Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/11
as the two Wikipedia articles linked to in this category indicate, Mayang costa is a Tagalog common name for Padda/Lonchura oryzivora, which is of course already covered by the category Category:Lonchura oryzivora. This category appears to have been created only to house four photos of a different species, Lonchura atricapilla (which I've accordingly removed from this category) Spizaetus (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- The photos formerly in this category, in case it's relevant: File:9847Rosario,_La_Union_Public_Market_01.jpg, File:9847Rosario,_La_Union_Public_Market_02.jpg, File:9847Rosario,_La_Union_Public_Market_03.jpg, File:9847Rosario,_La_Union_Public_Market_04.jpg Spizaetus (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant category to Category:Lonchura oryzivora. It is very silly to create a separate category for files under Tagalog/Filipino names (thus another contribution by now-blocked Judgefloro (talk · contribs)). It also appears he (or the people he inquired for during photography of this) made a mistake to call the bird as a Lonchura oryzivora, assuming Spizaetus is right that the birds in photos formerly occupied here are of a different species. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted per above. Empty anyway. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Name should be changed for "Populated places on Lake Saimaa" - inadvertently typed wrong category name. Please change. Periegetes (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Uncontroversial. Done Estopedist1 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
maseratispyder 2001:B011:380D:1792:FCA1:B567:7AF5:3C1F 06:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense Estopedist1 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The page is really empty. 中少 (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Waiting to be speedy deleted as "empty" Estopedist1 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. Leonel Sohns 12:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: still usable. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a duplicate of Category:Old University of Louvain and should be merged. Mike Peel (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Done @Mike Peel: it is already merged and mirrors enwiki solution--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Merged, thanks @Estopedist1: . Mike Peel (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Enpty category Trade (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Empty. Deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a duplicate of Category:Troop ships, should be merged if so. Mike Peel (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I totally agree that these two categories should be merged. Since I am not a native English speaker: what is the correct English name: with or without a space/quadrat? And if we keep Troop ships, should this category get Category:Military transport as a parent? --JopkeB (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I'm not sure how I missed it during this discussion. The English wikipedia page is at en:Troopship but it lists "troop ship" as an alternative, and uses en:Category:Troop ships as a category. I have no preference. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JopkeB and Themightyquill: Thanks for the comments. I've gone ahead and merged them to Category:Troop ships, I think having the space reads better than without it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I'm not sure how I missed it during this discussion. The English wikipedia page is at en:Troopship but it lists "troop ship" as an alternative, and uses en:Category:Troop ships as a category. I have no preference. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Merged. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Удалить как ощибочную kosun (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Empty. Deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Category to be deleted. I am the uploader. This cat is redondant with Category:Aphrodite in Venus genitrix style (Louvre, Myr 28) Tangopaso (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Is she an inventor? 181.203.82.169 00:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing to do. Citing This page provides a centralized place to discuss the naming convention of categories.. --Achim55 (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Cederblom is not known to be a watercolor artist. The category was created because a wrong author was inserted in the description of a painting. Thurs (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: OK, fine. --Yann (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a duplicate of Category:Panama Canal Railway - but I'm not sure, it might be about a different railroad. If they are the same, they could be merged. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is not a duplicate. The Panama Railroad predated the Panama Canal Railway by more than half a century - historically important transcontinental railway of the 1850s. I suggest prompt closing. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: I added hatnotes to both of the categories. I also noticed that enwiki en:Panama Railroad is a redirect to Panama Canal Railway. So the nomintation was well-intentioned --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation and Estopedist1: Thanks! This was why I started a CfD rather than just merging them, as I wasn't sure. I've proposed the enwiki article be split, and set up Panama Railroad (Q109568381) so that both now have infoboxes. Would be great if you could add more info to the Wikidata item, so the infobox here shows more info. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: I added hatnotes to both of the categories. I also noticed that enwiki en:Panama Railroad is a redirect to Panama Canal Railway. So the nomintation was well-intentioned --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
vip girls 194.49.105.40 23:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
spam by an anonym Estopedist1 (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference with Category:Chambers of commerce in the Netherlands and Category:Kamer van Koophandel (Nederland)? Can these three be merged into one category, Category:Chambers of commerce in the Netherlands (because of the Commons:Categories#Universality principle)? JopkeB (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Antoine.01, for making a redirect for Category:Kamer van Koophandel (Nederland). So now the only question is: Can Category:Kamer van Koophandel be merged into Category:Chambers of commerce in the Netherlands? If not: What are the differences? --JopkeB (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hello JopkeB, "Category:Kamer van Koophandel (Nederland)" is now a redirect to "Category:Chambers of commerce in the Netherlands". But it can also be removed!
Antoine.01
overleg(Antoine) 14:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Antoine.01, thanks for transferring the subcategories from Category:Kamer van Koophandel to Category:Chambers of commerce in the Netherlands. I made some changes too (undo overcategorisation). I think now it is right. For me, this discussion can be closed. Do you agree? --JopkeB (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi JopkeB, Yes that's fine! Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 17:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi JopkeB, Yes that's fine!
- Hello Antoine.01, thanks for transferring the subcategories from Category:Kamer van Koophandel to Category:Chambers of commerce in the Netherlands. I made some changes too (undo overcategorisation). I think now it is right. For me, this discussion can be closed. Do you agree? --JopkeB (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hello JopkeB, "Category:Kamer van Koophandel (Nederland)" is now a redirect to "Category:Chambers of commerce in the Netherlands". But it can also be removed!
