole tree in flower, whereas "flowers" is for images of just the flowers, relatively close up. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment A more neutral phrasing would be "detainees" rather than "captives". Another option would be "inmates". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Done @Dgho: the category in question is merged with Category:Jaroszynski Palace and boarding school in Tyvriv. Discussion can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - Because of privacy concerns such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) no images with readable license plates should be uploaded in the first place. That is the reason why they are in a separate category, in order to allow visitors to trace them back and eventually upload a new version without a readable license plate. Lotje (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Support.--Elkost (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)