Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12

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

Category:Five rays

[edit]

Five rays is not a heraldic term. The correct term is "mullet", or "mullet of 5 rays", to be more specific. We should be wary of coining a new heraldic term. Not used in blazons. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobsterthermidor: Do you have a proposal to fix this? Josh (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patrol and town meeting

[edit]

merge to Category:Town meetings and delete. RZuo (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why but OK, no problem. Elgewen (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reason is there doesnt seem to be a concept "Patrol and town meeting". the soldiers patrol and hold "town meeting", doing two things instead of a single thing with this name.
if it's a concept by itself, there would've been more files of this in the 20yearlong afghan war, but there arent. RZuo (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. You have a point. It is perhaps an idea to add "Category:Patrolling" before deleting "Category:Patrol and town meeting". 84.29.170.62 16:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i forgot to log in. Elgewen (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Category:Patrol and town meeting after resorting existing files. @RZuo and Elgewen: The files appear to belong in different categories, so a straight merge would not work yet. Some belong in Category:Town meetings, some in Category:People of Helmand Province, some in Category:Patrolling, and some in more than one. Once emptied responsibly, the category can be speedy deleted. Josh (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recategorized the files in the Category:Patrol and town meeting so that it is now empty and may be deleted. --Elgewen (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This category is in the categories Derivative work-related deletion requests and Threshold of originality related deletion requests. But I just saw Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erotic furry art of a dragon generated by NovelAI.png added to this category, even though it has nothing to do with either of those issues. It was all about scope. So what is this category really about? Brianjd (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep there is no reason to delete this, it’s a legitimate sub-cat of both scope and copyright per above. Dronebogus (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope is definitely an issue: Commons:Village pump#Category:AI generated images references Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by David S. Soriano, which currently lacks a good category. Brianjd (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I supported splitting the category above, but it also seems fine to uncategorize Category:AI-generation related deletion requests from the DW category and the TOO category, and add the DW and TOO categories to individual deletion requests when appropriate. In fact, doing so might be more precise because DW and TOO issues do not automatically come with AI works (although they might often do). whym (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trade has added Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by StuckInLagToad to Derivative work-related deletion requests/pending, which makes sense, but is technically over-categorization. Normally, I remove redundant categories, but I don’t know what to do here. Brianjd (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just remove the redundant category depending on outcome. It's only temporary problem Trade (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal by Whym ("uncategorize Category:AI-generation related deletion requests from the DW category and the TOO category, and add the DW and TOO categories to individual deletion requests") makes the most sense. Not every AI-generation related deletion request necessarily is DW or TOO related (it might also be scope related, there might be other issues). But a category for AI-generation related deletion requests is useful, I think we will have a lot of AI generated image uploads in the future... Gestumblindi (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media with estimated locations

[edit]

Converted from {{Move}}: big category and I'm not sure about this change; needs discussion. Reason given by User:Matr1x-101: "To harmonise this category name with Category:Location possible." —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I want to change it to Category:Location estimated. Matr1x-101 {user - talk with me :) - contribs!} 18:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matr1x-101: That seems a very odd name versus the current one. What is your rationale for the change? Josh (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This is a maintenance category and should have a hat note to indicate it as such.

Rename Category:Media with estimated locations to Category:Media with imprecise location The description and name do not seem to match. The name 'estimated' speaks to the method of specifying the location, while the description speaks more about the precision of the location. While it is logical to correlate estimation with imprecision, they are not necessarily the same thing. If I accurately pin an image as being in the United States, that may be completely accurate and definitely not an estimate, but yet also incredibly imprecise because that country is very large. On the other hand if I guess that it is the eastern end of N Richards St in Portland, Oregon, that is pretty precise but just an estimate and thus may not be accurate. It appears that this category is primarily concerned with increasing the precision of the location (e.g. Location is identified as the United States, but not which state yet) versus being concerned with the accuracy of the location (e.g. Location is identified as the United States but is possibly a different country). Thus I suggest the rename to better reflect the actual purpose of the category. Josh (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wyoming photographs taken on 1973-06-01

[edit]