Category:Chambers of commerce in the Netherlands has been kept, the other two categories has been merged into this category and have got redirects. --JopkeB (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
spanking 2601:199:4180:A370:28DB:16FF:F505:5266 22:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
unclear nomination by an anonym Estopedist1 (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that this category be merged with Category:Cuisine of Nigeria. There doesn't seem to be any distinction between this newly created category and the previously existing one. Marbletan (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that we don't need a separate category for local cuisine, as opposed to cuisine in general. However, some of what's in this category should go to Category:Food of Nigeria because it just shows raw ingredients such as fruits. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see the need or benefit of this category either, even with the clear category description given. - 07:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- To be merged to Category:Cuisine of Nigeria. By the way, the term "local cuisine" is unique in Commons, see [1]--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Empty category (and created by sock block evading vandal Angelmunoz50 to insert false information) Sjö (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Should be deleted: Looks like either nonsense or promotion for the user who created this category. Brianjd (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
wrong the title 84.117.254.121 16:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, was obviously a test. --Achim55 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Should be merged with Category:Exercise Cossack Steppe. Or perhaps Category:Exercise Cossack Steppe should be merged with it. Either way, the two categories appear to describe the same thing and so need merging. Dvaderv2 (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Exercise Cossack Steppe Estopedist1 (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
See also: User_talk:DanielPenfield#People_wearing_gas_masks_in_%COUNTRY_NAME%_vs._Gas_masks_of_%COUNTRY_NAME%. Long-standing moving request. I propose to retain the current situation, because proposed "from" is clearly worse. We have already massively used "of" for other military equipment, eg category:Military helmets of Brazil Estopedist1 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Two weeks no objections Estopedist1 (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect translation GeoO (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @GeoO: you already moved it to Category:Saint Nerses Church, Ijevan. Is it correct now?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: yes :) --GeoO (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted, unlikely search term. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This category seems to duplicate "Category:Taiping War Cemetery". Motacilla (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Motacilla: "Taiping War Cemetery" is a better name, so I think it is a good idea to use that category and delete or redirect the above category. Krok6kola (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Please delete this category as the Holden Commodore (VK) did not compete in the V8 Supercar category. GTHO (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment - GTHO are none of these vehicles here of the Holden Commodore (VK) in V8 Supercar?. –Davey2010Talk 11:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- They would belong either under Category:Holden Commodore (VK) in Group C Touring Cars or Category:Holden Commodore (Group A Touring Car racing). Both predate the V8 Supercar racing category. GTHO (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ah okay thank you, I had a feeling they weren't but thought I'd ask on the off-chance that you didn't know, In that case Delete per nom. –Davey2010Talk 11:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ah okay thank you, I had a feeling they weren't but thought I'd ask on the off-chance that you didn't know, In that case
Done: deleted per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
There are no free images specific to this book, nor likely to be for perhaps a century given that Syman is alive, young, and owns the copyright Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: next time nominate the files which have copyright problem, and don't start category-for-discussion (CFD). If the problematic files are deleted, then empty category will be deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist: - if that issue arises I'll certainly do as you say, that would be the ideal solution for that problem, thank you. However, that wasn't the issue here; it was that the images used to illustrate the book article (except for its cover, naturally) were not specific to the book, but were about the subjects covered by the book, so the category made, and makes, no sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted, empty cat. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Empty category, questionable utility. GPinkerton (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted. Empty cat. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I made it, accidental duplicate. Delete CzarJobKhaya (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @CzarJobKhaya: enwiki article is under the name en:Willem Krul (Dutch Navy officer). His signature was W. Krul (see File:Willem Krul signature.jpg). Do you have objections for the renaming proposal:
- --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- If its ambiguous it should be a DAB if not the Wikipedia article should be moved to the base name, as far as I can see its not ambiguous so the WP article should be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: redirected. The Dutch article uses "Crul", so a redirect is in order. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Should be called Category:Cannulated cows as a set rather than topic category. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- the nominated category is changed to a redirect. Solution seems OK--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I have information that these images were created by voyeur fetish photographer "DST6" who did not give permission for his work to be distributed under the relevant license. Furthermore I have information that DST6 did not adequately secure consent from his models to distribute their images, especially with name attached. These images may well constitute involuntary pornography. However, the biggest issue with this category is that the Flickr stream that alll the images are sourced from is now blank -- the user "Photogman" had his account nuked for violation of terms of service (probably for posting these very pics) and none of the image sources are now availiable. It is thus impossible to confirm, from the original Flickr account, whether or not these images are appropriately licensed. 172.243.183.182 13:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Files from Photogman Shares Flickr stream. Forgive my unfamiliarity with the system. 172.243.183.182 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion takes places at mass-DR Estopedist1 (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This should be merged into "Yerevan Metro" 212.58.119.32 17:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Photos should only be placed in this category if the building's façade is the dominant element, or where it is architecturally interesting. But instead it is filled with countless older pictures that show just architectural elements, like pieces of a wall, individual windows or doors, parts of roofs, even pictures of interiors. Many of these pictures should be re-categorized into one of the subcategories under "Architectural elements in the Netherlands". But as there are some 1600 pictures in the "Facades in the Netherlands"-category, that is a mammoth task that can hardly be done by hand. Is it possible to write a bot for this? Loranchet (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Loranchet: no need for a bot. Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot does the job--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep @Loranchet is correct (per Category:Facades) but that's an issue of categorization which does not require further discussion here. With Category:Facades by country, the Netherlands one is fine. I think that the Category:Facades by architectural style and other categorizations will be more helpful than just pure locations but we have what we have. This is probably one of the rare times where using the file talk page would be the most helpful if there is a disagreement about whether or not to have an image in the facades categorization at all (just to keep a record of the discussion). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion, just move files out of this category to the right ones. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Should be a user (sub)page instead of a category. Till (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Done moved to Category:User:Eka343. Good catch, user:Till.niermann!--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: already moved (and added {{User category}}). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: strange name. All files to be upmerged to the parent category (ie Category:Allan Hancock Pacific expeditions (1943))? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: not sure why this was done. Maybe test?. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Can be deleted - was a typo by me. Cat is empty and not needed. Mirer (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted on 27 November 2021 by Túrelio as empty cat. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Why isn't this category named Category:Pitcher plants? Almost all categories that contain images of different instances of a particular thing have plural names. Geo Swan (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- seems uncontroversial renaming--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: moved with redirect. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The page is empty. 中少 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: speedy deletion as empty cat. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
this category is a about the same person as Category:Julius Olsson Robby (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Robby: Thank you, but you could have just let me know, instead of tagging it for discussion. I have added a bad-name tag to the category page, because it should now be deleted; there is no need for discussion. It would be very helpful if you would please remove the discussion tag, because the discussion tag will only delay the deletion. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Robby and Storye book: I suggest to use the name Category:Albert Julius Olsson, because it follows enwiki. Category:Julius Olsson to be retained as a redirect. Objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objections to keep Category:Albert Julius Olsson and to have Category:Julius Olsson as a redirect. I have as well no problem to remove the discussion tag but unfortunately I am not familiar with the various guidelines on en-wikipedia so I am not sure whether this is according to good practice here on en-wikipedia (are there no delays to be respected once you have started such a discussion?) Robby (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can do that for you, although there is some work and time involved, in swapping the two categories around. I'll report here when I've done it. This discussion was inappropriate - you could have just messaged me - so when I have done this swap-over job, then I'll remove the tag because it will be in the wrong place. Storye book (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Update: The content of Category:Julius Olsson has now been moved to Category:Albert Julius Olsson, and tags have been removed. There remains the question of how to move the creator template to Category:Albert Julius Olsson (I don't know how to do that). I shall see whether i can find someone to do it for me. Storye book (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Update: The creator template issue has now been kindly resolved by an administrator. As far as I am aware, this discussion has now been resolved. Storye book (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objections to keep Category:Albert Julius Olsson and to have Category:Julius Olsson as a redirect. I have as well no problem to remove the discussion tag but unfortunately I am not familiar with the various guidelines on en-wikipedia so I am not sure whether this is according to good practice here on en-wikipedia (are there no delays to be respected once you have started such a discussion?) Robby (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Robby and Storye book: I suggest to use the name Category:Albert Julius Olsson, because it follows enwiki. Category:Julius Olsson to be retained as a redirect. Objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: Category:Julius Olsson is now a redirect. --Yann (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Rename Category:Red envelopes (gifts) for clarity. It's not just for any red envelope. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- there are images in this category that are just a red envelope, like the one I added. The (gift) category would be fitting as a subcategory Vera (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @1Veertje: That's reasonable. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Why bother discussing this when you've already moved it, without even a redirect, and orphaning a bunch of files?
- But still, policy is that we don't disambiguate unless there's an overlap. Why go against this?
- Also it breaks the existing {{By color|Envelopes|envelopes}} navbar Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- on further reflection "red envelopes in east Asian traditions" or something close to that might be a better label. Vera (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm not sure if you're talking to me, but I didn't move anything, I just nominated it for discussion. 1Veertje (the creator of the category as far as I can see) effectively created Category:Red envelopes (gift) after we agreed on a solution. I also don't see how any files were orphaned in that process, so maybe you can explain? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- And to be clear, the Category:Red envelopes was wikidata linked to en:Red envelope, which is not just about any envelope coloured red. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus by discussion used to be something on Wikipedia & Commons. It doesn't mean "10 minutes max, if no-one complains in that time, then just move it anyway to a name different from that discussed, and then backtrack afterwards and recreate the original". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- on further reflection "red envelopes in east Asian traditions" or something close to that might be a better label. Vera (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Just to be clear - do you actually have a problem with the current state of things with these categories, or you just don't like the way it was done? -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't like the way it was done. Nor for the French flags, which are doing just the same thing right now. Also I certainly don't like the way it was left at the time I posted.
