Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12

This page is for open CFD discussions started in December 2020.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/12.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2020-12.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache

Summary of open discussions

Current requests

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Wines of Argentina

All images in this cat -except one, where there is a barrel- should go to "Category:Wine bottles of Argentina". These problems occur, because we do have a confusion about "wines of" and "wine in"; for which reason I would hope to get some solution around these (and surrounding) cats. E4024 (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there are some that show wine in glasses but no bottles. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that, but that is not my point. I am saying "wine in" - "wines of" is too much sophistication and people here -I mean we- are not so good in obeying such fine categorization. Classification should be "simpler". OK let us have "wines of x country", but maybe we should not have "wine in". (I myself uploaded the pic of a bottle of Argentinian wine I bought in Ankara) I do not know, let us have a glass and think about this... --E4024 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "of" and "in". Clear common English language words. "Of" can in in this context usually indicates "from". "In" indicates location. A bottle of wine made in Argentina photographed in another country is "of" Argentina but not "in" Argentina. People drinking wine in Buenos Aires are examples of wine "in" Argentina. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brickwork pier mounted post boxes in England

This is not a description known to the Letter Box Study Group. What authority is there for it? Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created this description for this category as there are many post boxes mounted in this manner in Rural Norfolk and have seen others of the type in other rural areas. It describes exactly what it is, a post box built into a specifically built brickwork pier for the purpose, usually in a rural setting were there is no secure alternative. To coin a phrase it does what it says on the can. Kolforn (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are just a special case of wall mounted post boxes. Do we know how many there are so as to justify a special category? I note we don't have a category for Brickwork piers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodhullandemu,Well so far I have got eleven examples in Norfolk with at least six which seem to be of the same design. I have even found one in your area here File:Post box at Heath Road, Allerton.jpg. Four examples in suffolk, and the odd one in other areas. I conclude that they are more prevalent in rural areas as there is less opportunity to mount them in walls or buildings.

OK, there are several in my area too so I'm happy that this category is useful. I'll leave you to move everything, because I still have a huge backlog from 2020 to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s OK I will categorize them as I come across them. Happy new year to you! Kolforn (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic journals

Add an explanation how to distinguish Category:Academic journals from Category:Scientific journals, or (preferrably) join both categories. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same problem faced here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Academic disciplines -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all scientific journals are published as part of Academia. How about changing the definition to journals that are published in an Academic environment and creating Category:Academic scientific journals for ones that are? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christer's Abies

Is this category name right? I first noticed the parent category "Famous Abies in Kiev". Is "Abies" supposed to be "abbeys", or is "abies" a word I don't know? And is "Christer's" supposed to refer to Christianity, or is it it's own word? Auntof6 (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's en:Abies as in fir (tree), but I don't really understand otherwise. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Upton by Chester

Although there was a previous CFD recently closed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Upton by Chester, the Wikipedia article was moved via a RM, see w:Talk:Upton-by-Chester#Requested move 24 November 2020 so now as well as matching the OS it also matches the Wikipedia article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panoramics of islands

This category contains both panoramic photographs of islands (from a distance, showing the whole island or much of it) as well as panoramic photographs on islands (e.g. panoramic photographs of a building, which happens to be on an island). Is there an obvious way to separate these things? The same is true of Category:Panoramics of villages (the whole village from a distance, or a wide-angle view of a building in a village). -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptienne

This category should be merged with Category:Slab-serif typefaces. Neitram (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for merging with Category:Slab-serif typefaces--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Canadian field-naturalist

Despite the claims on some of the PDf, these aren't works of US Gov, and so normal copyright rules would apply, Also I find the claim of no known restrictions somewhat difficult to accept on something as recent as 2006 (in respect of some images) suggesting the a review of the whole category is needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: It's not proper page and request to discuss delete all or certain files in category, but the category itself. Matlin (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; although most of these files–and subcats—will have to go, this category will still be useful for the editions that are old enough to be kept.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matlin and Odysseus1479: can we close this out-of-scope CFD? If subcategories are empty, they will be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women wearing hijabs by name

Unnecessary and wrong categorization by an anonymous contributor. While "women by name" is not even a regular cat, we should ask the IP owner why they needed to open a by name cat for women wearing this and not many other clothing items. I kind of fear there is some Islamophobic prejudice in these anonymous edits. Delete this cat. E4024 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Square towers

