Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/02

for active discussions dating from February 2023, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02.

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive February 2023

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

Category:Fingal

Rename Category:Fingal to Category:County Fingal to match other Irish counties (see County Kildare etc, under Counties of the Republic of Ireland) in compliance with the Universality Principle. . Josh (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably support and move Category:Fingal (disambiguation) in but note that the Wikipedia article is just at "Fingal". Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the official name of the county is 'Fingal'. It is a new creation unlike the traditional counties of Ireland which are usually prefixed 'County Foo'. The two other counties of the Dublin Region are also new and similarly do not carry the 'county' prefix. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged and Crouch, Swale: Thank you for that feedback. If this is the case, I'm happy to leave it as is. Side note (outside scope of CfD)--if the name is not to include "County", the Wikidata label at Fingal (Q520000) should be fixed to avoid future confusion. Thanks, Josh (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Joshbaumgartner: I've amended the Wikidata label. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Josh (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	none
Participants	Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Linyi Street

Useless category. Solomon203 (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete of Category:Linyi Street
Participants	Solomon203 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Чурбашская

ошибка при создании, надо удалить. kosun (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete of Category:Чурбашская
Participants	Kosun (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Taken with Canon EOS 550D and EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

This should have been named Category:Taken with Canon EOS 550D and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. I created another category with this name. Nv8200p (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete of Category:Taken with Canon EOS 550D and EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
Participants	Nv8200pa (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:ENI 070017312

Bitte löschen, Tippfehler GerritR (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete of Category:ENI 070017312
Participants	GerritR (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The beatiful german woman by Max Ernst

Empty category. Nominate for deletion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete of Category:The beatiful german woman by Max Ernst
Participants	Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Equal-Parallel: Guernica-Bengasi by Richard Serra

Nominate for deletion. Empty category Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete of Category:Equal-Parallel: Guernica-Bengasi by Richard Serra
Participants	Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anieta aryballos

Should be deleted - I misspelled the title (Aineta aryballos) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Peneterations through a building structure

please delete. misspelled, by me, just now, see Category:Penetrations through a building structure. Thank you! HTL-Mödchen23 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Deleted per nom. --Achim55 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Grange organizations and buildings in the United States

unnecessary category created by me, empty, i request deletion Doncram (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly thought this category was appropriate... I think it would be consistent with the corresponding category tree in Wikipedia but it is inconsistent with the existing category tree in Commons. I just want to make a "speedy-" type deletion request, there's nothing controversial requiring discussion. Perhaps I wasn't supposed to use tool at left hand side of the page which starts this discussion, instead? Please tell me if there's a simpler way to request deletion, and I'll record it for my future use.

Also please delete Category:Grange organizations and buildings in New Hampshire for same reason. --Doncram (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: You can. Simply add {{speedydelete|Author request}} to the categories, then {{withdraw}} to the deletion discussions. Heavy Water (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Withdrawn proposal
Actions	None
Participants	Doncram (talk · contribs) Heavy Water (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Best Wishes and Happy New Year 恭賀新禧

Useless category. Solomon203 (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete of Category:Best Wishes and Happy New Year 恭賀新禧
Participants	Solomon203 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Files with bad file names (needing expert attention)

I honestly don't know why we need a separate category for files with bad file names that "need expert attention". Actually, all files with bad file names needed attention from all Commons users A1Cafel (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed any more. I created this category Estopedist1 (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete of Category:Files with bad file names (needing expert attention)
Participants	A1Cafel (talk · contribs) Estopedist1 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it is empty and the user who created it with {{Empty category}} agrees with deletion, I'm going to call this one a speedy. Josh (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Canebière-Garibaldi (Tramway Marseille

bad name (faute d'orthographe ; aucun fichier, a été remplacée) Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The correct name is Category:Canebière-Garibaldi (Tramway Marseille). In future, @Fr.Latreille: , you can use template:bad name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll remember (I hooe!). Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-HOPE- Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Deleted, bad name. --rimshot^talk 12:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Vauxhall/Opel Vivaro and Movano models

I would like to propose renaming these categories to "Vivaro (2001)", "Vivaro (2014)" and "Vivaro (2019)" / "Movano <year>" respectively, I don't know where A, B and C have come from but these don't appear to be the official model names but I assume like the Mk 1 names this was done to disambiguate between the models however imho years would be better than alphabetical order/Mk 1/2/3, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi I've asked a few editors to comment, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaro/Movano Discussion

Along the same lines as my comments on the Peugeot Expert and Partner, I would use a standard brand-generation-year tiered hierarchy for these and definitely change the pseudo-names (A/B/C, Mk 1/2/3):

Category:Opel Vivaro (main category for the brand)
- Category:Opel Vivaro (first generation), Category:Opel Vivaro (second generation), etc. (category for each generation of the brand)
  - Category:2016 Opel Vivaro, Category:2017 Opel Vivaro, etc. (category for specific model years within each generation, only if the quantity of files is enough to make this level make sense)

The A/B/C and Mk 1/2/3 monikers in the current category names have to go as they appear like official names but they are not, AFAIK. Josh (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wouldn't have any problem with the first point as most bigger vans follow that generation style however regarding the second point there's definitely no van categories that I'm aware of that follow this naming style, In that respect I would say "Vivaro (2001)" should be chosen as this seems to be current naming style across the bigger van category, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Peugeot Expert I as the issue is essentially the same. Josh (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I closed the Expert 1 discussion as Withdrawn - Josh renominated these and the Expert models at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Peugeot Expert. –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

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

Peugeot Expert/Partner models

I would like to propose renaming these categories to "Expert (year)" // Partner (year) , Generally speaking all vehicles models use this format and as far as I'm aware these weren't called "Expert I", "Expert II" or for Partner models "Mk1" 2 etc etc,

I'm coming here instead of doing it myself as sods law says I'll do the necessary work and then someone will object and revert so I'd rather get consensus first, –Davey2010^Talk 01:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I agree that the existing titles seem a bit wrong, as they imply that these are official nomenclature, but as you state, they do not appear to be. There are three distinct generations of Jumpy/Expert and Berlingo/Partner brands, and it is normal to refer to them as 'first generation', etc. without giving the impression that those are official names. I think the (year) following the name is a bit of an odd formation and I would tend toward the more standard practice is adding the year ahead of the name. Thus I would lean towards something more along these lines:

Category:Peugeot Expert
- Category:Peugeot Expert (1st generation) (from Category:Peugeot Expert I)
  - Category:2001 Peugeot Expert, etc. (if specific model years are warranted...not sure we have enough images for this level of granularity)
- Category:Peugeot Expert (2nd generation) (from Category:Peugeot Expert II)
  - Category:2011 Peugeot Expert
- Category:Peugeot Expert (3rd generation) (from Category:Peugeot Expert III)
  - Category:2021 Peugeot Expert
Category:Peugeot Partner
- Category:Peugeot Partner (1st generation) (from Category:Peugeot Partner Mk1)

And so on, you can get the idea. Josh (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joshbaumgartner, Thank you so much for your comments,

Currently Category:Citroën Jumper, Category:Fiat Ducato, Category:Fiat Scudo, Category:Ford Transit, Category:Mercedes-Benz Sprinter and Category:Peugeot Boxer these are all done as "Model (year)" and the smaller vans are a mixture of everything (Mk1, I etc),

I'll be honest I actually see "model (1st generation)" as being a weird formation as generally speaking these are only used before "model (year) if the model shell has remained the same, There is definitely no consistency with the naming of these vehicles, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I see where you are coming from. That's a good point. I think it is fine if 'x generation' is replaced by a span of years, provided that the years are accurate. There can be issues with that, in that companies sometimes sell their generations over different periods in different markets, but that's a bit of a corner case. In general, I'm fine with something like Citroën Jumper (1994–2006) (except for the stupid long dash, but whatever) to represent a span of years over which the design is essentially similar. For specific model years, however, I would definitely stick with the 1974 Ford Mustang format. However, since it appears you are mainly focused on the generation level, not specific model years, your suggestion should be fine. There might not be a lot of consistency currently, but we should definitely seek to improve that. Could you perhaps recap what the renamed category structure would look like for at least one of these models, applying your suggestion for generation naming? Josh (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joshbaumgartner, I would be following the years given on the EN article(s),