- Being too hasty to "do something" rather than stopping and thinking about it, maybe allowing a few other opinions in, always ends up the same. Chaos, a fight with 'bots who are trying to rename other stuff to catch up, then half of it gets backtracked anyway. We never did get Category:Red envelopes (gifts). We still have a Category:Red envelopes. It was completely pointless to delete it, then to just have to re-create it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I agree it wasn't done a little hastily and not in the best way, but if the decision was simply to create a new sub-category Category:Red envelopes (gift) there wouldn't have been much need for discussion. That's effectively the situation we have now, even if it was done in a rather complicated/confusing way. Do you think Category:Red envelopes (gifts) would be better than Category:Red envelopes (gift)? I'm never sure whether to use plural for the disambiguation in parentheses, nor do I care very much. If singular (gift) is okay, we have consensus to leave things as they are now. - 12:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- As for the French flag, I don't actually know what you're referring to. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I moved the category rather because it was already linked to the Wikidata item that described the use of red envelopes in East Asian tradition and then created the simpler parent category for envelopes that are red. This was slightly quicker than creating a child category and than linking that one to the Wikidata item. I don't get why Andy finds it necessary to complain about a process when the result is what matters. Vera (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Category:Red envelopes (gift) created as subcategory. -- Themightyquill (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. It was made 3 years ago and still is empty. So redundant. This category is about a statue that is only 60 years old and there is no FOP in France, so it might take a while before it is allowed to have photos of this statue on Commons. JopkeB (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete empty--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Neutral I don't always support deleting categories for copyrighted sculptures. Sometimes it can be useful if people are constantly uploading photos of a famous statue in a place without FOP. But this category is 3 years old and only had 3 images, so that doesn't seem to be a big problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- If this category is kept because of copyright reasons, then I suggest to put a message about copyright here, so that visitors know why the category is empty. --JopkeB (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Themightyquill has put a clear message in this category. Thanks! IMO this category may stay now. Perhaps we could also mention the year of death of the sculptor - René Quillivic (1879-1969) - and the year in which the sculpture is in the public domain (2040). I'll do so if the category is kept. --JopkeB (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- If this category is kept because of copyright reasons, then I suggest to put a message about copyright here, so that visitors know why the category is empty. --JopkeB (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept. This empty category is about a sculpture in France (no FOP) of an artist who died in 1969. It has got clear messages about it's status, which is useful information, and may stay for that reason. One of the parent categories, Category:NoUploads until 2040, indicates the year in which the sculpture is in the public domain. --JopkeB (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
empty category, delete. Was going to upload images, but realized they were not indeed public domain SecretName101 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between Traditional costumes of the Basque Country and Category:Basque traditional costumes (the parent category, renamed to Category:Traditional clothing of Basque Country because of harmonization, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/07/Category:Traditional clothes by country)? Can these two categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
On User talk:Theklan#Question about Category:Traditional costumes of the Basque Country the conclusion is: there are no differences and "yes, they should be merged". --JopkeB (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Merge. There are no differences between Category:Traditional costumes of the Basque Country and Category:Basque traditional costumes, these two can be merged. --JopkeB (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference with Category:Traditional clothing of Uzbekistan? Can the only file in this category be moved to Category:Traditional clothing of Uzbekistan and this category get a redirect? JopkeB (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Nataev wrote: "The two categories should just be merged. The two terms are used interchangeably (both in Russian and Uzbek), but "national" is slightly more common among Russian speakers."
--JopkeB (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no difference between these two categories. Both categories should be merged. --JopkeB (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Dubious category conflating various things; voyeuristic without objective useful definition. Described as "accidental nudity"; most images do not show "accidental" and the few that do are likely violations of privacy rights of those photographed.
Details: Firstly I note that I am not in favor of prudery and censorship on Commons. (Personally I even object to conceding that a woman's nipples being visible can legitimately be described as "nudity", but that definition is a discussion for elsewhere.) Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nipple slip brought out what I consider inherent problems with this category. It is the intersection of Categories "Accidental nudity" and "Female nipples" (presumable male nipples are incapable of "slipping"; unclear if the "female nipples" need to be human). A good number of images in the category show pornographic actresses at "adult film industry" events in outfits with exposed nipples (is this really "accidental"? Do they play a game of "oops, my nipples are showing, oh no"?). Other images currently in the category an African girl in traditional attire with a visible nipple (apparently we are to ignore that different societies may not have identical cultural attitudes), a 19th century "Marianne" caricature with traditional exposed breast, some posed models, a 19th century drawing of a woman undressing to go to bed... all dubious as a "slip" creating "accidental nudity". As the few cases where it is accidental, when a woman's breast is unintentionally exposed in a context where such is not considered socially acceptable, as the linked deletion request points out, such photos seem to violate COM:DIGNITY, being personality-rights violating paparazzi type shots for voyeurism. I think Commons is better off without this category. (Unsurprisingly there are already multiple other categories for women's nipples, and more specific ones can be created if anyone thinks they should be.. might something "Marianne with breast out" be useful? The "accidental nudity" category seems unobjectionable, judging from the two images currently there.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
P.S.: I am not proposing deletion of images within this category (IMO they should be dealt with on individual cases); I am proposing deletion of this category as a dubiously named and defined basket of images of very different circumstances. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's not dubious, it describes what it is. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @TwoWings: About how many of the images currently in the category do you think are so categorized correctly? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Most of them. But I have other things to do rather than losing time to discuss about such things. You want to question anything? Be my guest if you like to do that. I don't think that kind of discussion is constructive so I won't bother. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- @TwoWings: About how many of the images currently in the category do you think are so categorized correctly? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- The comment by @TwoWings was short, concise and accurate, just like their comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:Upskirt in sports (which I think is related to this discussion).
- Below are some comments on the nomination.
- The English Wikipedia article Nipple slip is a redirect to Wardrobe malfunction, which is defined as:
- a clothing failure that accidentally or intentionally exposes a person's intimate parts.
- Replace "intimate parts" with "nipples" and you have a reasonable definition of "nipple slip".
- Of course this category should not be in Accidental nudity, just as Females without brassieres should not be in Eroticism (see revision 602359900). But this is hardly a reason to delete this category.
- It should not be in Female nipples either. We have Male nipples through clothing and Male nipples through transparent clothing; we can certainly have male nipple slips too.
- Female nipples is in Human nipples, so yes, they need to be human. (In fact, judging from Nipples, Commons lacks non-human nipples of any description.)
- In many images, the nipple exposure seems to be intentional. This is still a nipple slip, just as intentional exposure under a skirt is still an upskirt.
- Does the phrase "19th century drawing of a woman undressing to go to bed" refer to File:Export(199).jpg? This just looks like the straps falling down a bit. It does not look like she is attempting to undress, and she is not "topless" (I have removed this file from Topless standing women in art).
- As far as categorisation goes, I only see one image that might be a problem: File:Girl, Uganda (15566595376).jpg. But it might not be. We should judge this situation not on the local culture regarding nipple exposure, but rather the garment's intention. Without knowing anything specific about this garment, I note that it does cover one nipple, and looks like it might be designed to cover both.
- Regarding dignity, I wrote at the deletion discussion:
- I think that, in many cases, people would not even notice the accidentally revealed nipple/underwear/whatever unless they went looking for it. Now, we are asking them to go looking, for the purpose of editing the image. This seems like a problem.