This category seems excessively granular. There are no other images in the parent Category:United States photographs taken on 1973-06-01 and it does not seem sensible to organize every US photographs taken into 50 separate state level categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: , German photographs are already categorised by state. Sahaib (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahaib Germany has 15 states, which is different than 50 (likely much more) subcategories. Under Category:Photographs of the United States by date, we have California, Chicago, Guam, Puerto Rico and New York City (but not state) by date. Numerous countries have odd categorizations. Category:Photographs of France by date has numerous subcategories but no images are broken down this far back. We are discussing an individual date in June 1973 with one single image at the country level. This is only slightly less granular than the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/05/Category:Cheyenne, Wyoming photographs taken on 2007-08-07 about Cheyenne, Wyoming photographs. Are there a significant number of non-Wyoming images on June 1, 1973 that warrant a subcategory? I doubt it but if there is, I'll withdraw the nomination. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The whole system of categorization of photographs by country, sub-division, and date taken is well developed. It is inevitable in any such system at any given point in time that one can identify particular nodes that are under-utilized (even down to 1 image), but nit-picking those particular nodes for deletion seems deleterious to the system as a whole. We already have a standard line at which a category such as this should be deleted, and that is if it is empty. 1 image is not empty, so I see no harm in keeping this as is, and to the contrary, I see the harm in seeking to snip the small buds on the bush just on the idea that they are not big enough yet. Josh (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner We don't have a system like that in Category:Photographs of the United States by date. We have California, Guam and Puerto Rico but then cities like Chicago and New York. I'm not arguing the entire system but this particular category for a date in 1973 that seems unlikely to have a lot of images. Prior to this category we had Cheyene, Wyoming images. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: Yes, but the system continues to grow. Why should we spend time trying to pick off specific categories just because they aren't very big? I see the discussion you reference, which is still open, but someone has violated CfD process by making the changes before the CfD was properly closed, making the discussion rather moot at this point. Josh (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner You don't see the purpose of the discussion? If I didn't start it, why wouldn't we have hundreds of little Cheyenne, Wyoming by individual date categories? Would those have been useful? I agree about not killing off buds that could be necessary which is why I don't like more of the tiny Wyoming ones but I'm not listing the entire structure (I do a lot of that myself) but again, this is a single date in 1973 with no other images for the entire United States so I don't see what is gained by layers and layers of subcategories that likely won't ever grow for decades. It is especially headache inducing because they often don't connect up the tree correctly and entire categories of images go missing. Again, this is a sole image from 1973, the only category in Category:June 1973 United States photographs broken down further, and the sole image in Category:June 1973 in Wyoming broken down to the individual date. It's a mess of branches for one image that easily can go back to the single US category for the specific date and the month category for the state. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: The purpose of the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/05/Category:Cheyenne, Wyoming photographs taken on 2007-08-07 was whether or not to delete a specific category. And yes, that becomes rather moot if that category has already been deleted. If you really want to discuss a more system-wide matter of what the reasonable boundaries are for how specific to sub-categorize and how much content warrants how much categorization, that is an entire different level and would need to involve a bit more before we could consider a consensus to be reached. As it stands, picking off the single Cheyenne category does nothing to preclude hundreds or more small city- and date-specific categories being created--that's just not how CfDs work. Likewise, this discussion is specific to whether to delete Category:Wyoming photographs taken on 1973-06-01, and does not, as of yet, preclude a thousand similar categories from being created, deleted, or retained independent of this discussion.Josh (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The category shouldn't have been created if there was no images to go in it. Also, it's way to granular anyway. The only justification for having a category like this is for the navigational template, which is just a ridiculously stupid reason to create categories. People shouldn't be creating categories just to make navigation templates have blue links, period. Otherwise it just massively degrades the ability of users to find the images they are looking for. Really, most of these super granular and mostly empty "photographs taken on" categories and their corresponding navigation templates should be deleted as useless cruft. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ferry ports

[edit]