My goal here is to move all models from "Mk1" and "I" to "Model (year)" (ie "Peugeot Expert (1995)")

None of the categories will have "Generation" in them nor will they be moved to Generation categories as I don't entirely understand it (I'm also afraid of going wrong and making a mess so would rather stick to what I know and understand and leave the rest for someone who gets it better than me), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Thank you for that additional clarification. I think the generations are well delineated in the EN article. I would firmly oppose the "Peugeot Expert (1995)" name as this is a confusing appellation that gives no idea what it actually means. Is it Peugeot Experts manufactured in 1995, Peugeot Experts of the body style introduced in 1995, Peugeot Experts photographed in 1995, or what? If it is a replacement for Peugeot Expert I, then go with Peugeot Expert (1995–2007) as at least there it is clear you are talking about series of model years which presumably are substantially of a similar body style. I am sure that there are a number of categories out there that are already poorly named with (year) appelations on them, just as there are a number with spurious 'Mk 1", etc. additions. That is not justification for spreading such malpractice. I wouldn't worry about making a mess, that is why we have discussions--your contributions and effort are much appreciated. Josh (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner, You're welcome, Ah that's a good point actually .... Okay so to further confuse more than I already have - If I were to create First, Second, Third Generation categories for each of the models - Could we settle with the one year categories (so Peugeot Expert (1995)", Peugeot Expert (2011)",) ?,

I agree we shouldn't spread malpractice but on the other hand it would look silly to have these in this new format and then ALL van models in the old format - I don't have the time or patience to start moving all van categories, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no one comments after a week then I'll stick with what we already have as not to ignore your comments but like I say I don't understand the whole generations part enough and I don't feel comfortable doing it tbh, Really there needs to be a wide discussion on the format here but like with previous RFCs I've done they've not garnered much interest so would really be a waste of time,

Thank you for your comments tho I do take them on board and will further explore other ways before moving them as I could well move them to Gen based categories, Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Regarding 'generations', that is just a general term I am using for a range of specifications that are broadly similar across several years of production. The term is widely used in automotive circles, but is neither official nor exclusive, and I do agree with using the range of years for which a generation is produced (e.g. 2005-2014) vs. an artificial generation title (1st generation, 2nd generation, etc.). As far as I am aware, the categories you nominated are already 'generation' categories, just badly named ones.

I am looking into more automotive categories and wow...I'm not thrilled with what I am finding. I do see where you are coming from as there does seem to be an adopted practice in some categories similar to what you are describing of naming a category for a 'generation' with a single year in parenthesis after the brand name (e.g. Ford Econoline (1961)). I do think this needs to change to (in that example) Ford Econoline (1961–1967), similar to the existing Citroën Jumper (1994–2006). On the other hand, I am also finding correctly ordered model year categories such as 1974 Ford Mustang. I have found several more egregious examples along the lines of adding A/B/C, Mk.1/2/3, I/II/III, etc. to the model name. There are those that use body codes or some other scheme to identify generations and trim levels. The fact is, it is all over the map. I do not want to focus exclusively on vans, as this issue is broader than that and I do not think we want to have vans done one way, trucks another, and cars a third way. I would not expect you alone to go make all of the changes required. It is okay if we decide on a proper format in a CfD and then it takes some time for it to percolate through the category tree. Josh (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go ahead and subsume your other discussion into this one, since I think the issue is essentially identical and the discussion applies to them both. Josh (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner I couldn't agree more - it is all over the place and it does need sorting but unfortunately Josh it will never happen,

We'll see, if anyone comments then okay but if not then I'll just move them to my desired name and you'd be welcome to start an RFC somewhere, Never thought I'd say this but between being the problem and doing something about it and not getting very far I think I would rather be the problem. I want to get my head around it and move the van side over but then the van side will stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest. Anyway thanks again for your comments –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Please do not give up hope! Things do get sorted out here, even if it seems it takes some time. I certainly hope that I am not beating you down here, that was not my intent. I really want to support your effort to improve these categories. Josh (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Opel Vivaro A is subsumed into this discussion as it covers the same topic for these additional nominated categories:

I support the following renames:

Rename Category:Opel Movano A to Category:Opel Movano (1998–2010)

Rename Category:Opel Movano B to Category:Opel Movano (2010–2021)

Rename Category:Opel Movano C to Category:Opel Movano (2021–)

Rename Category:Opel Vivaro A to Category:Opel Vivaro (2001–2014) (some evidence that A/B/C were actually used by the manufacturer, but not sure if this was at the time of sale or if it was back-naming)

Rename Category:Opel Vivaro B to Category:Opel Vivaro (2014–2018)

Rename Category:Opel Vivaro C to Category:Opel Vivaro (2019–)

Rename Category:Peugeot Expert I to Category:Peugeot Expert (1995–2007)

Rename Category:Peugeot Expert II to Category:Peugeot Expert (2007–2016)

Rename Category:Peugeot Expert III to Category:Peugeot Expert (2017–)

Rename Category:Peugeot Partner Mk1 to Category:Peugeot Partner (1996–2008) (may need to add Peugeot Partner Origin (2008–2013) for continuation of this generation past 2008)

Rename Category:Peugeot Partner Mk2 to Category:Peugeot Partner (2008–2018)

Rename Category:Peugeot Partner Mk3 to Category:Peugeot Partner (2018–)

Rename Category:Vauxhall Movano A to Category:Vauxhall Movano (1998–2010)

Rename Category:Vauxhall Movano B to Category:Vauxhall Movano (2010–2021)

Rename Category:Vauxhall Movano C to Category:Vauxhall Movano (2021–)

Rename Category:Vauxhall Vivaro Mk 1 to Category:Vauxhall Vivaro (2001–2014) (some evidence that 1/2/3 (not Mk 1/2/3) were actually used by the manufacturer, but not sure if this was at the time of sale or if it was back-naming)

Rename Category:Vauxhall Vivaro Mk 2 to Category:Vauxhall Vivaro (2014–2018)

Rename Category:Vauxhall Vivaro Mk 3 to Category:Vauxhall Vivaro (2019–)

Note, the current generations have a dash with no final year, indicating that they are still ongoing. Obviously years in the future when production has ceased, a single rename can cap it with the end year added (this is really a non-issue). Many vans and automobiles use this format and it does not clash with single year categories, but it does fix the 'fake' names of the current categories listed, so I advise going forward with this. Josh (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Davey2010: In the interest of improving the situation, I am okay with going forward with your single-year proposal if it gets us to the point where we can ditch the offensive current names of the categories. I do think that single-year notation has some unresolved issues, but those can be addressed later if you cannot bring yourself to the multi-year solution just yet. Josh (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Given the new proposed naming style I believe a community-wide RFC should be held on this as it would look silly having a few vans under this naming style and 99.9% of the rest under the current style, These should not be renominated as CFD isn't really equipped for complex things like this so I believe a community-wide RFC is the best way to go, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated by Josh at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Peugeot Expert. –Davey2010^Talk 17:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Garlic Chicken

Please delete this and make Garlic chicken 181.43.5.243 18:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: simple capitalization change - no discussion needed. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Monuments and memorials in Bellevue, Ohio

Mercys Larzibo 2600:1700:8720:12B0:C585:881A:FF94:2042 03:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain further, I am not sure what the issue is here. Josh (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	No proposal
Actions	none
Participants
Closed by	Josh (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jervis Bay