Thre is a Category Tetragonal towers, which is the same JotaCartas (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the same. Squares are a subset of tetragons. A tetragon is a four-sided polygon. A rectangle is a tetragon whose angles are all 90°. A square is a rectangle whose sides are all the same length. So if anything, square towers should be a subcategory of tetragonal towers. If all the towers under Category:Tetragonal towers are actually square, then they could/should be moved to the square towers category. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No tower is a square or a tetragon, its shapes can be called square or tetragonal. I really don't know which is the most usual/correct designation in English for the shape. "Tetragonal towers" was created first (11 July 2016‎) than "Square towers" (27 October 2017‎), so, maybe all towers in "Square towers" should be moved to "Tetragonal towers". Anyway, I think there should only be one category for all these towers. --JotaCartas (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JotaCartas: I agree with Auntof6, IMO we should to keep both. The vast majority of tetragonal towers are indeed square towers, but not all (today I found one case described in sources as "the only rectangular tower in Iran"). I'm not aware if rhomboid or diamond shaped towers also exist (buildings surely do). Thus, it's not possible to redirect all to square towers, but the opposite procedure would be the same as redirecting Round buildings (most common as square towers) and Elliptical buildings (rare as rectangular towers) into Curved buildings. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Calligraphy of Taj Mahal

There is also Category:Taj Mahal calligraphy. These two categories should be merged. Johnj1995 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I think while we're at it we should fix the grammatical error and make the category consistent with others referring to the Taj Mahal by moving them to Category:Calligraphy on the Taj Mahal. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BMacZero's proposal sounds reasonable. RZuo (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rahiane nur

Rename Category:Rahian-e Noor to match wikipedia articles? Themightyquill (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filled dumplings

It's a duplicate of Category:Pasta with filling, where the latter has a better title, because is more general BohemianRhapsody (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to stay with English expression dumpling. Pasta is an Italian word. --Juandev (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta and dumplings are far from the same things. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pasta and dumplings are quite different things, although there may be some borderline cases. --ŠJů (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @BohemianRhapsody, Juandev, and Andy Dingley: East-European Varenyky or Pelmeni are very similar to Italian filled "pasta", rather than to "dumplings". All types of leavened filled dumplings should be distinguished from filled pasta. Filled dumplings from potato or curd dough can be IMHO also count rather among dumplings. Filled pasta could be categorized as a special Italian type of not-leavened dumplings. Maybe gnocchi is the Italian word for dumplings, but internationally, is it understood just as a special Italian type of dumplings. Italians could advise us in the discussion, how the Italians call non-Italian types of dumplings, but the English word should be understandable for them. --ŠJů (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Seems that keep Estopedist1 (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lands common to the parishes of Broughton Gifford and Melksham Without

Empty category for former administrative area. It only contained File:River Avon - geograph.org.uk - 199260.jpg, which I recategorised in Category:Melksham Without; the file is in both parish categories as the river is the boundary. Peter James (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what to do with former administrative areas? There are a number in Cheshire, see Category:Former civil parishes in Cheshire as well as the recently abolished Category:Waveney District. Presumably the media should be categorized in the current unit and only files relating to the unit its self specifically should be kept such as File:Waveney UK locator map.svg. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Files in a subcategory named after a former district should be recategorised in the current district, categories for places in the district should probably also be recategorised. Former parishes can still be place names, even if they are not villages. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Campsites in Canada

Are Category:Campsites in Canada identical to Category:Campgrounds in Canada? Yeah, I don't think so. I think campgrounds implies tourist sites - which should not include frontier campsites. Unfortunately, Category:Campgrounds in Canada is now full of frontier campsites. They should be split out. Geo Swan (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: we can probably close this CFD, because centralized discussion (ie Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/10/Category:Campgrounds in the United States) is closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relationships by country

Unnecessary, IMHO of course. However anyone is free to make lots of categorization to make it a "universal" thing. Especially if we abuse "everything social" to polish the nations/countries/people we prefer and throw bs over others, better. (You may wish to ignore the preceding sentence. We assume good-will on every user here, even me. :) E4024 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument. --Sanya3 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I (I mean this kind of unnecessary categorization. :) --E4024 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The category seems to contain a sufficiently robust set of subcategories, so I see no reason to delete it. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Medieval history