- Finally, a somewhat random thought: we have a category called Protruding hair; should we have Protruding nipples? Brianjd (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Going to take issue with that Wikipedia definition of wardrobe malfunction as "accidental or intentional" as I wrote here: en:Talk:Wardrobe malfunction. Either it's an article about a term or an article about a phenomenon. The term may have been appropriated, jokingly, to also mean something that wasn't accidental, but the definitions I'm seeing of the actual phenomenon don't include "intentional" (e.g. Oxford Languages says an instance of a person accidentally exposing an intimate part of their body as a result of an article of clothing slipping out of position., Collins Dictionary says an embarrassing situation caused by the clothes a person is wearing, and Dictionary.com an instance of a piece of clothing slipping, ripping, etc., and causing embarrassment for the wearer: - presumably an intentional act doesn't "cause embarrassment"). Like "upskirt", that some people have intentionally exposed themselves or consented to a photo up their skirt to look like the voyeuristic [genres?] doesn't mean they are actually that. A "nipple slip" that isn't accidental is just an exposed nipple. Nothing "slipped". — Rhododendrites talk | 13:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that we should not be hosting actual "nipple slips" but that many of these could go in a different category. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, and IMO important point. Almost none of the images now in the category are, in your words, actual "nipple slips". To be accurate, almost all the images might legitimately be categorized as something to do with women's nipples. (Is there a term for what the porn actresses do in many of the photos in this category - not technically topless, nor "nipple slip", but rather wearing tops that intentionally display nipples?) Returning to the point that "we should not be hosting actual "nipple slips"": add that to properly categorizing the images currently dubiously misplaced in this category, and we have an empty category. It would be likely to remain empty, unless perhaps someone produces some artwork depicting a fictional woman in a fictional incident of "nipple slip", and that illustration was agreed to be within project scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is "Categories for discussion". I am to suggestions as to how to deal with problems with this category other than deletion (though as explained above, I think that would likely make this category empty). Again, most image in this category do not fit the category's own definition. Suggestions for more accurate categorization? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest creating a category "Women wearing clothing with bare nipples". This would be much more accurate for many of the images currently in the "Nipple slip" category. I'm open to suggestions for improved wording. Perhaps a subcategory "Porn actresses wearing clothing with bare nipples", in line with existing Category:Topless porn actresses. Thoughts? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have done so. As a result, this category is much less populated - although in re-categorizing images, I found one more image that may show an actual "nipple slip" that has been added here. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Convenience link: Women wearing clothing with bare nipples. I propose adding this to a category like Women by clothing or Nude or partially nude women by clothing (the latter seems more accurate and less likely to surprise readers, but "partial nudity" is not defined). I also propose renaming it to Women wearing tops with bare nipples (in line with the existing Nude or partially nude women wearing tops). Brianjd (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have done so. As a result, this category is much less populated - although in re-categorizing images, I found one more image that may show an actual "nipple slip" that has been added here. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest creating a category "Women wearing clothing with bare nipples". This would be much more accurate for many of the images currently in the "Nipple slip" category. I'm open to suggestions for improved wording. Perhaps a subcategory "Porn actresses wearing clothing with bare nipples", in line with existing Category:Topless porn actresses. Thoughts? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Closing discussion I opened. Creation of more exact categories, together with a couple of deletion requests of individual photos, have resulted in this category being thinly populated - at present with one photo which seems to be a posed photographer's model, but can be illustrative of the concept of "nipple slip" should anyone wish an illustration. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The main category, Category:World War II has now very few subcategories. I suggest to move the subcategories of this category to the main category and delete this category. Then there will be about fifty categories in the main category, one click less for people who are searching for a subject category. JopkeB (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Since there was no reaction for over a month, I'll implement this suggestion as described above. --JopkeB (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
to be deleted. Not notable company. The files to be upmerged Estopedist1 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- At Codasip we have found that some images we have published on industry topics have been used by trade journalists. To avoid the overhead of e-mail requests we thought it was worth publishing images which might be of broader interest on WikiMedia. We have been transparent about the fact that we are a company.
- If an individual can publish images to Wikimedia why cannot a company. Who is to judge if we are notable or not? We are a leading company in RISC-V processors and doubling our headcount. CodasipMarketing (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- If the company is not notable then the files need to be deleted first otherwise a category with 5 files is likely to be kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- @CodasipMarketing and Crouch, Swale: all these files should be upmerged to Category:RISC-V or Category:Computer security. None of the files are about this company itself--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- @CodasipMarketing and Crouch, Swale: all these files should be upmerged to Category:RISC-V or Category:Computer security. None of the files are about this company itself--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --4nn1l2 (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Dragon (spacecraft) categories
[edit]We should split both categories into the relevant subcats on SpaceX Dragon and Dragon 2 as the nominated categories are too diverse in its current form. Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Support We already have the categories SpaceX Dragon and SpaceX Dragon 2, which are in SpaceX spacecraft. We can rename this category to Recovery of SpaceX spacecraft and move its contents into two new categories as proposed. Brianjd (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)- Support Brianjd's proposal. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I have added another category in this nomination. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic discussions
|
|---|
@Brianjd and Huntster: Alright, the categorisation problem is solved. Now focus on this CfD. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
Clear consensus to rename this category and create two new categories. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference between Category:National costumes of Croatia and Category:Traditional clothing of Croatia? Can these two categories be merged (Category:Traditional clothing of Croatia wil stay)? JopkeB (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Answers and discussion
[edit]On User talk:Matija#Question about Category:National costumes of Croatia was the discussion:
- Hi. The only difference I can imagine is that Traditional clothing might have a wider scope than National costumes. Now, this may in some extreme case feel like a "problem" for any Croatian nationalists (I know there are many influental ones on Wikipedia at least) who might not feel that e.g. a Serb-Croatian costume (i.e. traditional clothing of Serbs living in Croatia) should belong there. But if merged into one category, and one with a wider scope, such as Traditional clothing, they may hate it but would have to stick with it. I don't really see any problems there, as categories aren't a major player on a Wiki article anyway. So, yes, I agree with the merge. --Matija (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks a lot for your reaction and opinion. I'll take the chance to merge Category:National costumes of Croatia into Category:Traditional clothing of Croatia and I'll make a redirect for the National costumes. You can never please everyone. --JopkeB (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Category:National costumes of Croatia can be merged into Category:Traditional clothing of Croatia. --JopkeB (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference between "Folk national costumes of Poland" and Category:National costumes of Poland? I saw that on the Polish Wikipedia there is one article for both categories. So can these two categories on Commons also be merged? JopkeB (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- JopkeB thanks for alerting me about this. In Poland (and perhaps other countries) historically nobles and peasants dressed differently. Noble fashion was changing more quickly, was more uniform geographically and at this point is mostly of historical significance, while folk costumes were changing more slowly and were very geographically diverse. To me Category:Traditional clothing of Poland should encompass both of those, while Category:Folk national costumes of Poland (which I would prefer to call Category:Folk costumes of Poland) should focus mostly on the peasant/folk tradition and Category:Polish nobles costumes on the historical nobles tradition. I dislike term national costumes of Poland as there is nothing "national" about it. Hope this helps. --Jarekt (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Jarekt, for your useful reaction. Yes, I agree that historically nobles and peasants dressed differently. New questions:
- Is noble fashion/clothing of Poland indeed part of tradional clothing of Poland or should it be part of clothing/fashion of Poland in general (perhaps with "historical" in the category name)? What is the "traditional" part of noble clothing of Poland? For me "traditional" has to do with traditions, aspects that are part of a culture for a long time. Because noble fashion is more internationally focused and changes more frequently, for me they are not part of a tradition of a country, but rather of the history of it.