The relation among Category:Ferry ports and its subcats Category:Ferry landings and Category:Ferry terminals needs to be sorted out. Right now Category:Ferry ports is the parent of the other two. However, Category:Ferry landings says, "Ferry landings are locations where ferries stop and embark or disembark passengers. Ferry landings may or may not have infrastructure such as ferry ports or ferry terminal buildings." That would suggest that Category:Ferry landings ought to be the parent, with the other two as subcats. Not sure of the proper relation between Category:Ferry ports and Category:Ferry terminals. Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree Yes, Ferry landings should be the parent category, with Ferry ports, Ferry shelters and Ferry piers‎ as subcategories. I think Ferry terminals should stay as a subcategory of Ferry ports because they (nearly?) always are at a ferry port.
But the structure of parent category Category:Landing (water transport) has now the same category structure, so that needs also a review; if we change it for Ferry ports, it should probebaly be changed there as well. JopkeB (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Normally a landing would be something within a port: a particular dock or quay in a "port" in the broad sense (e.g. a harbor). But "ferry port" doesn't usually mean "a port where ferries are among the ships that dock there". I suppose it could sometimes mean a group of landings or docks, dedicated to ferries, within a port, but usually it means pretty much exactly the same thing as a "ferry landing". At least in my experience, "ferry terminal" implies a facility, and I suppose it emphasizes the building rather than the dock, though at least around the Puget Sound/Salish Sea area we consider the dock itself part of the terminal. I suppose that if you have (for example) a river ferry that on one side or both has a dock that has no building, you'd call that a "landing" but not a "terminal". I also suppose that on a ferry that goes more or less straight across a relatively narrow river, you'd never call either end a "port". - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. JopkeB (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what is required is more than just a minor adjustment of categories. Some more substantial modification would seem appropriate. The expression "ferry port" is a little confusing. However, I would regard it as having the meaning assigned to it in the applicable Wikidata item, ie a "port with facilities for the loading and unloading of ferries". It could therefore include, eg, Category:Port of Dover, Kent, Category:Trelleborg harbour and Category:Überseehafen Rostock. "Ferry terminal" would be a structure, probably including a building of some description, at which ferries terminate and are loaded and unloaded. It would not necessarily be within a "ferry port" and would therefore not be a child category of "ferry port". It would include, eg, Category:Isle of Man ferry terminal, Liverpool and Category:Fährcenter Rostock. "Ferry pier" would be a pier or wharf at which ferries berth, probably ordinarily on a voyage from somewhere else to somewhere else. An example would be Category:Ferry wharves in Sydney. "Ferry landing" would be a facility falling short of a structure, at which ferries land; it would include sloped places at the side of rivers, etc. Again, it would not necessarily be within a "ferry port". Bahnfrend (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear consensus in favor of the proposal. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413:  Question What exactly was the proposal (in short), what is the consensus about? Can you please point out what changes should be made following the discussion? --JopkeB (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal was to make Ferry landings the parent, with Ferry ports and Ferry terminals as subcats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. JopkeB (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I just added Commons:Deletion requests/File:宣材写真.jpg to this category (more specifically, to a newly-created subcategory for DRs closed as ‘deleted’). After all, the closing statement says: dubious licensing. It must be about licensing, right?

But this category is poorly defined. It has the subcategory Copyright deletion requests. How can copyright be a subset of licensing? It should be the other way around. Copyright is a more general subject that covers questions about whether works are copyrighted at all (ToO, notice, renewal, government exemption, URAA, etc), as well as things like FoP and derivative works. Licensing is just one small part of copyright.