Wrongly capitalized probably unnecessary cat. If this cat is necessary some others in the vicinity are unnecessary. Overcat everywhere... E4024 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the capitalisation incorrect? Because it is an adjectival form? Or because you regard Medieval as not warranting capitalisation? What about "Middle Ages"? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No comment about capitalization, but this is not an "unnecessary cat", per en:History of European Jews in the Middle Ages, en:Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, en:History of the Jews in England (1066–1290), en:Medieval antisemitism, en:Medieval Hebrew, en:History of the Jews and the Crusades and en:Jewish polemics and apologetics in the Middle Ages, just to name a few in en:Category:Medieval Jewish history and similar categories in other Wikipedias. Tm (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose move to Category:Medieval Jewish history as standard style. It's about medieval history of the jews, not Jewish histories of the middle ages. Wikipedia has it right at en:Category:Medieval Jewish history. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish people of Kurdish descent

This and Category:Kurdish people in Turkey are basically the same. So we shoud just combine them. My proposal is to move all the subcategories of Category:People of Turkey by ethnicity to the subcategories of Category:Ethnic groups in Turkey -- Balyozxane (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained before that the word "descent" is used for people with various backgrounds. Neither Özal nor Ecevit were Kurds. --E4024 (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painting studio

Althouugh everything around "studios", "art studios", "artists' studios" etc are already a big mess, after season's holidays please let us also think about what to do with this "singular-named" rare cat. E4024 (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

upmerge and delete, or redirect properly. Enwiki has 0 links to "en:painting studio". Above-mentioned and additional variants are: category:Studios, category:Art studios, category:Artists' studios, category:Ateliers--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024 @Estopedist1: I think it's useful to sort artist studios by medium. However, the building-and-interior-respectively thing that's currently defined at Category:Art studios doesn't make sense to me, and the various Wikidata items are giving me a headache. This is the category tree I would expect:

Category:Studios for the main subject, i.e. any type of studio dedicated to artistic or other creative type of work
- Category:Artist studios for studios of visual artists, whether it be individuals or groups
  - Category:Ateliers for places that are specifically organized around one or more master artists and their assistants/students/apprentices

But I'm obviously not changing anything without consensus! Sinigh (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sergio Borrero

notability? Deleted from eswiki https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Borrero Estopedist1 (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is an issue then the files need deleting otherwise this category contains 7 images so should probably be kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: As long as the images exist, this category should exist. If these images should not exist, you should nominate them for deletion. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diagrams without usage

I don't get why there should be a manually-maintained category of unused diagrams. I don't know of any similar categories. DemonDays64 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i agree this cat is useless and should be deleted, but it currently catches many useless files. i'm going thru the files slowly to DR most of them. please delete the cat only after i clear its contents. RZuo (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish singers

Kurdish singers inherently means singers who are ethnically Kurds, but Category:Kurdish language vocalists means people who sing in Kurdish per this comment by E4024. So I will change the redirect to Category:Kurdish musicians if noone opposes. Balyozxane (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that I am being taken as a point of reference, some sort of "wiseperson of Commons". :) Next step adding this cat to the cat "Singers by country"... I hope Commons will not become a subcat of Kurdish Wikipedia Project. --E4024 (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't categorize people and their occupations by nationality here but by country. The move was done to give consistency to the whole categorization tree. Clearly if one sings in Kurdish is ethnically Kurdish, is silly to suppose that anyone without Kurdish descent may sing in Kurdish language. If one is Kurdish from Iran they will be correctly categorized as "vocalist from Iran" and "Kurdish language vocalist". I agree to subcategorize "Kurdish language vocalists from Iran", for example. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI we have many Turks in Turkey who sing in Kurdish, just as many Kurds who sing in Turkish; although the latter case is more natural as Turkish culture is the umbrella that we all live under. E4024 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem of, alas, ethnic groups belonging to several countries (see for example the Sami in Sweden, Norway and Finland). But I assume that is easier to a minority be bilingual rather than the majority speaking the language of one of the minorities in their territory. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat: If the norm here is to not categorize by nationality and occupation, then i withdraw my proposal. This discussion can be closed. I will just categorize all Kurdish people to Category:Kurdish people from now on just so I can easily move forward with categorization during uploads (Hope you don't have a problem with that). I don't have the time to work on 3 projects at the same time.--Balyozxane (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Turkish culture is not "the umbrella that we all live under". It's forced upon us, nothing else. --Balyozxane (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I link, as a new year present, a beautiful Turkish folk song from Turkish sorry Kurdish singer Aynur Doğan who generally sings Kurdish songs. (I am just behind the percussion instrument, with a pistol at hand, forcing her to sing in Turkish. :) E4024 (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was talking about. --Balyozxane (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for me, I don't talk either Turkish nor Kurdish, so I am not able to appreciate the differences. But, I don't understand the problem with "Kurdish language vocalists". To get to your point, @Balyozxane: , what does worry you? that the category might include someone not-Kurdish who sings in Kurdish (less probable than a snowball in summer) or that in turn it might exclude some Kurdish that doesn't sing in Kurdish (exclusion that wouldn't be an error, anyway)? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: Well, As you saw yourself your edit to add Category:Kurdish musicians to that category was reverted. It was there but removed by the same user [1], unknowingly I added the category thinking it was just fine but it was reverted by the same user. When I was using Category:Kurdish singers I thought I was adding them to Kurdish musicians, people who are kurdish or who identify themselves as kurdish. So i thought it would be best to redirect Kurdish singers to Kurdish musicians since noone in their right minds would add a Turkish person singing in kurdish to the Category Kurdish singers. So what do you want to do now?--Balyozxane (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: Is this not a revenge edit, now?--Balyozxane (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not; it is related to this discussion. As someone began to abuse that cat I felt the necessity to open it to discussion also. You are free to contribute, BTW. E4024 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balyozxane: no, it's not. At the most is as useless as this, because it's ungrounded. Kurdish singers is not going to be restored anyway, thus I don't see the point to start childish ethnical disputes on Commons. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danzas de palos y de Cintas