- If noble fashion/clothing of Poland has still to be a part of tradional clothing of Poland, then we should discuss how to incorporate the peasant traditional clothing. For other countries the noble clothing is just one of the subcategories of "Traditional clothing of country X". The rest is about the peasant clothing. See Category:Traditional clothing of Belarus (for many other countries noble clothing, formal clothing, court clothing or ceremonial clothing is not a part of traditional clothing). I suggest we do the same for Poland. Do you agree?
- There is missing another parent category for Category:Polish nobles costumes (that is also missing in other categories for noble costumes). I suggest: Category:Nobility costumes. And then we should have another parent category, for 'clothing by wearer' or something like that (this new category would also contain clothing for children, by gender, by occupation/work clothing). What is your opinion?
- In Category:Polish nobles costumes are two different names for subcategories, meaning the same thing: National costumes of Poland (in 17th + 18th century) and Traditional clothing of Poland (in 15th century + portrait paintings). Can those categories be renamed to Polish nobles costumes in xxth century/portrait paintings?
- Category:Traditional clothing of Poland in 15th century has now three parent categories. After we decided about the above questions, we should decide whether this is still correct.
- In Category:Female traditional clothing of Poland, now a subcategory of Category:Traditional clothing of Poland in portrait paintings, are a lot of photos, and some art works not being portrait paintings.
- Can this subcategory be moved out of Category:Traditional clothing of Poland in portrait paintings?
- Can the images about art works be moved to a new category about Traditional clothing of Poland in art?
- --JopkeB (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wow that is a lot of questions. And I am not sure if I have all the answers. Personally some of the terms used in English seem pretty confusing for this topic. For example, the nobles clothing is more "historical" than "traditional", people no longer wear it. "Traditional" is a good term for combining noble and folk traditions. But I digress, so lets return to your questions:
- There is such a thing as traditional noble fashion/clothing for example en:Żupan or en:Kontusz, it was quite unique to Poland, Hungary and that part of eastern Europe. It is quite different to the fashion in western Europe at the same time.
- I am fine with noble and folk clothing being part of "Traditional clothing of country X"
- I agree that we could use Category:Nobility costumes if we can find other categories to add to it.
- I agree that "National costumes of Poland" (in 17th + 18th century) and "Traditional clothing of Poland" (in 15th century + portrait paintings) is probably the same thing. I prefer the term "Traditional" over "National", as many of the clothing traditions did not stop at the Polish border as "national" would suggest.
- --Jarekt (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Jarekt, for your useful reaction. Yes, I agree that historically nobles and peasants dressed differently. New questions:
- Jarekt: Thanks for your answers.
- Conclusion: Category:Polish nobles costumes should be kept in Category:Traditional clothing of Poland because they are indeed part of traditional clothing of Poland.
- Question: Do I understand your answer well: Can I move the subcategories from Category:Folk national costumes of Poland directly into Category:Traditional clothing of Poland, without an intermediate category for folk clothing, and make a redirect for Category:Folk national costumes of Poland? (I shall though make an intermediate category Category:Traditional clothing of Poland by location, but only for the subcategories with a location of coarse.)
- Conclusions: I'll make a parent category Category:Nobility costumes. My question about another needed parent category for 'clothing by wearer' is still open for discussion.
- Conclusion: The different names for subcategories in Category:Polish nobles costumes can be renamed into Polish nobles costumes in xxth century/portrait paintings.
- and 6 are still open for discussion.
- Do you agree?--JopkeB (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- JopkeB,
- agree
- no I do think we should have overall "folk" category, but I do not like the current name, maybe Category:Folk costumes of Poland
- agree
- I agree with proposed fixes to Category:Female traditional clothing of Poland
- --Jarekt (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- JopkeB,
- Jarekt: Thanks for your answers.
- @2. I am sorry we cannot harmonize this category with the other country categories about traditional clothing. I'll leave these two categories as they are. If you would like to change them, go ahead. One more suggestion: For me "costume" is about the whole thing, all clothing that someone wears on a certain moment. "Clothing" though, can also refer to parts as well, like vests and headgear. Perhaps you might consider this as well if you would change the category name of Category:Folk national costumes of Poland, perhaps Category:Folk clothing of Poland?
- @3. Done. It turned out there is already Category:Clothing by owner, so I used this instead of 'clothing by wearer'.
- @4. Done, except for Category:Traditional clothing of Poland in portrait paintings, because now I see that that would couse trouble elsewhere.
- @5. Solved: added: Category:15th-century clothing (new category), removed: Category:Traditional clothing of Poland because it is already a parent category of Category:Polish nobles costumes.
- @6. Done.
- For me, this discussion can be closed now. --JopkeB (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Polish nobles costumes should be kept in Category:Traditional clothing of Poland because Polish nobles costumes are indeed part of traditional clothing of Poland.
- Category:Folk national costumes of Poland should be kept, perhaps as Category:Folk costumes of Poland (that is up to Jarekt); anyway, it's subcategories cannot be moved into Category:Traditional clothing of Poland.
- Some other problems has been fixed, see conclusions above.
Changing to the disambiguation page. This also reflects en:Forum, and "The Forum" stuff can be also mentioned here. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. Seems logical. Just be bold and go ahead. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree as well. This page would be better used for disambiguation of the multiple meanings of forum. Marbletan (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. Since it's been over six months and everyone is in agreement, I have converted this redirect into a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Marbletan (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Move to Category:Mathematics education unless the education is delivered in a mathematical way. Just as there's a difference between physical education and physics education. -- Themightyquill (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
No objection for 11 months - close as consensus.
Remark: meanwhile, Category:Mathematics education is a redirect to Category:Mathematical education, so the join of both categories is already implemented.
See also: Category talk:Men wearing tuxedoes. Problematic and old (over 4 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Greenshed) rational: this category to be moved to category:People wearing black tie, because: "Reason:Category:People wearing black tie is the long-established category on Commons which this recently created category more or less duplicates. Also, the main article on the English Wikipedia is at Black Tie (the dress code) not Tuxedo (the name for the jacket)". Date: 22 December 2020 Estopedist1 (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support the notion that this is basically redundant. - Jmabel ! talk 14:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It's now been a year--seems like this should be closed, the images moved to Category:People wearing black tie and the redirect left (people love to delete those redirects) so that future categorizers can find the correct category without having to guess. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems like there is general agreement to make this a redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, this is an awkward orphan category. Being nonsensical there is no available parent for it. Does anyone mind if I change it to Aircraft by orientation? "Facing" is a subcategory of "orientation". So are "left" and "right", et cetera. Then I would like to make "Vehicles by orientation" to be a parent category. "Vehicles facing left" and "Vehicles facing right" are currently in "Vehicles by setting" which isn't quite right; these are 'orientations' in my opinion. Looks like there are a couple other X-by-orienation categories already. Does anyone have any suggestions, thanks. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support I have no objection to this change. Josh (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support This should have been done long ago. Thanks for suggesting. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok I'm working on it, I will need some help with categories that are controlled by templates such as Category:MD Helicopters MD 500 by orientation, I usually break something when I try to tinker with these, thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ruff tuff cream puff: I think this is done now, but if you could double check my work, I'd appreciate it. Do we leave all the "by facing" categories as redirects? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, there are a few more here Category:Aircraft by facing by manufacturer Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Rename Category:Aircraft by facing to Category:Aircraft by orientation (done already) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is the difference between "Dressers", Welsh dressers and Sideboards? Please, can definitions be added to these categories which explain the differences? JopkeB (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- According to en:Dresser, the term alone can refer to either Category:Dressing tables or Category:Chests of drawers. Category:Welsh dressers are for the kitchen/dining room with a lower & upper parts. En:Welsh dresser suggests the upper display shelf is called a sideboard, but that doesn't seem to match with the info at en:Sideboard so those are a little confusing in my mind. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Themightyquill, thanks a lot for your research. So we have:
- Chests of drawers: have drawers, are for storing clothing, are usually in a bedroom, have short legs and can be waist-high or shoulder-high
- Dressers is an American English word, look a lot like chests of drawers, but are usually only waist high and have room for a mirror
- Welsh dressers: storage furniture with a lower & upper part, with cupboards and drawers in the lower part and (open) shelves in the top part, used to store and display crockery and cutlery in a kitchen, scullery or dining room
- Sideboards: storage furniture, buffets; a set of cabinets, or cupboards, and one or more drawers, topped by a wooden surface for conveniently holding food, serving dishes, or lighting devices, used in the dining room for serving food, for displaying serving dishes, and for storage.