Rename Category:Jervis Bay to Category:Jervis Bay Territory better reflects actual usage and matches sub-cats to comply with the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. the natural landform and the administrative division are two things. each should have its own cat. RZuo (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename Category:Jervis Bay to Category:Jervis Bay Territory
Participants	RZuo (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lingua Libre pronunciation by Marvives

لأنه يخرق حقوق التأليف والنشر 1Bk ri (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you supply any evidence to support your statement that the files in that category are a violation of copyright? Thank you. DS (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: This is likely a retaliatory sock after I deleted a bunch of users' music-copyvio uploads. DMacks (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Vandalism. --Yann (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bridge (exercise)

i think this can redirect to Category:Back bridges. that's a better name because it's also possible to do "front bridge". but when people say bridge it usually refers to bending over backwards. RZuo (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support since at the moment all content are Back bridges. If content of 'front bridges' is found, we can worry about that then. Josh (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Merge Category:Bridge (exercise) into Category:Back bridges
Participants	RZuo (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Types of journalism

problematic title. RZuo (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title accepted by Wikipedia. --Allforrous (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Wikipedia accepts it is only relevant to Wikipedia, not Commons. Josh (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Types of journalism This is a pointless additional level between Category:Journalism and its contents. Upmerge contents to Category:Journalism. Josh (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: I am okay with deleting per above, but I could also see renaming this to Category:Journalism by type which at least would be an index category and fit with normal Commons categorization techniques. I still am not sold on the need for its existance, but what do you think? Josh (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's exactly the point. if this cat should exist, it should be ".. by type". but then it largely overlaps with the idea of Category:Journalism by field or Category:Journalism by genre (a redirect to ".. by field". so in any case "Types of journalism" should be deleted. ".. by type" should redirect to ".. by field".

i was tired of seeing Allforrous' copying enwp cats blindly. so many dont fit commons cat trees at all. RZuo (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: Agreed. It is understandable to want to create synergy between the wikis and commons categories, but ultimately, Commons categories serve a very different purpose, and beyond that enwiki is not the only wiki out there. We need to do what is right for Commons and not import enwiki categorizations that do not make sense for our system. Josh (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Delete Category:Types of journalism
Participants	Allforrous (talk · contribs) RZuo (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Repubblica Sociale Italiana

Rename Category:Repubblica Sociale Italiana to Category:Italian Social Republic to match English name and sub-cats in compliance with Hierarchic and Universality Principles. Josh (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename Category:Repubblica Sociale Italiana to Category:Italian Social Republic
Participants
Closed by	Josh (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Gisbert Penneke

Please merge this category with "Category:Gisbert Pennecke" because this redundant and the other one is the correcting spelling of his name. Thanks in advance. 109.76.97.207 00:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Raymond (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Medical isolation

Is this not the same as "quarantine" (Category:Quarantine) or "quarantine facilities" (Category:Quarantine facilities)? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, medical isolation is for ill people (medical), quarantine for people of whom there is no indication that they are ill, thus a preventive measure (policy, non-medical). Ymnes (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Thanks for clarifying. Closing this. (NB: There is probably content in "quarantine" that needs to be move, such as category:pest houses?). -- Deadstar (msg) 09:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed [1]

Ymnes (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Upper Khoda Afarin Bridge

I don't see evidence that of the bridge name here. According to footnote 10 on the English article, this is called "Synyg korpu" or broken bridge. This is double odd as a name since Khoda Afarin is far from the common used name overall. It seems like there is no evidence of an English-language version of the name? Pinging @Orijentolog and Golden: as the two editors who seem experienced here. Category:Lower Khoda Afarin Bridge seems related but I couldn't find any sources about it. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen "Upper" and "Lower" used to describe these bridges prior Orijentolog's renaming of the categories. They explained it as follows on my talk page: So, instead of chosing between these two choices, I picked up the neutral version with upper and lower, which can not be wrong.

English Wikipedia article refers to the bridges as 11-span bridge (Upper) and 15-span bridge (Lower). The previous names of the categories were similarly "Khudafarin bridge with 11 archs" and "Khudafarin bridge with 15 archs" — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 22:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synyg korpu in only Azerbaijani name, which can not be used since it's an international bridge. Ref-10 in English Wikipedia is both Azerbaijani and unprofessional, therefore not relevant. The most common naming in Azerbaijan is according to the number of arches, means 11-arched Khoda Afarin Bridge (Onbiraşırımlı Xudafərin körpüsü) for this one, as well as 15-arched Khoda Afarin Bridge for the lower one. This naming is also sometimes used in Iran (as Pol-e Yazdah Cheshmeh), although the official listed names are Smaller Khoda Afarin Bridge (Pol-e Kuchek-e Khoda Afarin), and Greater Khoda Afarin Bridge for the lower one. Therefore I picked up neutral naming as upper and lower, which can be find around (for example in Persian as Pol-e Khoda Afarin Bala). Another common naming in Azerbaijan is according to the century, but I strongly tend to ignore it since there are different dating in sources, and I haven't see it in Persian sources. Unfortunately, there is no much English literature about particular bridges, all detailed sources are Iranian and Azerbaijani. Golden, did you see "greater" and "smaller" naming in Azerbaijani sources? --Orijentolog (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synyg korpu in only Azerbaijani name, which can not be used since it's an international bridge. - I'm not advocating for the use of "Synyg korpu", but this logic is appalling. If you wanted all names to be neutral, why did you change every bridge and dam-related category to the Persian-only spelling of "Khoda Afarin" despite the fact that it is not the common name?

Golden, did you see "greater" and "smaller" naming in Azerbaijani sources? - I've never seen these words used to describe the bridges in Azeri.

What is the problem with naming the bridges after their spans or arches? It is a neutral, descriptive word that describes the significant difference between the two bridges in a neutral manner. This is unlike other alternatives that relate exclusively to a single country, such as "Synyg korpu," Greater vs. Smaller, and Upper vs. Lower. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 09:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: My objection about "Synyg korpu" was related to Ricky81682's comment. Per my yesterday's advice, I don't consider Khoda Afarin as Persian spelling or Khudafarin as Azerbaijani spelling, since both can be found in English-language literature, although the former is actually more common in academic publishing. If you claim these two ones are Persian and Azerbaijani, and that the latter one is common due to Azerbaijani English-language media, expect typical ethno-nationalistic disputes in future. But there's no need for it. Precisely for that reason I've sent you few fine books by the most reputable Iranologists who use the term you favor. R. N. Frye uses Khudafarin, also A. U. Pope uses Khuda Afarin, thus no one can claim it's exclusively Azerbaijani (both scholars knew only Persian and worked inside Iran). It's quite logical that if I'm in favor of keeping Khoda Afarin by any means, I would not mention it to you, and left you relying on media. And if I really wanted to canvass, I could ping ~10 users from Wikiproject Iran, active both on Commons and English Wikipedia. However, I did not do it. I'm sure that most of them would not open any book and would favor Khoda Afarin for the sole reason it's more natural for their mother language. So I asked opinion from just one who is a bibliophile and has tons of books. Two of Iran-related contributors appeared uninvited on your talk page and favored Khoda Afarin [2][3], and again, if I have personal preferences, I could claim that "community has reached consensus" and outvoted you. But in fact, I consider both arguments as invalid (sorry folks!). One is based on personal preference due to the mother tongue, other claims Khudafarin is only from Azerbaijani media, which I clearly disproved. Therefore I hope now you understand that your report of canvassing or "catching votes" is null valid. You were not initially aware of my true intentions, so I'm fine with it and I don't mind at all, as well as about those anachronistic data. I could also accuse you that your bridge-related editing violates broadly construed topic ban of conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, but I don't plan even to mention it at ANI. It would be a pure s*** throwing, it's irrelevant here.