This is either written as "Category:Danzas de Palos y de Cintas", if it is considered a proper noun, or should be written as "Category:Danzas de palos y de cintas". Am I right? E4024 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Wikipedia is under the name es:Danzas de palos y de cintas. Wikidata (Wikidata:Q8353858) tries to translate it into "dances of sticks and ribbons", but this phrase is not used per Google search--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian Genocide

I see no reason to include a see also to Category:Armenian massacres of muslims during World War I. Both are listed under Category:Massacres in the Ottoman Empire. And this is incredibly disrespectful to everyone that lost their lives during the Armenian Genocide.Balyozxane (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS I invited the hy wiki to comment since this concerns them the most.--Balyozxane (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason you seem not to be interested for Turks, Kurds and other muslims massacred by Armenians during those tumultous years. If you look into the cat I added you will see images not less horrible. It is somehow good that you attract attention to the fact that killings occurred everywhere and many houses "burned", and people have sad stories. Indeed in Turkey we tried to forget those experiences, this is why many people in and out of Turkey only know the grievances of the Armenians. Some people did not prefer to make a new start at the wake of the Empire -as against the Turks- and always blowed on the ashes to burn them again. Coming back to the issue it is very correct to add that cat as I did, so as to show different aspects of historical problems. (BTW this is certainly one of the pages which is in the watchlists of many people; none of them was bothered by my right addition, except one, now.) --E4024 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you began to call in your friends. I am sure he or she has this cat in their watchlist and checking everyday. Be careful with these steps, they will take you away from Commons; this is not a battlezone. E4024 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to keep this discussion about what will be helpful to users of Commons and not about emotions. In my opinion, this isn't a useful See Also and should be removed. If we started adding See Also to every category for a historical event to similar, inciting, or following events, things would quickly get out of hand. See Alsos should aid users in finding what they are looking for. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, really? Why don't we discuss what the initiator of this discussion added to this cat? So the events of 1915 did not happen within a totally legitimate displacement within a war? Remember, The Great War, or what we now call First World War... I just got a book about the displacement issue; I don't have it at hand; in three days, I mean after the long week-end, let me give you the data for those who wish to learn and not repeat a memorized stance. (Of course whatever a poor writer writes different than the Armenian thesis, he or she will be labeled ""denialist", without reading what they say...) Did those tragic events happen for "Anti-Armenian sentiment"? Then why did they not happen two centuries before? Or why did the conquerors did not eliminate the conquered four centuries before? Why did they give them titles like pasha, ambassador, minister? Do you know what happened with one of the last Foreign Ministers of the Ottoman Empire? We saw him representing Armenia after the war, against the Ottoman Empire! Imagine how interesting must have been his career as Ottoman Foreign Minister, preparing surprises for his country... "Anti-Armenian sentiment", we should better discuss that addition to the cat. E4024 (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @E4024: If you have a problem with this user's behavior in general, a CFD is not the proper venue to get that resolved, and discussing it here is a waste of time. – BMacZero (🗩) 08:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Source for "relocation": Yep, found it! Please see "Maxim Gauin, The Ottoman State and its Armenians", in A Global History of Relocation in Counterinsurgency Warfare (pages 115-140), Edited by Edward J. Erickson, Bloomsbury, Great Britain, 2020. A military question; nothing to do with "anti" sentiments... --E4024 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I find it incredibly curious that some IP changed the Turkish definition on Wikidata [2] to a "lie" first and then to an "allegation" and half an hour later you made this comment. --Balyozxane (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you live in Bursa? I do not even have that item on my WD watchlist. E4024 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder: Maxim Gauin is a French denier of the Armenian Genocide funded by a Turkish think tank (can be qualified as a negationist according to French justice) (Le Figaro, 2019).