- Dear Themightyquill, thanks a lot for your research. So we have:
-
Chest of drawers -
Dresser -
Welsh dresser -
Sideboard
My conclusions
[edit]- All four are storage furniture.
- All might have drawers.
- An important difference is the use: (1) for storage of clothing in a bedroom, or (2) for storage of crockery and cutlery in a kitchen or dining room. The problem for Commons is, that you cannot always see what the use of a piece of storage furniture is.
- A Welsh dresser has always a lower and upper part. The upper part displays crocery or other things the owner is proud of.
- A dresser might have an upper part, but that is different from the upper part of a Welsh dresser: it is in the form of an open upstand/curb (with for instance a mirror).
- A sideboard might also have an upper part.
Question 1: Is this correct?
Question 2 How can we make clear on Commons what is the difference between:
- (1) a dresser without an upstand
- (2) a sideboard with only drawers
- (3) a chest of drawers?
--JopkeB (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Implentation so far
[edit] Done: The four involved categories have descriptions in English.
Done: They all have wikidata infoboxes with correct photographs and descriptions, at least in English and Dutch.
Still open: Question 2.
--JopkeB (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Q2: Is there a (noteable) difference? Dressers, as I just learned, without an upstand, would be cat:chests of drawers or cat:high chests of drawers, no? Whatever they are used for, that is. I like it that way. Leo Miregalitheo (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Leo Miregalitheo, for your reaction. I like it also that way: simpel and clear. So we may conclude:
- On Commons: an image of any chest of drawers, also when it is called a dresser or sideboard but has no upstand, goes into Category:Chests of drawers or Category:High chests of drawers, depending on the height.
- Themightyquill, do you also agree? JopkeB (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Leo Miregalitheo, for your reaction. I like it also that way: simpel and clear. So we may conclude:
- @JopkeB and Leo Miregalitheo: So to be a dresser, it must have an upstand? I can see the logic of making that separation and I'm not necessarily opposed, but "dressers" also specifically suggests a chest of drawers for clothing, right? Whereas "chest of drawers" can be for anything? Category:Chests of drawers currently contains things like File:Typeface drawers at the Birkenhead Museum of Printing.jpg, File:Blue plastic chest of drawers for desktop.jpg, and File:Fabric-covered basket, chest of drawers, and heart-shaped box - 20110210.jpg which no one would ever describe as a "dresser" with or without an upstand. If those images belong there, I'm not sure that "dresser without upstand" and "chest of drawers" are synonymous. Sorry for making this complicated. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes Themightyquill , you are right: "dressers" specifically suggests a chest of drawers for clothing and "chest of drawers" can be for anything. The problem is: how can you see on an image that a dresser without an upstand is a dresser and not just a chests of drawers? Should we change the conclusion to:
- On Commons: an image of a chest of drawers without an upstand, unless it is explicitly called a dresser or sideboard, goes into Category:Chests of drawers or Category:High chests of drawers, depending on the height.
- Would you agree with this? JopkeB (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes Themightyquill , you are right: "dressers" specifically suggests a chest of drawers for clothing and "chest of drawers" can be for anything. The problem is: how can you see on an image that a dresser without an upstand is a dresser and not just a chests of drawers? Should we change the conclusion to:
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | (1) Add or adjust descriptions in the Commons categories involved and in the Wikidata items. (2) Move files in these categories to correct categories if necessary. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty and unecessary category - Needs deletion Golden (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Empty and unnecessary category - Needs to be deleted Golden (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
"Anonymous" suggests (rightly or wrongly) that these people are unidentifiable. But they are not unidentifiable: many of their faces are clearly shown, and others may be identifiable in other ways. Instead, they should be described as "unidentified", as in the parent category Unidentified people of the Netherlands. An alternative is to delete this category, as I am not sure what purpose it serves. Brianjd (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- This category is for files showing people of Spijkenisse who, indeed, are not (yet) been identified. If you think "Unidentified" may be a better word than "Anonymous", you can change the name. But no, this category cannot be deleted. Where would the files go to? To Category:People of Spijkenisse? Then this category would be overcrowded with unidentified people and it would be very hard to find the current files. So the purpose is in any case: relieving Category:People of Spijkenisse. --JopkeB (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep --Lidewij (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Lidewij C J. Do you have an opinion on the main proposal to rename the category? Brianjd (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- both category trees exist in Commons, compare Category:Anonymous people by country and Category:Unidentified people by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 I was not aware of this. Perhaps this discussion should be broadened. Brianjd (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Does this category then need to be moved to Anonymous people of the Netherlands? Brianjd (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- In my understanding Anonymous people of the Netherlands, if it's created, should be reserved to modern people who are willfully hiding their identity (like the Guy Fawkes mask etc.). Not the random unknown people on the street. Not the people of distant past (Category:Anonymous masters). Retired electrician (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- yes, Anonymous people of the Netherlands is again started (was a redirect). I guess we can close this CFD. OK, user:Brianjd?--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- In my understanding Anonymous people of the Netherlands, if it's created, should be reserved to modern people who are willfully hiding their identity (like the Guy Fawkes mask etc.). Not the random unknown people on the street. Not the people of distant past (Category:Anonymous masters). Retired electrician (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- both category trees exist in Commons, compare Category:Anonymous people by country and Category:Unidentified people by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Now I have longer thought about it, I prefer "Anonymous". This is a real subcategory of Category:People of Spijkenisse, with no overlap. "Unidentified" has the connotation of an incitement to try to recognize these people. That was not my intention with this category. I did not have the illusion that these people will be recognized and I still don't. This category is just about showing some ordinary people of Spijkenisse (but "ordinary people" is no category in Commons), how they look like, what they do in their spare time, how they have fun. --JopkeB (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have started a larger discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Anonymous people. The category nominated here has been moved, and I think this discussion can be closed. Brianjd (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Keep this category for now | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | This discussion has been continued on Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Anonymous people | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
[people] looking [direction]
[edit]
In "[people] looking [direction]", does the direction refer to the viewer or the subject? For example, this softball player is looking to her left but to the viewer's right. Which category should it go in? Looking at the existing categorisation, there seems to be some disagreement. Brianjd (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- i'd say it makes more sense to categorise this example photo as people looking to the left. imagine asking a question, "where is the person looking at?" the more natural answer for me is "she's looking to the left" / "she turns her head to the left".--RZuo (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I believe there was a more recent CfD that got into the nitty-gritty of categorizing by direction of facing, looking, etc.: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:People looking downward
- I think this portion of this CfD should be subsumed into that discussion. Josh (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- up or down doesnt depend on the perspective, but left or right is mirrored if we switch perspectives between the person and the camera.--RZuo (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Simply move categories to e.g. "People looking to their left" and so on without leaving redirects. It's ambiguous. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- up or down doesnt depend on the perspective, but left or right is mirrored if we switch perspectives between the person and the camera.--RZuo (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
[people] [doing something] or [doing something] [people]?