Regarding the name, "greater" and "smaller" are pretty descriptive also, but if Azerbaijani sources don't use them at all as you say, we should exclude them as possibility. I tended to use titles which would be descriptive and different from two most common naming in Iran and Azerbaijan, as neutral ones, so I was considering between northern/southern and upper/lower, but the latter form is more frequent when it generally comes about dams, bridges and so on. That's the first possibility. Still, I have no objection about span-naming as other possibility. To be helpful once again: despite the fact that official listed name in Iran is Smaller Khoda Afarin Bridge (Persian: پل کوچک خداآفرین, Pol-e Kuchek-e Khoda Afarin), inside the PDF file there's a frequent usage of 11-arched Khoda Afarin Bridge (Persian: پل ۱۱ چشمه‌, Pol-e Yazdah Cheshmeh). It's on PDF's page 23, doc's page 47, then again bellow illustration on PDF's page 25, and again three times on PDF's page 28, doc's page 51, and latter again. So again no one can say it's an exclusively Azerbaijani term. Now to disapprove Ricky81682's claim I'm not cooperating, I'll leave him to decide. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the relevance of my canvassing report to this discussion, so I will not respond to your first paragraph. Except for the last part: if you believe my editing of the Khudafarin bridges article violates my topic ban on conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, please do report me in any way you see fit. Note, however, that the banning administrator specifically clarified that I may edit any articles that relate to military conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan so long as I don't change the sentences that do. Consequently, you may wish to evaluate your chances of success in light of this.

Regarding the bridge names, if official Iran also employs the arch/span designations, I believe we have a clear answer as to which names to select. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: As I said, I don't plan even to mention it there, so I mentioned it here. Not relevant in any case.

As for the name, no objections. Just I would like that Ricky81682 tell us does he favor that he change all three to Khudafarin here and also what's the best variant: 11-arched KA Bridge, 11-span KA Bridge, or Eleven-Arch KA Bridge (like Eight-Arch Bridge)? --Orijentolog (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero idea. I am pointing out there is a sourced name and no where is "Upper" is used and you haven't responded about that other than a page-long creed that seems irrelevant to me. It is bizarre to use this name when "Khoda Afarin" is not that common. You presume that we are using KA and point to 'Iranologists' for the name of a bridge. You saying "this is found somewhere" isn't the same as actually pointing out the sources and I don't care to read extensive lengthy random talk page discussions to guess what other random (or canvassed) editors think. If you want to include people, ping them but do it in a neutral way and have them discuss it here. Otherwise, learn to be concise because these tactics of lengthy prose about all the people you could ping and canvass here (as if that's a good thing) and the numerous sources you claim to have but never produce to anyone other than vague hand-waiving about "these guy and I have read thousands of books so trust us anonymous editors who say we have read thousands of books on this subject and know that this long dead scholar would never, ever, ever use this name to describe this bridge." It is bridge. I presume there are signs somewhere that say what the bridge name is that is more helpful than reading PDFs of "Iranarchpedia", whatever that is, and your vague statements that a scholar who died in the 1960s used as the name for a bridge built hundreds of years ago. In my mind, we need a relevant coherent name that is used today, not a debate about what scholars would technically think it should have been called or what national government prefer because they want to fight each other. In the end, all the other variations should just redirect to a simple name. I shot a suggestion that bizarrely no one has mentioned before and your response boils down to "I can make this a mess because I can ping a bunch of people from the Iranian WikiProject and win because they are nationalists" which is your right. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: , point by point:

I did not presume we're using "Khoda Afarin" for good, therefore at the end I asked you are you in favor of changing three titles (quote: "I would like that Ricky81682 tell us does he favor that he change all three to Khudafarin here"), despite it's not a common name in Western academic publishing.
When I say that "Khoda Afarin" is more common than "Khudafarin" in Western academic publishing, it's a fact and there's nothing bizarre about it. For example, it was claimed that Google Scholar gives 29 results for the former and 21 for the latter. In fact, when we exclude Azerbaijani and Iranian authors and publications, as well as publications which don't even mention bridges, result is actually 11-1. The similar case is with Google Books when you exclude travelogues, tourist brochures, books about literature, and other non-scholarly material irrelevant to history, architecture and archaeology. Correct ratio is far from 269-219 in favor of "Khudafarin", it's actually cca 70-20 in favor of "Khoda Afarin". That's what I got by checking books one by one. I'm not saying this as my "not-a-step-back" argument in favor of keeping the current spelling, but as a friendly advice to both: if you claim facts are "bizarre", someone may assume bad faith and accuse you of manipulating with sources.
When I point to Iranologists, I point to the most reputable Western scholars of Iranian studies who actually used the term "Khudafarin" (or "Khuda Afarin"). Therefore I'm fine with such term. Frye and Pope were really the leading experts and if someone argue that their word worth more than 70 other books, I can accept it. So if you Ricky favor that we change all three names to "Khudafarin" to fit with English Wikipedia, I'll rename it myself.
Iranarchpedia is an official website of Encyclopedia of Iranian Architectural History.
Once again, I don't plan to ping anyone if I know he's not familiar with the naming in academic publishing. It was far from a sort of threat.
Don't worry about other variations, inside Wikidata I already put numerous English, Persian and Azerbaijani namesakes. If someone search even minor Azerbaijani and Persian terms, this page and relevant photos will jump out.
There's simply no English common name for this bridge, unfortunately, it very rarely even mentioned. But if both Azerbaijani and Iranian official cultural documents use span-related naming (either as primary or secondary), and appear in some scholarly publications [4], we can change it according to it. No objections. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say that but I have found one usage of it in English. No one has explained why the Azerbaijani name is inappropriate. The only comment was from Orijentolog that it "can not be used since it's an international bridge" with no explanation as to why we should then defer to the Iranian history. It is a name and from what I can tell, a semi-contemporaneous name for the bridge. Just because you can pull random PDFs from Iranian scholars about what they would call the bridge isn't my point. I honestly don't care what name various academics think this bridge was called in the 13th century if nobody today calls it that and I refuse to believe that the only information about a bridge is Iranologist academics for a bridge that literally no one can agree on a name about. Rather than pull random PDFs in foreign languages, I see that the Azerbaijan submission to UNESCO (for what that is worth) in English uses the 11-span and 15-span terminology but amusingly to me, distinguishes them as 11-span one in the west and the 15-span one in the east (rather than this made-up Upper and Lower) with the term "the broken bridge" also coming up again. Knowing that this is merely a submission from the Azerbaijan government, I have significant reasons to question it but I don't see an Iranian equivalent which tells me the name which argumentative isn't so off the wall that there is UNESCO drama about the name. (This submission refers to "Khoda Afarin" which I presume is the Iranian term for both bridges but it is a very broad proposal for bridges in a different province. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, @Orijentolog you moved this page to Upper one week ago and in this full page of whatever this is you have yet to provide a single source or explanation for "Upper" and instead fight about "Khudafarin" or "Khuda Afarin" and other time wastes. I do not care about your childish attempt to argue the English language fight here on Commons so don't try it. Don't think I don't notice that you are completing avoiding the very basic question of why did you pick this current name for the thing. The arch numbers have a basis in usage and was the set name since 2014. The Upper/Lower terms require an explanation that should be better than "I made it up and moved stuff around because I wanted to and I am irritating everyone with other arguments to avoid admitting I make this all up." Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: I'm not avoiding anything, I've already answered above: I tended to use titles which would be descriptive and different from two most common naming in Iran [smaller] and Azerbaijan [11-span], as neutral ones, so I was considering between northern/southern and upper/lower, but the latter form is more frequent when it generally comes about dams, bridges and so on. You objected, so again I've dug sources and found out that span-related naming also appears in Iranian official documents, in scholarly publications, etc. Therefore renaming to span terminology is absolutely valid and no one can latter say that we favored Azerbaijani terminology. You're for it, so is Golden, and no objections from my side.