--Ghybu (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, another user saw how irrelevant this see-also is [3] but was reverted. --Balyozxane (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI civilized people discuss, using words and knowledge, which are powerful weapons. I will stop here. E4024 (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's an academic consensus that "genocide" is the right word to use, and indeed the article is located under an equivalent name in all wikis whose languages don't correspond to the countries that deny the genocide as a matter of state policy (Azerbaijan and Turkey). Copied from the en:Armenian Genocide denial article which has useful quotes:
- Suny 2009, p. 935. "Overwhelmingly, since 2000, publications by non-Armenian academic historians, political scientists, and sociologists... have seen 1915 as one of the classic cases of ethnic cleansing and genocide. And, even more significantly, they have been joined by a number of scholars in Turkey or of Turkish ancestry..."
- Göçek 2015, p. 1. "The Western scholarly community is almost in full agreement that what happened to the forcefully deported Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire in 1915 was genocide..."
- Smith 2015, p. 5. "Virtually all American scholars recognize the [Armenian] genocide..."
- Laycock, Jo (2016). "The Great Catastrophe". Patterns of Prejudice. 50 (3): 311–313. doi:10.1080/0031322X.2016.1195548. ... important developments in the historical research on the genocide over the last fifteen years... have left no room for doubt that the treatment of the Ottoman Armenians constituted genocide according to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
- Kasbarian, Sossie; Öktem, Kerem (2016). "One Hundred Years Later: the Personal, the Political and the Historical in Four New Books on the Armenian Genocide". Caucasus Survey. 4 (1): 92–104. doi:10.1080/23761199.2015.1129787. ... the denialist position has been largely discredited in the international academy. Recent scholarship has overwhelmingly validated the Armenian Genocide...
I find the above arguments to be utterly ridiculous. Did you know that there were also Jewish ministers in Germany before World War II? Buidhe (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I keep saying the same thing with what you said here [4] But the other user keeps reverting edits per his POV. Also the whole purpose of this discussion is to remove the said see-also template, not to rename the cat.--Balyozxane (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: , what exactly do you oppose, and more importanly, what do you think is the subject of the discussion here? E4024 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify I oppose including this see also, not least because as I stated, "most of the photos in that category come from a propaganda book published by the Ottoman govt to deny the Armenian genocide". The book is called "Ermenî Âmâl ve Harekât-õ İhtilâliyesi; Tesâvir ve Vesâik. Die Ziele und Taten armenischer révolutionäre" and whether it even depicts what it claims to is unclear; it is not exactly a reliable source. As Andrekos Varnava states, it is "the first official publications denying any attempt to exterminate the Armenians, two volumes, titled The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements, and published by the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior at the start of 1916. A close analysis of this publication (the language and images) is pivotal to understanding that denial is part of the processes of genocide—denial does not merely manifest itself afterwards, although it can take on different legitimising discourses, as these change (as with this case) over time."[5] Furthermore, I also oppose any attempt to use Wikimedia projects to promote these fringe ideas of genocide denial. If you tried this on enwiki you would be rightly banned. Buidhe (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: He is already blocked on en.wiki, fr.wiki and some others but he keeps doing as he pleases on Commons and Wikidata which I think outrageous since he definitely makes a lot of POV edits. --Balyozxane (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me friendly warn you: Every user that played that card (or the dagger on the back) against me were indeff blocked, two of them globally. Find "better" ways to further your POV. E4024 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish musicians