Let’s get this category tree cleaned up so I can stop adding DRs to Copyright deletion requests and start categorising them properly. Brianjd (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Copyright deletion requests should be merged into this discussion. Brianjd (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Copyright deletion requests:
As probably the majority - or at least a very large part - of deletion requests on Commons are related to copyright, I question the usefulness of this category, created in 2017. The currently 43 DR pages directly in this category, out of potentially many tens of thousands, or 38 in Category:Copyright deletion requests/deleted, and the nine(!) in Category:Copyright deletion requests/kept, seem arbitrary. As the more specific subcategories, particularly Category:Copyright deletion requests by artist, seem more useful, I think a solution could be to make this a {{CatCat}} and remove it from all DR pages that don't pertain to a more specific subcategory; also remove the generic "deleted" and "kept" categories there. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi It is interesting that every DR page in the ‘/kept’ subcategory and most DR pages in the ‘/deleted’ subcategory has been visited by me (as shown by the way my browser formats the links). It is likely that most, if not all, of those DR pages were added to those categories by me too. I know that I have been adding many DR pages to Copyright deletion requests, then moving them to the appropriate subcategory when they are closed. Brianjd (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the copyright category is basically a catch-all for the vast majority of discussions but that doesn't make it useless. It's probably better to organize things into child categories but CatCat doesn't make sense because there will probably be some discussion that hasn't been resolved (not every country needs a subcategory at the moment and burying things into one the first time it comes up with make it harder not easier for others to find). As of now, I see keeping things are they are. For the licensing-related ones, if the child categories are related then the kept/deleted children here need to be filled up the same way. This is all just a system to hopefully get more eyes and/or more experienced users on various topics, not a categorization onto itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deletion requests by country

[edit]

Every subcategory’s name indicates that it is about a country’s laws. This has two problems:

  1. A deletion request relating to a particular country might be about something other than that country’s laws. For example, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nipple slip, Infrogmation wrote (links and emphasis added): ‘I don’t know what’s considered proper or improper at the Boryeong Mud Festival, but do note that the “Oops” is not the not in the original Flickr photographer’s description, but rather is editorializing retitling by the Commons uploader. As to the young girl in Uganda, is there any reason to think that her appearance is in any way considered improper or remarkable in her place and culture? If not, I see no reason to delete.’
  2. A country’s laws might be about something other than copyright (the obvious example is Commons:Country specific consent requirements). The sample of subcategories I checked does not reflect this. For example, the category name United States law deletion requests suggests it is about all US law, but that category is in Copyright rules of the United States, suggesting it is only about copyright law. Brianjd (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This may be true, but why would it relate to the existence of these categories? Also do you mean to delete all subcategories? If yes, you need a wider argument. If no, this being not empty, there is no reason to delete it. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann This is categories for discussion, not categories for deletion, and I never expressed a desire to delete any categories here. I thought it was obvious that I wanted the categories renamed and/or moved to a different part of the category tree. Brianjd (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: Sorry, I didn't get that. What name and/or what tree do you suggest? Yann (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I don’t have a clear idea yet. I was hoping to hear from users familiar with these categories. Pinging @A1Cafel. Brianjd (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I also don't know what to do at this moment. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, Brianjd, and A1Cafel: As for the two issues originally listed:

  1. A parent for country-related deletion requests that covers all relationships should exist if there are issues related to the country that are not a matter of law. For example:
  2. A category for copyright deletion requests should be a sub-cat of its equivalent country law deletion requests category, as necessarily copyright is a subset of law. However, a category such as Category:Copyright rules of the United States does not really belong in the deletion requests category tree, as it is not specific to deletion requests. Category:United States law deletion requests should probably be re-categorized from Category:Copyright rules of the United States up to Category:Law of the United States.

The exact naming of categories is not the point here and they probably are their own discussion to sort out, but fixing the structure is probably more pressing. Josh (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the structure and names are fine. The consent requires do seem related to the laws of a country (maybe cultural a bit) and there could be a consent structure separate from country ones for that purpose if people care enough. This is more internal structure than for readers/viewers so some flexibility is fine. I think adding a header for Algeria deletion requests that aren't Algerian law-related adds little. What non-law issue would there be? It would just be "this person took an image from the internet that is in Algeria but the license is wrong"? The first question would be "could this PD in Algeria because (a) old; (b) government; (c) whatever" so it would just fall back into the law related issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of Wilhelmina of the Netherlands

[edit]