When I was saying only Azerbaijani name, which can not be used since it's an international bridge it referred only to Synyg korpu. The same argument would stay for Persian non-translated equivalent Pol-e Shekasteh, in both cases meaning the Broken Bridge. But I didn't even see such usage in Persian sources, like Golden didn't see smaller/larger usage in Azerbaijani sources, so we should exclude both as possibility. Regarding the western/eastern, it's also not found in Iranian sources, and it's pretty wrong because "western" is actually northern, in strict geographical sense.

It's correct when you say that Iranian sources use more Khoda Afarin and Azerbaijani sources Khudafarin, but that's pretty irrelevant since both are established terms in English scholarly literature. There are also opposite local examples, one Azerbaijani scholar uses Khodafarin and some Iranian media uses Khudafarin. After all, Azerbaijani bridges and places on Commons use names in their own Latin alphabet (e.g. Cavanşir körpüsü), so no one can claim Khudafarin is in favor of Azerbaijan. Once again, I prefer Khoda Afarin for the simple reason it's more common in professional publications, but if you prefer we keep unification with English Wikipedia and rename all, again no objections from my side. It's also a valid English scholarly term.

I did not come here for childish arguing, when I was saying typical ethno-nationalistic disputes I was not referring to Golden, you or me, but to already experienced vandalisms, Artsakh-related edit warring, etc. I appeared here for the sole reason, as you say, it's a bridge. One among 132 of them. The same goes for the namesake dam and reservoir, one among 128 dams and 73 lakes respectively. Most of them related to 273 rivers. That's 606 sites in total and I arranged absolutely everything on both Commons and Wikidata. Naming, identifying photos, finding sources, geo- and cultural IDs, technical details, admin units, watersheds etc. I'm not stating this to play some wannabe-authority on the subject, just to show you that mine intentions here are purely related to accuracy and reliability, nothing else.

Many thanks for both UNESCO's links, I haven't noticed it before because I was mostly searching on Google Scholar & Books. I'll include its data in infoboxes today. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is clear, so I will rename this category "11-span Khudafarin bridge" and rename the other "15-span Khudafarin bridge". @Orijentolog: Do you have any objections to changing the names of the dam and reservoir categories to align with those of the bridges? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: please wait, I would like that Ricky tell us what's the best English variant, for example it can also be Eleven-Arch Khudafarin Bridge. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Thoughts? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support writing out numbers when starting a category but that's just a preference so Category:Eleven-Arch Khudafarin Bridge works for me. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're all in agreement, I've moved the categories. This discussion can now be closed. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 06:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden & Ricky81682: Agreement reached, categories moved. Therefore closing. --Orijentolog (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Educational organisations in Bangladesh

Move contents to Category:Educational organizations in Bangladesh per Category:Organizations of Bangladesh. 129.242.129.238 09:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason? This category contains numerous sub category. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 13:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Educational organisations in Bangladesh to Category:Educational organizations in Bangladesh @Moheen: I do not know the OP rationale, but I agree with the rename as it would be in accordance with the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for renaiming. Thanks. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 08:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed per discussion. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Repubblica Transpadana

Rename Category:Repubblica Transpadana to Category:Transpadane Republic as English in compliance with the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename Category:Repubblica Transpadana to Category:Transpadane Republic
Participants
Closed by	Josh (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British people of English descent

This category is not needed as almost all British people are of English descent one way or another. Therefore it just duplicates Category:People of the United Kingdom, or even Category:People of England. Place Clichy 01:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge/delete. People of the United Kingdom (British people) in no way specifies the ethnicity or descent of the people. It merely means any citizen or resident of the United Kingdom, of which millions are not of English descent. Josh (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:British people of English descent to Category:People of the United Kingdom of English descent per the Universality Principle to match parent, as Category:British people is a redirect to Category:People of the United Kingdom. Josh (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"British people of English descent" = Category:English people = People of England? RZuo (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: Not exactly, but you bring up a problem with the existing system. So British people = People of the United Kingdom which are defined as citizens or residents of the United Kingdom. However, English people = People of England (good so far, but here's the rub:) which are defined as an ethnic group native to England. In my opinion, this is a violation of the Universality Principle, as we have two "People of Country" categories but they illustrate two very different relationships between the people and the country. One is a relationship based on legal citizenship and residence while the other is based on ethnic identity. Overlap notwithstanding, these are two very different ways of defining a who does or does not belong and thus the conflict that we should resolve. The citizenship/residence definition is superior for "People of country" categories for grouping people that live in a given country. Countries are legal entities and their citizens and residents are not limited to a given ethnic group, nor does their ethnic group define their citizenship or residence status (yes some countries do include ethnicity requirements, but even those have not been wholly exclusive in their effect). Thus we should have two different tracks:

"People of Country" -- defined as people who are citizens or residents of the given country.
"People of ethnic group" -- defined as people who are members of the given ethnic group or heritage.

Personally I am not a fan of the latter one as it seems begging for trouble, but so long as we are grouping people by ethnicity, let's be clear that is a completely different criteria than grouping by country and the two should not be confused. Josh (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i guess i can sum it up like this:

there're basically three things related to a specific person at a specific location. take "obama drinking coffee at a cafe in paris, france" for example.

nationality/citizenship = american (USA)

ethnicity = african american

location = france

if we look at Category:People of France, it basically mixes all three together. its subcats include (1) Births in France‎, Passengers in France... related to the location (2) French diaspora‎... related to the ethnic group (3) Politicians of France... related to the country/state/sovereignty.

this is the problem we have on commons.

(i use france as an example because england is even more complicated. england is a component country of uk the state.)--RZuo (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

coming back to the cat in question.

its scope is people who hold the citizenship of "uk" (nationality) and have english (ethnic group) ancestry.

i think the current commons practice is, for the cat handling nationality/citizenship and location, we are using "people of country/city/whatever location", but for the cat handling ethnic group, we dont have a standard naming format yet. examples:

under Category:Ethnic groups by name, we have Albanians‎ Batak‎ Slavs‎... without the word "people", but also Finno-Ugric peoples‎. under Category:People by ethnicity, most subcats are "xx people".

so i guess, the final solution is, "People of England" will be used as the cat for all people related to england in some way, "English people" for the ethnic group.

the cat in question will be as you suggested, "People of the United Kingdom of English descent". RZuo (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZou: I think you are right on the idea of "People of country" meaning a catch-all for anyone related to the country in some way. This is actually consistent with use of the relation 'of' in other topics as well, while other relations such as 'in' or 'from' are then sub-categories of 'of'. I would actually support such a structure (using France as an example):

Category:People of France -- intersectional category between People and France covering all types of relationships
1. Category:Births in France -- limited by relationship in that their birth event occurred in France (as defined at the time of their birth) -- (or people born in France)
  1. Category:Births of people of Germany in France or Category:People of Germany born in France
2. Category:Deaths in France -- same as births...but for deaths of course (of Category:People died in France)
  1. Category:Deaths of people of Germany in France or Category:People of Germany died in France
3. Category:Citizens of France -- people who hold French citizenship (maybe Category:Residents of France to include citizens and other legal residents?)
  1. Category:Citizens of France in Germany
4. Category:People in France -- people actually located in France (Obama in your example above) -- this should only be the media or categories specifically within the country, not the person's whole category (even if they always lived there).
  1. Category:People of Germany in France
5. Category:People in service of France -- people conducting official activities on behalf of the country (military, government, police, etc.)
6. Category:People of French descent -- people descended from French heritage (ethnically French?)
  1. Category:People of French descent in the United Kingdom -- intersection of 4 and 5 above

Ethnic groups pose an additional wrinkle. The first 4 above are based on objective criteria such as place of birth, where an photo was taken, what a passport says, etc. Ethnic groups are bit more amorphous though. Even naming can be a challenge. As you note, it is common for "Adjective people" to be used for an ethnic group, and as an arbitrary method this can work okay, but still has issues. It is fine for say Celtic people since there is no country named "Celtia" or some such to confuse it with (though maybe they are fans or members of the Boston Celtics?), but it is more of a problem when we get to something like French people, since there is of course a country France that this gets confused with. Are French people = People of France or more accurately = People of French descent?