We have discussed and decided several times not to make ethnicity based people cats. This was intended to be for generic concepts like "dengbej" and not individual people. If categorization mistakes continue we must delete these cats, simply. The last revival of these discussions was only hours ago: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12/Category:Kurdish singers. E4024 (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's better for new users to miscategorize than to not categorize at all.--Balyozxane (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New users should better try to learn the place, its ways and customs etc. New user is something, SPA another. I recommend you to sail away from certain national issues, for your own good. --E4024 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is better for new users to educate themselves and read some tutorials before touching anything, rather. Be bold is welcome, messing around is less welcome. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see this as a problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasian Bashkir Arabic alphabet

Category:Bashkir Arabic alphabet seems to be a better name, this one is redundant. @E4024: You may be interested. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there is no need for an "overcategorized cat" for just one simple file. Commons is not a place to propagate words of one's own choice like "Arabic", "Turkish", "Kurdish", Chinese" etc. This cat seems to be making what I just said. Discussing it is almost being part of that activity. --E4024 (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @E4024: I don't understand what you are saying. This is an alphabet of the Bashkir language based one the Arabic script; therefore it is called "Bashkir Arabic alphabet". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @1234qwer1234qwer4: if I see parent Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages, then there are several categories with name <Caucasian Foo>. I personally would delete this one-member category Estopedist1 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm fine with deletion too. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese Xiaojing Arabic alphabet

Another unnecessary "Arabic" cat with only one file in it and under the following cats: Category:Chinese Xiao'erjing Arabic alphabet, Category:Arabic script, Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages, Category:Arabic alphabets for languages of the Russian Empire. I wonder why we simply do not make a new Commons called Arabic Commons? E4024 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and that only one file is also in the mother cat! Sorry for the exclamation mark, year-end fatigue... --E4024 (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Chinese Xiao'erjing Arabic alphabet and rename to Category:Xiao'erjing per the Wikipedia article title. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. According to main article w:Xiao'erjing, these categories serve the same purpose: Category:Chinese Xiao'erjing Arabic alphabet, Chinese Xiaojing Arabic alphabet and the older Category:Xiaojing alphabet. I suggest to merge everything to Category:Xiaojing alphabet. I also suggest to place this category in Category:Arabic script in non-Arabic languages and Category:Transliteration of Chinese only, removing the redundant Category:Arabic script, Category:Arabic alphabet and Category:Arabic alphabets for languages of the Russian Empire. Place Clichy 17:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arabic scripts

Unclear scope, redundant with either Category:Arabic writing or Category:Arabic script. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only responds to the need to make "Arabic" more visible. That is the reason we have/had this and many more unnecessary cats. --E4024 (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, discuss any issue with mutual respect. You should not judge other. As mentioned previously in other discussions, try to understand the point of view of other cultures. Be more open to others, wikipedia is for all culture, not exclusive for one culture. Regards.--Ashashyou (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i believe the term "script" is more representative than the term "writing". Arabic script is not just a mean of communication as any writing, but also an artistic method used by muslims and non-muslims in the medieval times. Regards,--Ashashyou (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ashashyou: So just merge it into Category:Arabic script then? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - i am not sure, suggest to keep both. Regards.--Ashashyou (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you explain the difference between the categories? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe "script" is the more professional term. it's the term used by the English wikipedia page linked to the category. The "writing" category was perhaps made on 2005 or before as seen in its page history. I think the more accurate term is script, as the linked English and German Wikipedia pages. Regards--Ashashyou (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Er, I am talking about the two categories Category:Arabic scripts and Category:Arabic script. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree, script & scripts can be merged.One was wtarted in 2013 & the other was stated in 2016. Regards,--Ashashyou (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Erased heads on photographs

For a moment one thinks erased heads will give a lecture on photography. I guess "in" is the correct preposition for this indispensable cat, but as I am not a native speaker of English let's ask the colleagues. Auntof?