What is this category about? What is the difference with all the other photographs of Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in (the subcategories of) Category:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands? What kind of photographs should be in this category and what in the others? JopkeB (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @JopkeB: All photographs which would belong under Category:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands should be sorted into Category:Photographs of Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, as well as any other relevant sub-cats of Category:Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Traditionally, we would not have this intersection category, as per COM:CAT, topical and media categories are separate trees. However, I have seen more and more cross-over, and while most topics do not yet have a 'photographs of x' sub-category (especially those where nearly all we have is photographs of the subject, if we are going to have 'videos of x', 'paintings of x', etc., then I guess we should be okay with 'photographs of'. Josh (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment As the one who created the category, upon further reflection, I agree with JopkeB. I had been trying to follow what other some royal pages that had photograph categories had done previously. But perhaps the pages should follow the example of Category:Photographs of Victoria of the United Kingdom. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, follow the example of Category:Photographs of Victoria of the United Kingdom would make sense. But if there is only one subcategory, I would skip this category and only keep the subcategory. JopkeB (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support elimination of all images and make it categories only, which is what I think the discussion above supports. I agree that photographs would basically duplicate the main category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Josh, Iamthecheese44 and Ricky81682, for your thoughts. Unless someone can point out which photographs in this category have been made with "a photographic style or technique, or which contain samples of professional or artistic photographs", my proposal is:

Otherwise I think that we get a lot of Category:Photographs of X with only one subcategory Category:Portrait photographs of X, which I think is only one click more to get to where you want to be (I do not like these redundant extra clicks and I learned that most users do not like this as well) while they have no added value. --JopkeB (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that but we also have many categories in Category:Photographs of women by name that are also a single category with images the same way. Category:Photographs of Marie Krøyer is at least a bit different as it distinguishes between photographs of her and her work. Category:Photographs of men by name are similar. Should there be a larger discussion? Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably so. I agree that if the "photographs of person" category only has the subcat "portrait photographs of person" under it, the first should be done away with as an unnecessary extra step. Josh (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree So, that would be Category:Photographs of people to be discussed? JopkeB (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis

[edit]

Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis and its subcats are quite a mess. It seems to me that Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis should be specific to that book, and should not include (directly or indirectly) photos that do not appear in that book, or different versions of photos that appear in that book, but right now subcats such as (for example) Category:Navajo people as photographed by Edward Curtis are subcats and, of course, people place photos of Navajo people by Curtis in that category, regardless of their source. Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless a good bit of the confusion came through this edit by User:Look2See1 (now indef-blocked for category edits against consensus), where he added Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis as a parent cat; other similarly-named categories then followed this pattern (some might have been already extant, and similarly edited by Look2See1, I haven't looked through all the histories).

Anyway: these subcats are poorly named in any case. Depending on whether they are specific to this one work or not, I believe they should either be along the pattern of Category:Photographs of Navajo people by Edward Curtis or Category:Photographs of Navajo people from Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis.

Either way, there is an arduous task ahead, because right now each category appears to be a hodgepodge. If we go with the Category:Photographs of Navajo people by Edward Curtis approach (which I favor), then we need to add Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis to the photos (or subcats) that are from that work. If we go with the Category:Photographs of Navajo people from Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis approach, then we need to remove the photos that are not from that work, and add other appropriate categories by up-catting them. Or, of course, we could have both Category:Photographs of Navajo people by Edward Curtis and Category:Photographs of Navajo people from Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis, the latter being a subcat of the former and of Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis, but we still need to sort out the images by source.

That last paragraph also applies to subcats of Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis that cover individual photos [and the Geronimo category, which currently has three distinct photos]. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories potentially affected (some are currently included both directly and indirectly, I'm showing them in logical hierarchy here:

Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • General support I wonder if just focusing on the peoples as photographed by categories alone would have been helpful. I agree Category:Apache people as photographed by Edward Curtis should be renamed to Category:Photographs of Apache people by Edward Curtis but from the parent Category:Historic photographs of Apaches the terminology of the other categories follows Category:Apaches as photographed by Edward Curtis. I suggest we go with Jmabel's suggestion and tag the others for renaming afterwards. I agree with removing these peoples photographs categories from Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis as a whole because the entire book contains all of them and the images can be tagged with both the source and the peoples rather than a mass category. As to the subcategories, I think it's better to deal with them after we figure out the parent categories. I don't see the gain by Geronimo by individual photographer but it's already been done already and it's not necessary to figure that out right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I also agree with Ricky81682 regarding renaming of some categories (e.g. Category:Apache people as photographed by Edward Curtis to Category:Photographs of Apache people by Edward Curtis). One note, Jmabel indicates they would create a category Category:Photographs of Navajo people from Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis to contain the intersection of Category:Photographs of Navajo people by Edward S. Curtis and Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis, however, keep in mind that the work's title is simple "The North American Indian", so this intersection category can drop the 'images from' part and simply be Category:Photographs of Navajo people from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis. Josh (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment the lengthy existing category names ("as photographed by ") may indicate an awareness that these kinds of "ethnographic" photographs are frequently rather more artistic compositions than realistic images of tribal people. In colonial India, numerous picture books were produced with illustrations purporting to demonstrate in a single composition the dress, lifestyle, and physiognomy of the various tribes and castes, but because of the "scientific" attitudes of the people involved as well as the limitations of nascent photography, the results are highly artificial "representations" of how the metropole categorized how their subjects "ought" to look. Similarly, I have seen a photographic tableau of three Kurdish tribesmen of different regions produced for a late Ottoman emperor which was entirely staged in Constantinople using "models" presumably selected for their "authentic" appearance and dressed up in "correct" costumes in a photographer's studio. It may be that the case is similar here: the photographer may have photographed people whose appearances he thought "typical of" or "traditional for" the Apaches or Sioux or whoever. I have no opinion on the categorization, but I saw the discussion on the Village Pump and thought I would mention this as something to bear in mind. GPinkerton (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is likely categorized by complete ignorance but we have structures for those groups. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GPinkerton: Curtis's work would probably not quite stand up to our present-day standards for documentary photography, but he was pretty good by the standards of his time. He seems to have been generally careful to photograph individuals from a specific tribe in clothing traditional for that tribe, and to distinguish particular tribes, but sometimes he would photograph people in clothes that weren't their own, and which he had provided. That is, ethnographically correct, but not a accurate documentary representation of how that individual would normally dress. Similarly, there's a famous 1910 photograph “In a Piegan Lodge,” where he photographed inside a Native American residence, but his published print of the photo dodged out a clock, because he didn't want something that "modern" in the photo. There was an interesting recent exhibit at the Tacoma Art Museum in which present-day Native American photographers "responded" to Curtis's work in both text and photographs of their own. I was struck by how much they all seemed to agree that Curtis was trying to "get it right," even if his notion of "right" was not exactly what we'd do today, or what someone who was more of an insider to a tribe would do. (Conversely, the one feature film he did is a weird mix of good ethnographic observation and totally made up stuff to give him plot points.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We are also just sorting image into categories. If this was an article, we can have "a source says this, another says this" and we do have some evidence of individuals within the various tribes. Still, I meant it as a broad response to GPinkerton's comment, not specifically about Curtis. It's easier with something like image of Geronimo absent some debate about whether it is actually an image of him. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dublin photographs taken on 1922-01-01

[edit]

This seems excessively granular for a single image. I would presume that Category:Photographs of the Republic of Ireland by date would first be organized by counties and then cities if needed. I also doubt the photograph was actually on January 1st but likely a 1922 image dated the first by default. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Excessive granularity" is just how it happens sometimes, as a cost of having consistent date intervals. For Dublin in 1922, I have no problem at all with precision in dates, as a lot was going on then.
Are we certain that the date is correct though? We have an awful lot of images on Commons (sourced from big libraries with automated metadata processes) where "1-01-" is no more than a flag for "unknown date within the year". As this appears to be a newsworthy event, can we date it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Question do we have a good tag template to use for suspicious dates? All Jan 1 dates are automatically suspicious I suppose, so do we maybe have a way to tag those that really have been verified as being actually on Jan 1? I guess the same should be asked at a lesser level for any 1st of the month date. Josh (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accuracy and precision

[edit]

These are two separate and distinct things and should be separated. Josh (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Life sciences

[edit]