At any rate, I am fine with the structure above or some facsimile thereof. I just don't want us conflating countries with ethnic groups or vice-versa. Josh (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Rename Category:British people of English descent to Category:People of the United Kingdom of English descent
Participants	Place Clichy (talk · contribs) RZuo (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:St. Joseph Academy (St. Augustine, Florida)

Rename Category:St. Joseph Academy (St. Augustine, Florida) to Category:St. Joseph Academy (St. Johns County, Florida) per original move request by WhisperToMe: "Not actually in the St. Augustine city limits (compare to the address 155 State Road 207 St. Augustine FL 32084) - Despite the "St Augustine FL" address it is outside the city limits"

Weak oppose I am not necessarily opposed to this rename, but dab info is designed to give a quick and concise identifier to help differentiate the category from similarly named topics. This academy is commonly thought of and referred to as being in St. Augustine, so the dab is correct to use that in the dab. I understand that it may lay just outside city limits, but cities have a multitude of ways to delineate them, and administrative boundaries such as city limits are only one. In the United States, it often gives people a clearer picture of where something is to refer to the city/town it is part of even if technically it is on county land just outside of the city limits. Since dab info is not designed to strictly adhere to or describe the exact legal location of a topic (just as we don't simply put coordinates there), but instead to give the easiest and quickest note to let the user know which St. Joseph Academy this category applies to, I would not apply the exact city limit in this case. "St. Jo Academy in St. Augustine" readily identifies where this place is and "St. Jo Academy in St. Johns County" just raises the question 'where the heck is St. Johns County', so I would stick to the former. Josh (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding "but cities have a multitude of ways to delineate them" : The way the Census Bureau collects statistics is by what is in the formally defined city limits. The maps and data on English Wikipedia pages are by the actual city limits, not by a popular belief of what a community thinks a city "is" (which often cannot be strictly defined). While I understand it's important to communicate quickly information to somebody, I argue that it's more important to be precise. Wikipedia uses the Census Bureau information, which is the city limit boundaries, or census designated place boundaries, and in my opinion information on the Commons needs to communicate to people the particulars of such. Additionally, sticking to the formal boundaries would cut down disputes of whether something is in "this place or that place". There are many places with "Falls Church, VA" addresses but they are in Fairfax County (in Virginia cities and counties are separate), and people may dispute whether a location is on one place or another (as CDPs and popularly-believed locations and mailing addresses may intersect). Sticking to formal boundaries would help delineate this.

BTW, on why these technicalities are important: the CDC and Emory University may have been associated with Atlanta, but they were never a part of the city until the big 2018 annexation (and this annexation became a big news story). I believe Commons users need to learn about these matters.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that St. Joseph Academy (Florida) might be a better title because it totally sidesteps the technicality on where it is really located. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: I like it, if there is only on St. Joseph Academy in Florida, there really isn't any need to go any deeper. Josh (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I did a quick Googling and it seems to be the only one in the state. If there's no objections I'd like the name St. Joseph Academy (Florida). WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Rename Category:St. Joseph Academy (St. Augustine, Florida) to Category:St. Joseph Academy (Florida)
Participants	WhisperToMe (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comedy television programmes

Merge Category:comedy television programmes into Category:comedy television series per original move request by EurekaLott: "merge duplicate categories". Josh (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Television series is a sub-category of Television programmes and thus we should retain this structure for comedy programming per the Universality Principle, with Comedy television series remaining a sub-category of Comedy television programmes. I understand that some things under the latter may need to move to the 'series' sub-category if they are actual Television series and not just Television programmes but the categories should be retained separate as they are not equal sets. Josh (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	No consensus
Actions	Keep Category:Comedy television programmes
Participants	EurekaLott (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Millennium Park

Since there are multiple categories, for places called "Millenium Park", and all the others are disambiguated, why in the name of heck isn't the Chicago one disambiguated?

Don't tell me it is because the Chicago one is obviously the most important one. That is parochial.

Why isn't Category:Millenium Park a disambiguation page? Why isn't there a Category:Millenium Park, Chicago, listed on that disambiguation page, with all the other categories for a Millenium Park? Geo Swan (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Well it should be dabbed:

Rename Category:Millenium Park to Category:Millenium Park, Chicago , then
Disambiguate Category:Millenium Park

Josh (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in complete agreement. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be a dab. I just found an image there that's for something in Scotland. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed and disambiguated per discussion. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:USFS files uploaded by Tyler de Noche (temp)

Empty category by sock-puppet Ooligan (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of Category:USFS files uploaded by Tyler de Noche (temp) Josh (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:USAF files uploaded by Tyler de Noche (temp)

Empty category by sock-puppet A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:USGov files uploaded by Tyler de Noche (temp)

Empty category by sock-puppet A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Plant files uploaded by Tyler de Noche (temp)

Empty category by sock-puppet A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:USAgriculture files uploaded by Tyler de Noche (temp)

Empty category by sock-puppet A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Embassy files uploaded by Tyler de Noche (temp)

Empty category by sock-puppet A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ekushey Wiki gathering 2023, Rajshahi

Empty category need removal Nahid Hossain (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Kept and fixed the broken link. --Achim55 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Nude or partially nude 76-year-old human males

Delete category, only example of this topic by exact age, do we really need this? Josh (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner This category contains exactly one file: Full erection of circumcised 76-year-old.jpg. Another user removed this file from the category Male humans by age, so logically, I should have added it to 76-year-old human males. But, as I understand it, that violates the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain. It is also my understanding that diffusing files into (possibly small) ‘nude or partially nude’ subcategories is the accepted solution.

Or at least it was, until you started trying to get rid of the entire ‘nude or partially nude people’ category tree. So what is your solution to the principle of least astonishment issue? Brianjd (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianjd: You are correct, it probably should not be directly under 76-year-old human males (see POLA). It seems like the only purpose of this category is retain the noted file under the 76-year-old human males, but not directly so in order to meet POLA. My wonder is if it is even necessary? We don't bother to do this for any other age that I can see, so I am not seeing the need to create a special category just to allow this file to go under 76-year-old human males. Nude and partially nude people images are sorted by general age group, but not exact age, and that seems good enough for the topic. Josh (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	No consensus
Actions	no consensus to delete
Participants	Brianjd (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Retail formats

What is the difference between Category:Retail formats and Category:Retail by type? Can these two categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Not seeing a difference in content, except that Retail formats (topical category) has files, which would be prohibited in Retail by type (meta-category). However, it seems that the categories under Retail formats could go to Retail by type while the files upmerge to the parents Retailing/Retailers. Josh (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous, before you make a lot of changes in a category for which a Discussion page has been made, I would prefer that you first join the discussion and make the changes afterwards, if they then would still be appropriate. Yesterday, when I made this Discussion page, Category:Retail formats was rather clear and concise, but now there are a lot of subcategories that I think do not belong there (you added a lot of subcategories that are also in Category:Shops by type). I would rather have discussed that first. So please, give here your opinion about the definition of this category, mention why all those extra subcategories should be here and indicate what the differences are with Category:Retail by type. --JopkeB (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Retail by type must be merged into Category:Retail formats. --Allforrous (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Category:Retail by type must be merged into Category:Retail formats?

And please stop editing categories involved in this discussion!! See User talk:Allforrous#Stop editing categories involved in a discussion! for the continuation of this remark. JopkeB (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both categories have the same meaning and can be merge. Since in over a month there is here no reason added why these two categories should not be merged, nor why Retail formats should be kept, I'll close this discussion and merge both categories. I kept Category:Retail by type because it has two subcategories "by type". --JopkeB (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Cleaning up Category:Retail formats, moving the rest to Category:Retail by type and making a redirect Done
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs) Allforrous (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ehem. Schloß (Deutenhofen)

duplicate of Category:Schloss Deutenhofen Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bin mit Änderung einverstanden.