[edit]two problems:
- it's not consistent to describe a person doing an action. under "People by posture" it's mostly "doing people", except for expressions that cannot be written this way, e.g. Category:People looking forward. but in another cat tree Category:People by facial expression it's mostly "people doing" (Category:Smiling people was only moved in 2020). and in Category:People by activity it's overwhelmingly "people doing".
- when the verb is a transitive verb, the format "doing people" is confusing. for example, Category:Saluting women is now a category for women that are saluting, but the expression itself sounds like it's a cat for all incidences of "people saluting women", for example, if someone inspects female soldiers and does the saluting gesture.
for clarity i think it should all be moved to "people doing something".--RZuo (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Licking animals, without looking inside the cat, do you know whether it contains animals which are licking something, or animals being licked? RZuo (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- @RZuo: I agree and there are no objections so does the following seem appropriate:
- Keep Category:People crawling
- Keep Category:People crouching
- Keep Category:People falling
- Rename Category:Handstands people to Category:People doing handstands (a 'handstands person'?!?)
- Rename Category:Hiding people to Category:People hiding (though hiding people can be fun and profitable, I am told)
- Rename Category:Human chin up to Category:People with raised chins (I thought it was about people doing chin-ups when I first saw it)
- Rename Category:Hunching people to Category:People hunching
- Keep Category:People kneeling
- Rename Category:Leaning people to Category:People leaning
- Keep Category:People pointing
- Rename Category:Recumbent people to Category:People laying down
- Keep Category:People rotating
- Rename Category:Saluting people to Category:People saluting (we certainly have images of both people saluting people as well as people just saluting, so this is a good one to fix)
- Rename Category:Sitting people to Category:People sitting
- Rename Category:Standing people to Category:People standing
- I didn't get every single one, but this is the idea anyway. Any objections? Josh (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- @RZuo: I agree and there are no objections so does the following seem appropriate:
- i think we can keep Category:Recumbent people. it's a tricky category to deal with. there're also several kinds of lying down (face/belly up or down or sideways).
- i think opinions from more people are needed for this particular category.--RZuo (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- @RZuo: I agree, that was the one that gave me a bit of pause, mainly because it didn't have an obvious 'people' 'acting' (people recumbing? no.) Anyway, happy to drop that one from the group. We can always revisit it in the future with its own discussion. Josh (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Rename category (for 8 listed for change above--not including Recumbent people) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Comment This resolution is only for the second section of this CfD, first section above is still open at the moment. Josh (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
See also: Category talk:Central Asian Russia. Problematic and old (over 4 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:DayakSibiriak) rational: this category to be moved to category:North Asia, because: "duplication and harmonisation with Wikipedia definitions Central Asia and North Asia". Date: 2021-07-11 Estopedist1 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. Thanks. There is neither Central Asian nor East Asian Russia. Only the North Asian. And some controversial specific varieties are not for basic categories. DayakSibiriak (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Implemented the proposal. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
As of this writing, every subcategory (except the meta "by country" category) is for a named model. In what sense are these models "unidentified"? Brianjd (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: These subcategories should be recategorized properly; these are not "unidentified"--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Would it be appropriate to simply move them to Female models? Brianjd (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: Currently, they should go in Category:Female models and Category:Models by name. We could also created Category:Female models by name if you think it's useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Would it be appropriate to simply move them to Female models? Brianjd (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Back to basics: Why would/should we keep so many photos of unidentified models (female and male)? How are they "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? Could a lot of them fit in CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors), especially those who are not made on a catwalk or other public event, but IMO only are for advertising puroposes? --JopkeB (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Very good point. But the category might be a good way to collect such images to facilitate deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Conclusions
[edit]- Files in Category:Unidentified female models should be nominated for deletion, except for photos of models on a catwalk or other public event. They are not "realistically useful for an educational purpose".
- Files containing models on a catwalk or other public event should have at least one other parent category about the location and/or event.
- Keep the category to collect such images to facilitate deletion.
@Brianjd, Estopedist1, and Themightyquill: Do you agree?
- Still open: What to do with the subcategories?
JopkeB (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- They should go in Category:Female models and Category:Models by name. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | See Conclusions + answer by Themightyquill on 30 November 2023 Done | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Notes | Files have been sorted out: a lot of them were of identified models or are in use, other photos were about fashion photography or have several other categories while the model was just a side issue, so they were all kept and I made new subcategories for them. I have nominated the remaining files for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified female models. --JopkeB (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) @Brianjd, Estopedist1, and Themightyquill: Outcome of deletion request: The files nominated for deletion, were not deleted because the deletion request was not supported. --JopkeB (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
Duplicate to Category:Screws ?
Note that we also have Category:Screw threads as a parent. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Both categories are in the category Threaded fasteners (clearly showing that the nominated category is a duplicate), and Screws was in Fasteners as well (overcategorisation, now removed). The truly ridiculous thing is that Screws (fastener) is in Screws.
- Screw threads is a parent of Screws and a child of Screws (fastener). It should be a child only. Brianjd (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- So should both, or one, of these categories exist?
- Our policy is that we don't disambiguate unnecessarily, so that would imply that {screws, fasteners} should go into Category:Screws and Category:Screws (fastener) should redirect there.
- Or would Category:Screws (fastener) be justified for that role, as the disambiguated name is in some way clearer?
- Or, does Category:Screws have some additional purpose, other than for fasteners? In which case we make that clear, have it as a parent of Category:Screws (fastener), and sweep all the fastener content into Category:Screws (fastener). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- I see no additional purpose; I indicated this above by writing the nominated category is a duplicate. I agree that we should not disambiguate, unless it is necessary. But is it necessary?
- w:Screws suggests it is not necessary. But wiktionary:screws says that "screws" is the plural of "screw", and wiktionary:screw lists many meanings. This might require further discussion. Brianjd (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think a corkscrew is a fastener, but I do think it's a screw. Bolts are threaded fasteners, but they aren't screws. I see the validity of having separate categories. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to do about Category:Screw threads. It's obviously part of a Category:Screw (fastener) if it's the threads of a screw (which suggests a child of Category:Screw (fastener)), but also fundamental all threaded fastener (e.g. bolts as well as screws) (which suggests parent of Category:Threaded fasteners). -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're all in favour of separate categories, but how many do we need? So far we have Helices, Screw threads, Threaded fasteners, Screws, and Screws (fastener).
- I would keep all of these, except the last two. We only need one of those.
- Corkscrews, I don't know if they're helices or screw threads? Might potentially depend on their construction, but that would be horrible, so let's just call them "screw threads". Screw jacks are screw threads too. Bolts are threaded fasteners but not screws (we don't want to confuse those two any more than we have to).
- So what are "screws"? Are they a rough synonym for "screws (fastener)", or something more abstract? Which than overlaps into "screw threads".