Happy New year to all! E4024 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: pinged. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: E4024 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the correct preposition would be "in". Although there's probably a better name. Some of the heads are scribbled out rather than erased. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with changing to 'in'. As for more specificity for 'erased' I'm no expert on image manipulation or its terminology, but we should should use a term that is objective and well-defined if possible. Josh (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about "obscured"? Although that might not exactly describe the one where the head appears to be completely gone. Maybe "redacted"? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024, Auntof6, and Joshbaumgartner: I just came across the category No face photos. What is the relationship between that category and the one nominated here? Brianjd (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I came across that category via Tits and Snake.jpg. That is an interesting example, because the main subject’s face is cut off but there is another face clearly visible. So it is not clear whether ‘no face’ is an accurate description. Brianjd (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well the nearest I can tell is that Category:Erased heads on photographs is for cases where the 'missing' head would be within the frame but has been removed somehow, while Category:No face photos is for any image with a human body in it but the face is not visible (out of frame, facing away, obscured, etc.). There is also Category:No face photos (semi) to add to the confusion which seems to be mainly faces split by the frame of the photo. I could see these being various attempts to illustrate photographic composition or modification, but the way they are currently set up is kind of a mess. Josh (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner All I got from that is that the current set up is a mess. I also wonder where blurred, pixelated or otherwise redacted faces fit into this. Brianjd (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we have as far as content (not necessarily reflected in current categories kind of breaks down as follows:

Images which have been modified to remove the face from the image or make it no longer appear as a face (Category:Modified images of faces)
1. Images where the face has been removed by cropping the image (Category:Images cropped to remove faces)
2. Images where the face has been wholly redacted (opaque mask over the position of the face) (Category:Images modified to cover faces)
3. Images where the face has been distorted to be unrecognizable (Category:Images modified to distort faces)
Images which have not been modified but in which the face is not visible (Category:People without visible faces)
1. Images in which the face is out of the frame of the original image (Category:People with face out of frame)
2. Images where the face is turned away from the viewer (Category:People facing away--like Category:Aircraft facing away?)
3. Images where the face is obscured by something else (hair, object, another person, etc.) (Category:Obscured faces)

I do not know how much utility any or all of these have, but presuming they do I have thrown some possible names for them out there. Files in Category:Erased heads on photographs, Category:No face photos, etc. should be merged into those of these categories we think have some utility and the content sorted into them as appropriate. Josh (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner This looks like a good start (though I also do not know how much utility all of these have), but there is one problem: we may not be able to tell the difference between something being originally out of frame and something being cropped out. (And even if we can, it might not matter.) So we might want one category to cover both cases. I think People with face out of frame would do the job. Brianjd (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024, Auntof6, Tuvalkin, Joshbaumgartner, and Brianjd: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kayenta Mine

delete - didn't see this was redundant with Category:Black Mesa Coal Mine Nick Number (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Number: The enwiki article en:Kayenta Mine seems to mention different mines by each name, so I don't think they're redundant. But if we don't have any images of the Kayenta mine, I agree we should possibly delete this category as empty. That does appear to be the case to me. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me which image is from which mine. Maybe redirect both to Category:Keyenta/Black Mesa Mine Complex? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Combining them seems reasonable. It seems the complex is collectively referred to as the "Black Mesa Complex" in the article and sources, so Category:Black Mesa Complex? – BMacZero (🗩) 01:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BMacZero: Sure. I don't know if that should be a parent category or if both should redirect there. Maybe the former? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I agree that having it as a parent would be ideal, but given that we can't definitely tell which mine is depicted in any of the images to sort them into the subcategories, I think we may have to resort to the later. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Berivan Arın

Category:Muhammad's letters to the head of Egypt

"Head of Egypt"? Sounds strange to me. No head of state in history is called "head of ... (country name)". E4024 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major issue/debate regarding the reciever of the letter discussed in many books. You can read the book of Alfred J. Butler: The Arab conquest of Egypt or The book of Sirat Ibn Hisham سيرة إبن هشام. Then suggest whatever you wish. Perhaps the most accurate description is the one in Arabic historical references عظيم القبط = head of Egypt. Regards, --Ashashyou (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024 i wonder if you have read the books or done any research on the subject? regards --Ashashyou (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm too busy correcting categorization mistakes. There are so many cats made or used unnecessarily, you cannot imagine; only those using the words Arabic or Egyptian out of place take a lot of time. E4024 (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - But before deleting a category or modifying it, especially if it is your single opinion, you must do proper research. And with all due respect, especially if you are not an Arabic, nor an Egyptian, doing proper research might help you to understand the reasoning behind the categories. As if a native Amerindian is categorizing files on Wikipedia or commons, you will not be able to judge hos work, unless you do proper research. Regards,--Ashashyou (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you just say "native Amerindian"? Now I see even better why you always make redundant categorization here. However, I did not understand well what you mean with "if you are not an Arabic, nor an Egyptian, doing proper research might help you to understand the reasoning behind the categories." Are some nationalities exempted from being helped by proper research to understand the reasoning behind the categories? (BTW I am from Turkey, not a Native American; but still hoping to become the next monarch of Gulumapu, in case they wish to have a good Commoner on the throne. :) E4024 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you do the research? Don't put the sentences outside of its context. Anyone can do any editing on Wikipedia, provided that he has enough knowledge about what he is doing. If not, he should do proper research before judging any edit. regards. --Ashashyou (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Muhammad's letter to al-Muqawqis. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muhammad's letter to the head of Byzantine state