Der Status "Ehemals" muss nicht unbedingt in der Cat erscheinen K.Baas (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted as empty category, without redirect (unlikely search term). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Portraits by Juan Laurent

Rename Category:Portraits by Juan Laurent to Category:Portrait photographs by Juan Laurent per original move request by Albertomos: Laurent era fotógrafo de profesión, los grabados e ilustraciones que aquí aparecen son reproducciones realizadas a partir de sus fotografías. (CfD started by Josh (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Keep as not all contents are photographs. Instead, recommend making Category:Portrait photographs by Juan Laurent a subcategory of Category:Portraits by Juan Laurent and moving only the actual photographs to this sub-category. Josh (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Which ones aren't photographs? The first two look like drawings, but the descriptions say "Ritratto fotografico" (photographic portrait) and the text on the image says "Fotografia de Laurent" (photograph/photography of Laurent); they might be reproductions of photographs. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Yes, those are the two in question. I don't have the source material, so I don't suppose I can say for sure, but they certainly appear to be drawings. You might be right and they could be drawings of photographs, as that is what the clues you mention seem to imply. I don't know if we have a category for 'drawings based on photographs' or 'drawings of photographs'. However, I have to admit that I can't do more than educated guesswork (and not terribly well educated at that), so if you (or someone else) feel confident they are indeed photographic at some level, I will withdraw my keep vote. Josh (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. Only 2 uncertain images which may well be based on photos as mentioned. And category deleted since it now is empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Praça Padre Gregório de Nadal

Rename Category:Praça Padre Gregório de Nadal to Category:Praça Padre Gragório De Nadal (Porto Alegre, Brasil) per original move request by Mdaniels5757: required text reason.

Question @Mdaniels5757 and Sturm: Why does this category require dab information? I am not finding any other categories under the current name. Josh (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paz e bem!

1 É uma localidade muito pequena, mesmo moradores de Porto Alegre, nem a conhecem e menos ainda sabem seu nome.

2 Incluir esta informação seria um exagero? Seria prejudicial? Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eugenio Hansen, OFS: Well met! Those are both good points that go beyond just this discussion:

The purpose of Commons category disambiguation (see COM:DAB) is three-fold:

First, to ensure each category has a unique name.
Second, to ensure files and other categories are correctly categorized under the correct topic.
Third, to ensure that users searching for a particular name can most quickly arrive at the correct topic.

Thus, the size of a topic or how well it is known is not really a factor. Disambiguation is only added if there is another category on a different topic that goes by the same name. We sometimes may include such dab info if that second topic is not yet on Commons, but may be still a point of confusion (e.g. two towns by the same name even if we only currently have media for one of them). In this case, the base name is already unique, there is no likelihood that someone will attempt to place media here which really belongs elsewhere based on the name matching some other topic, and if a user is already looking up "Praça Padre Gregório de Nadal", they will not need the additional dab info to get to the right category. Thus this category meets none of the purposes of disambiguation information.

As for your second point, you are probably right that in this limited instance, including disambiguation information, even if it serves no purpose, does not create a great harm. However, like many bad practices, it isn't the negative of a single instance that is a real problem, but instead the impact of such practice spreading and adding up in quantity. Instead, far better to maintain clean names aligned with category naming policy rather than make exceptions that may not seem that bad in isolation, but which lack any compelling reason. Josh (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: adding unnecessary disambiguation and thereby lengthening the category name is unhelpful. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anna LaGrange

Merge Category:Anna LaGrange into Category:Anna de La Grange per original move request by Dsp13: "I think these may be the same people"

Neutral I do not know enough to verify this and complete the move request, so posting as a CfD for further comment on whether they are the same and which name is correct. Josh (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it appears to me the same person too. The photographs in the first category were taken in the U.S. sometime between 1860 and 1870, at which time she was there according to her article at fr.wp. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Regions of Armenia

Rename Category:Regions of Armenia to Category:Provinces of Armenia to reflect their actual nomenclature. Josh (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The actual provinces are at Category:Provinces of Armenia already. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lluís de Santàngel

I would like to move this to Category:Luis de Santángel, which reflects his Spanish-language name. The use of the single "l" in his first name is found in every Latin-character language Wikipedia article on him except Catalan, and WikiData uses "Luis de Santángel" as his name. I don't see why the Commons category should be named as it currently is given how this person is referenced worldwide. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom, with redirect. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Political people from the Ottoman Empire

Duplicate of Category:Politicians of the Ottoman Empire Robby (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Forever Resorts

Category represents a businesss unit that no longer exists. Per [5], these properties are now affiliated with en:Aramark, so the items in this cat should move to Category:Aramark and this cat itself deleted. DMacks (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technically, this should remain in place. It did exist, and the contents were part of it up to April 2022. It can now be listed as a former company instead of a current one, but the history should not be erased. I have added it to Aramark for the moment, as they have acquired it, but it may be more correct to add these properties to a new Aramark Destinations (under Aramark) to which additions or deletions can be made as Aramark moves forward, all while maintaining the historical entity Forever Resorts with the properties that it comprised listed there. Josh (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: per User:Josh. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Views from quarry in Kozy

This category's files were moved to "Views from the Kozy quarry" in order to systematize categories' names. Tabrus (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect. Josh (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: could be useful redirect. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Most populous cities of the world

Commons categories are not Wikipedia lists and categories like "most populous cities", "tallest buildings", "highest mountains" don't make any sense. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Reasonable to have a template to make it easy to navigate from one of these to the others, not an appropriate Commons category. Might be possible to salvage as something like Category:Cities with population over 4 million. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We also have categories like Million cities and Megacities. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is not a list of cities over 4 millions, but a list of 100 cities (broad term defined using urban geography and not administrative limits) listed by wellknown source (that list was introduced in 2020 by User:DanielPenfield, I updated it with refreshed data for 2021). There are a bit more than 100 cities because of history of such sources, where some cities ranked higher than before and reached the top 100. Those that are no longer in the top 100 have not necessarily reduced in population, just grown a bit slower than the new ones in the top 100. How many cities are included ? Not all those with over 4 millions inhabitants, the threshold is evolving over time. The concept of "top 100" is important in Wikimedia as it allows locating topics that are insufficiently covered (see also the Wiki99 project) because of existing biases that should be solved to take into account the effective needs and usage by including at least most peoples in the world, in as many cultures as possible, to increase their mutual interaction and exchange of knowledge (even if this requires using some other major languages that are not necessarily the few major languages used as prefered work languages in major international institutions). As well we dno't care it about exact administrative boundaries, but about urban development in the world (som of the cities are listed even if they encompass multiple municipalities: the administrative structure is quite arbitrary and evolves in incoherent ways depending on countries and regions, with political biases that we most probably want to avoid). Those megapoles have in afct a very complex administrative structure and various legal statuses. However this does not limit Wikiemdia to also categorize existing (and evolving) administrative units but for most people the effective urban geography is more important ion their daylife than the administrative structures (that they often don't like or with which they disagree). Multiple official geographic institutions define and use an urban geography, as it is very useful for planning purposes, management of resources, transportation, services, or environmental issues (the administrative structures are always late, everywhere, to take into account the real needs and impacts, many of them exist for historic reasons and become obsolescent over time much more rapidly than the effective urban geography). verdy_p (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I 100% agree that a list of some number of cities by whatever criteria can be a very valuable list to maintain. Categories are not lists. I 100% disagree with categorizing every topic under every list that it might be a member of. Josh (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone else. Like Sbb1413 says, Commons categories aren't Wikipedia lists or categories. That's for a reason. What works on Wikipedia might not work well on Commons, this being a good example of where a 1/1 recreation of how Wikipedia does something clearly isn't a good way for us to do it. Same goes for categorizing every topic under every list that it might be a member of. Lets not do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{Most populous cities of the world}} should also be deleted if the category is deleted. Pinging @Jmabel, Verdy p, Joshbaumgartner, and Adamant1: . Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sbb1413: Absolutely not. As I said above, the template is entirely reasonable, but the category is not. If we remove the category, we should remove the category from the template, but the template itself should stay. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  If the template should stay, it should be renamed to something like "megacities" (to match Megacities) instead of the vague "most populous cities of the world". Another suggestion is to follow {{US cities}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it really matters as much what the template is named, and probably outside the scope of a CfD to worry about. I just agree that the category should be deleted, independent of any template's existence. The rules for navboxes (do we even have any policies for these) are not the same as for categories, so it does not follow that one's fate should beget the other's. Josh (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. The template and category are separate issues. It doesn't automatically follow that the template should be deleted if the category is. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per a pretty solid consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Texas Ranch to Market shields (PNG)