- My favoured solution is to redirect Screws (fastener) into Screws, use Screw threads for the more abstract helical threads and moves anything from Screws that doesn't belong under fasteners into there. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @User:Andy Dingley Support "redirect Screws (fastener) into Screws, use Screw threads for the more abstract helical threads and move anything from Screws that doesn't belong under fasteners into there". Taylor 49 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Screws (fastener) has been decommissioned by joint efforts of User:Andy Dingley and me. 22:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @User:Andy Dingley
- @Themightyquill and Andy Dingley: A few related categories also to reconsider:
- Cat:External threads and Cat:Internal threads are currently underutilized; strictly speaking all threads should fall into one of those two categories.
- Cat:Screw (simple machine) is yet another category for screws in the abstract.
- Cat:Threading could be moved to something like Cat:Thread manufacturing to reduce confusion.
- —wqnvlz (talk · contribs); 19:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Would someone like to choose an alternative wikidata image that doesn't contain a bolt? -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Screws
big pussy 98.221.32.154 14:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
wide open pussy 98.221.32.154 14:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting deletion of the category? I'd be perfectly happy to see it go. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Um... yeah, the nomination seems less than serious, but I agree that this is not a category that is really useful, and the user who created it is notorious for creating piles and piles and piles of unhelpful content both here and at en.wp. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Some IP users seem to think that "categories needing discussion" means, "Let's talk about these naked women and make observations like those made by the first two entries on the page!" This is kind of ridiculous, seriously. This category was tagged for "Categories for discussion" last year, with more of that sort of thing ("long labia hurr durr"), see here Nude women sitting with... October 2020. And yes, Beeblebrox is correct, that the user who creates this 'unhelpful' content seems to create lots of it. Upon closer inspection, I see that almost none of it has ever been used in any Wikipedia entry, in any language, or on any Wikipedia sister projects. Let's get rid of this please?--FeralOink (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Unless there's a new "Wikiporn" I'm not aware of, this category is unlikely to be of any value for contributing to Wikimedia projects outside of a few possible edge cases. But isn't Commons supposed to be a general source of freely-reusable media? There are definitely conceivable cases where one might be looking for freely-reusable stock images of this specifically. Not all of them would necessarily be considered "decent" by popular standards, but I see them as valid use cases nonetheless, and even if you disagree, I don't think it's reasonable to assume no one would have any more "proper" use cases for this category. "Nude women watching television" or "Frogs sitting with legs wide open" would almost certainly be useless categories, but the act of sitting with legs wide open has a significant cultural association with nude women, so I don't see anything wrong with this category. Flarn2006 (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to delete this cat, especially considering its high number of viewers which is 72,796 only in Dec 2021 (ranked 10th among all pages on Commons). 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Note that the same category is also being discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/10/Category:Nude women sitting with legs wide open. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  No consensus | |||
| Actions | none | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:ŠJů) rational: this category to be merged with category:Outdoor gyms, because: "it seems to be a duplicate category tree with no clear distinction". Date: 28 September 2021 Estopedist1 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that. -- Geagea (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 and Geagea: Merged, can be closed. --ŠJů (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This category has already a redirect, so discussion can be closed.
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | None (was already Done) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Merge Category:NATO_JFTC_Bydgoszcz and Category:Joint Force Training Centre. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty by Jmabel. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
It is common practice on commons to respect a minimum of information naming a category and this is concerning art history the artist's name especially when creating a category for only one painting, which is with only three files redundant and disturbing the overview one gets by a greater cat of Liebermann Oursana (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- So, your problem is that the artist's name is missing from the name of the category? Why don't you move it to Category:Le Jardin de l'orphelinat de la ville d'Amsterdam (Max Liebermann) then? You are making a big fuss about almost nothing. --Edelseider (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I add that it is completely normal to have a Commons category for a single painting if there are several image files displaying it. I won't even name an example, there are literally hundreds of thousands of them. This is ridiculous. --Edelseider (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you had named this category correctly I had never moved the files. But sorry - if a - in my point of view useless category - has a bad naming I am not obliged to repair it and I prefer not to use it, as I will never support a category for only one painting with only three files. You are right, commons gets more and more full of it and as far as I remember you are usually not creating these small categories. But this is not the argument to make the same. It is much better to have your three files in the subcats, especially Gardens by Max Liebermann, there they are in good company with other paintings by Max Liebermann from the garden of the Amsterdam orphanage. Or at least I would propose a cat Paintings of the Garden of the Orphanage of the City of Amsterdam by Max Liebermann. I would be very happy if we could agree on this. Using Category:Le Jardin de l'orphelinat de la ville d'Amsterdam (Max Liebermann) works but will cause that other users think of it as Paintings of the Garden of the Orphanage of the City of Amsterdam by Max Liebermann. So my proposal is to create a more general cat not only for this painting. If you insist on the cat for this painting please add artist and museum, as there are many other paintings by Max Liebermann of this sujet to prevent a mass--Oursana (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- The category has been renamed now, as a consequence of your constant attacks on that painting (for which you should actually be banned). The discussion should thus be closed. @Túrelio: As an admin, could you close it now? Thank you. --Edelseider (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you had named this category correctly I had never moved the files. But sorry - if a - in my point of view useless category - has a bad naming I am not obliged to repair it and I prefer not to use it, as I will never support a category for only one painting with only three files. You are right, commons gets more and more full of it and as far as I remember you are usually not creating these small categories. But this is not the argument to make the same. It is much better to have your three files in the subcats, especially Gardens by Max Liebermann, there they are in good company with other paintings by Max Liebermann from the garden of the Amsterdam orphanage. Or at least I would propose a cat Paintings of the Garden of the Orphanage of the City of Amsterdam by Max Liebermann. I would be very happy if we could agree on this. Using Category:Le Jardin de l'orphelinat de la ville d'Amsterdam (Max Liebermann) works but will cause that other users think of it as Paintings of the Garden of the Orphanage of the City of Amsterdam by Max Liebermann. So my proposal is to create a more general cat not only for this painting. If you insist on the cat for this painting please add artist and museum, as there are many other paintings by Max Liebermann of this sujet to prevent a mass--Oursana (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: category renamed. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Mejor llamarla Category:Kantharaja Vamathevan in Facebbok. 191.119.69.77 12:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- not notable person. Most of the images are used at en:User:Kantharaja Vamathevan. I suggest to rename this category to Category:User:Kantharaja Vamathevan--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Done: deleted as empty by Taivo. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
no need as all files are already categorized under Category:Lingua Libre pronunciation-ory Psubhashish (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Nikki (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done: per nom. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:JiriMatejicek) rational: this category to be moved to category:Speculaas, because: "Apparently the same subject, different local name". Date: 16 September 2021 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Enwiki en:speculoos is a redirect to "speculaas". Wikidata has two separate items (Wikidata:Q6591 and Wikidata:Q107064986), and also noticing that these are not the same biscuits--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Dear @Estopedist and @JiriMatejicek , I agree with Estopedist, on the basis of empirical sensory and commercial marketing findings from fieldwork :-). Please don't confuse speculoos with speculaas: the recipes for these essential Belgian and Dutch cookies differ, so JiriMatejicek is mistaken in this expert field unfortunately, it is certainly not a matter of a "different local name". In a Dutch supermarket you'll find both speculoos and speculaas separately, but nearby in the cookie department. (To complicate matters further, there also exists speculade, a tasty combination of speculaas with chocolate: this also is definitely not a local name whatsoever for the other cookies.) The nutritional and social importance of speculoos, which is cheaper than speculaas, can hardly be overrated. Unfortunately the Wikimedia Foundation has not yet enabled the Commons:Taste module, which would immediately resolve this issue decisively for all Wikimedians. Thank you for bringing this crucial issue up, cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | None, both categories should stay because they are about different things | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||