Merge Category:Life sciences into Category:Biology unless we have files pertaining to a life science that is not biology. Josh (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allforrous has gone in after I posted this, adding dozens of Category:Subfields of biology directly to Category:Life sciences. This is essentially a COM:OVERCAT violation, as these are already under Category:Biology which resides under Category:Life Sciences. See their edit to Category:Botany. Proper categorization (which existed already) is:
Copying Category:Botany to Category:Life sciences creates a loop and is at least a violation of the Hierarchic principle, if not an explicit COM:OVERCAT violation. All contents of Category:Biology need to be removed from Category:Life sciences and left in their original categories under Category:Biology. Josh (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a familiar pattern of Allforrous: after a category created by him/her is being discussed, (s)he does not join the discussion but adds subcategories and/or files to it. How can we stop that?
I agree with merging if this category has no added value on Commons, but I am not an expert at all on this subject and on EN-WP I see a lot of life sciences besides biology. So perhaps we should be careful, look critically to the subcategories and have here only the subcategories mentioned in the EN-WP (or keep that as a guideline), and only if there are categories for on Commons now (Allforrous often creates categories just because they are on EN-WP and then we can discuss them and try to get them deleted again, so let this be a warning for him/her not to do so). JopkeB (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the categories are loops, so it should be non-controversial to eliminate those loops in accordance with the Hierarchic Principle. Once that is done, there should be fewer remaining contents to work through. Josh (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner and JopkeB: The Wikipedia article List of life sciences says, "Biology is the overall natural science that studies life, with the other life sciences as its sub-disciplines." So the nominated category can be merged to Subfields of biology. Virtually all life sciences listed in Wikipedia are categorized as subfields of biology. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413, Removing the loops leaves us with really only one category to figure out, Category:Pharmacology, which is also under Category:Pharmaceutical sciences. I didn't see a strict loop through biology, but I suspect that pharmacology is not really a life science at all. It is related to life, no doubt, as are many other sciences that are not life sciences. If it really is a life science, than it would be through a link to somewhere in the biology field. Either way, it seems once that is resolved, there is nothing left to Category:Life sciences that cannot be merged into Category:Biology. Josh (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner Pharmacology is indeed a subfield of biology, as far as Wikidata and Wikipedia are concerned. So it should be categorized under Category:Subfields of biology Instead of Category:Life sciences. However, it seems like the entire Category:Health sciences is a life science but not a branch of biology. Same for Category:Food science. So there are only three large subcats of Category:Life sciences: Category:Biology, Category:Food science and Category:Health sciences. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Neither health sciences or food science is a life science in and of themselves, they are separate applied sciences. They definitely are life-related, but the 'life' connection or 'life' portion of them are applied biology. Josh (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Projects by country

[edit]

Per User:Estopedist1's idea. The term "project" is very broad, can be applied in different aspects A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't understand what the purpose is? --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Projects covers a lot, but it is sub-categorized as a result for the various different things that are projects. Also, not seeing any specific problem with Category:Projects by country as a natural index of projects broken down by country of relevance. Thus, not really sure what the 'fix' here is, since I don't really see being broad as a problem. Is there a specific proposal for improvement? Josh (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are the initiator. Is there a specific proposal for improvement? If not, what is your initiative for? And also invite the authors of the categories for each country to the conversation. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians in 2016 in India

[edit]

This is the only category of the structure Politicians by year by country. This is not Category:Politicians of India in 2016 but hold its single child category, Category:Ashton Carter in India, 2016. It doesn't make sense to split Category:Politicians of the United States in 2016 (separate from by name) into a series of categories for politicians of each country that visits another country, like Category:Politicians of the United States in 2016 in India. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Matches of Turkey national football team

[edit]

Proposed move this cat to "Matches of Turkey national association football team" to distinguish "Matches of Turkey national amputee football team" A1Cafel (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bilateral relations of South Korea in 2009

[edit]

I can't really tell the difference between this category and Category:2009 in international relations of South Korea. From what I can tell, this is the only country where there is a bilateral relations by year categorization. I can't think of any international relations that aren't bilateral or any bilateral relations that aren't international. Instead the images can be moved to the 2009 international relations category and then tagged with the international relations of the other country that year/a new category for their intersection. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House Chaim Weizmann in Motol

[edit]

I propose to move it to Category:House of Chaim Weitzmann in Motol. Jarash (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/12&oldid=923570192"