I think "head of Byzantine state" is not the most adequate way to call a monarch who presents himself as "emperor". E4024 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major issue/debate regarding the reciever of the letter discussed in many books. You can read the book of Alfred J. Butler: The Arab conquest of Egypt or The book of Sirat Ibn Hisham سيرة إبن هشام. Then suggest whatever you wish. Perhaps the most accurate is using the Arabic historical references description عظيم الروم = Head of Byzantine state. Regards,--Ashashyou (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the letter was written to a head of state it was the emperor (or emperess) but not the President of Bizantine Republic. E4024 (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kindly read the books.--Ashashyou (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I am too busy correcting wrong categorization while making new ones. I do not have time to read even a new year message. --E4024 (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wish you a happy new year. But this is the best description of the category. Just read the books at anytime or do research when you have enough time. regards --Ashashyou (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - But before deleting a category or modifying it, especially if it is your single opinion, you must do proper research. And with all due respect, especially if you are not an Arabic, nor an Egyptian, doing proper research might help you to understand the reasoning behind the categories. As if a native Amerindian is categorizing files on Wikipedia or commons, you will not be able to judge his work, unless you do proper research. Regards,--Ashashyou (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is this "major issue/debate regarding the reciever of the letter"? There are two files in this category showing the letter, one apparently a restored version of the other. The second line starts with
  الى هرقل عظيم الروم
  , which is translated in en:Muhammad's letters to the heads of state#To the Byzantine Emperor as "to Heraclius, premier of the Romans". Seems pretty clear to me that this category should be named Category:Muhammad's letter to Heraclius. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gaindakot Municipality, Nepal

Is Category:Gaindakot Municipality, Nepal redundant with Category:Gaidakot ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Gaindakot Municipality, Nepal not realising that Gaidakot was possibly the same place with different spelling. The Wikipedia article uses Gaindakot but adds "sometimes spelled Gaidakot". It looks like one of the commons categories is redundant but which one? Malcolma (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Malcolma and Themightyquill: enwiki was a good orientation: Gaidakot (spelling without n) is a disambiguation now. Gaindakot Municipality, Nepal is redirected to Gaindakot Municipality (",_Nepal" is needless). Cheers 2003:E5:3716:E100:6D14:5EC7:CDF1:BA41 14:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12

Contents

Category:Wines of Argentina

Category:Brickwork pier mounted post boxes in England

Category:Academic journals

Category:Christer's Abies

Category:Upton by Chester

Category:Panoramics of islands

Category:Egyptienne

Category:The Canadian field-naturalist

Category:Women wearing hijabs by name

Category:Square towers

Category:Calligraphy of Taj Mahal

Category:Rahiane nur

Category:Filled dumplings

Category:Lands common to the parishes of Broughton Gifford and Melksham Without

Category:Campsites in Canada

Category:Relationships by country

Category:Jewish Medieval history

Category:Turkish people of Kurdish descent

Category:Painting studio

Category:Sergio Borrero

Category:Diagrams without usage

Category:Kurdish singers

Category:Danzas de palos y de Cintas

Category:Armenian Genocide

Category:Kurdish musicians

Category:Caucasian Bashkir Arabic alphabet

Category:Chinese Xiaojing Arabic alphabet

Category:Arabic scripts

Category:Erased heads on photographs

Category:Kayenta Mine

Category:Berivan Arın

Category:Muhammad's letters to the head of Egypt

Category:Muhammad's letter to the head of Byzantine state

Category:Gaindakot Municipality, Nepal

Navigation menu

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12

Navigation menu

Search