The category is now empty, and it won't be refilled after Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Texas Ranch to Market shields (PNG). Imzadi 1979 → 23:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted as empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Behavioural and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence

metally disored act 2A00:23C5:E9A3:7301:2D33:2F79:E3C:2F7C 05:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question Please explain what the issue is and if you have a proposed solution. Josh (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: closing discussion - no definition of issue or intention. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fabian Roudra Baroi

Delete; non-notable topic, created as autobiography and self-promotion. Elizium23 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Images by" can stay as a {{User category}} and "Quality images by" as a subcat below that. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm contributing regularly to Wikimedia commons with my photography since January, I want to make it organized. In these 2 months I uploaded around 500 images and almost 50 of them are QI. Also, I have almost more than 3000 photos that I'll be uploading slowly also new pictures that I take, I wanted to make various categories to keep them organized, as I will be nominating them for QI and FI. To keep those all categories together, I made this category. For your kind information, it's not for self promotion. --Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a user category. Many of these exists, like my own Category:Ellywa. Another similar situation was kept as well, Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Marcel Douwe Dekker. My proposal is to make it a hidden category. Ellywa (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just by contrast, Elly, you are a prolific administrator and long-established Wikimedian. You have logged over 130,000 edits since you joined in 2008 (15 years ago.) The other categories you mention belong to rather notable people, and/or they are directly affiliated with the WMF. I believe that most or all of your examples would readily pass a Commons:Notability test. On the other hand, with reference to the essay (not a policy or guideline) Commons:Category inclusion criteria, it does not seem justifiable to keep a category which belongs to a non-established editor such as this.

Sorry to say, but Fabian here has only been around about 13 months, with 91 photos uploaded, fewer than 1,200 edits, and has no claim to notability in any reasonable sense. Fabian has no userrights, not even "autoconfirmed" anywhere, so other than categories to contain photos he's personally uploaded, I'm not sure why Fabian himself needs a dedicated user category. @Ellywa, I would be happy to entertain any policy-based counter-arguments you can offer. Elizium23 (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi Elizium, thanks for your kind words. "My" category was created in 2007, when I added some of my drawings to Commons and liked to be able see them together. Exactly the same as Fabian Roudra Baroi did. The essay you refer to does not mention user categories so it is not applicable, and it is not a binding guideline. My personal opinion is if a user category adds to the pleasure and motivation of a user we should keep it. I did not find a specific policy, but there are more then 16,000 user categories in Category:User categories. And I will add this too pending this discussion. Best regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I can see there's a history behind this, but there appears to be no real consensus and nobody's bothered to organise or regularise any of these cats under a unified manual of style. It's a rather sorry state that category tree is in.

🤷🏻‍♂️ Elizium23 (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa: :: Thank you for your vote and suggestion, I appreciate it. I'll make it hidden. Also, if there is anything else I should do or change please let me know. Because I'm pretty new compared to others and trying my best to contribute as much as I can. Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I'd suggest you before stating any statistics, please be sure. I have uploaded more than 300 pictures and 46 of them are QI already (most of them were nominated in the past 2 months), slowly I'm nominating others. Also, I have made 90% of my edits in the last 2 months since I decided to be regular in Wikimedia. I just made the categories yesterday, and I'll give you the exact count today. Thank you. --Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabian Roudra Baroi, I was simply going on what was displayed by the template which you designed and placed in Category:Images by User:Fabian Roudra Baroi. Perhaps that does not encompass all of your uploads and it should be repaired. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: As I said, I just made the category yesterday, I haven't included all of my pictures in the category yet. I'm working on it. --Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Total 1300+(latest) Pictures uploaded so far and 82 QI (Nominating and increasing daily), uploaded around 1000+ last 2 months and around 200 last year. --Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Keeping this category per what Ellywa has demonstrated above. If Fabian has 519+ files that he wants to categorize here, I don't see any problem. But if there's Category:Images by User:Fabian Roudra Baroi, what is the reason behind creating a new one? Why not just keep one? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Aafī Thanks for your support, I appreciate it. Actually I am going to upload not only images but also videos and audios. That's why I wanted to create e separate category in my name. So, it will be easier for me to organize everything in one place. I hope it makes sense. --Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. This is enough to convince me. Thanks for your contributions to the Commons. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's my pleasure. Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: kept as user category per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Three-quarter views of automobiles

I'd like to split this category and all its subcategories into three-quarter front view & three-quarter back view of automobiles, with the current "Three-quarter views of [brand] automobiles"-categories being renamed to "Three-quarter front views of [brand] automobiles" (which is the most common view type found in these categories). I'll create the other category myself and manually go through the front-view category to pick out and re-sort the back views.

I created every subcategory of the main category that I put up for discussion as well as the view template, and did a fair amount of sorting and resorting images in this + other view categories, which gave me a pretty good idea of which images are present in these categories, how many there are, and how much work this would be. ReneeWrites (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I think it's nice idea. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this doesn't require any admin action. This category and its subcategories would still be needed, e.g. Three-quarter front views of Honda automobiles‎ and Three-quarter back views of Honda automobiles‎ are subcategories of Three-quarter views of Honda automobiles‎. So, just go ahead and create your categories, and move/sort the images accordingly. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Statues of Christian saints in Austria by patron saint

Unsystematical category: the category contained only a few random categories, most of the similar categories are directly in the parent category. The category name is inappropriate, the saints are not the patrons of their statues (the name pattern inappropriately taken from patrociniums of churches). ŠJů (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom, and empty now. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Statues of Christian saints in Germany by patron saint

Unsystematical category: the category contained only a few random categories, most of the similar categories are directly in the parent category. The category name is inappropriate, the saints are not the patrons of their statues (the name pattern inappropriately taken from patrociniums of churches). ŠJů (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom, and empty now. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Statues of Christian saints in Luxembourg by patron saint

Unsystematical category: the category contained only a few random categories, most of the similar categories are directly in the parent category. The category name is inappropriate, the saints are not the patrons of their statues (the name pattern inappropriately taken from patrociniums of churches). ŠJů (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom, and empty now. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Statues of Christian saints in Sweden by patron saint

Unsystematical category: the category contained only a few random categories, most of the similar categories are directly in the parent category. The category name is inappropriate, the saints are not the patrons of their statues (the name pattern inappropriately taken from patrociniums of churches). ŠJů (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's nice that you want to discuss. But it would be better if you would say what you want. You can't open a page and leave it empty. If you finally don't have anything to say, don't open a discussion page. Birdie (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Football kit body/Indonesia national football team

File:kit body idn96h1 203.78.120.94 06:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kit body idn96h1.png 203.78.120.94 06:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: closing nonsensical discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Football kit body/Indonesia national football team

File:kit body idn96h1 203.78.120.94 06:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kit body idn96h1.png 203.78.120.94 06:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: closing nonsensical discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:US Inspectors General

This overlaps almost 1:1 with Category:Inspectors General (United States) and could be merged. Many of these could be moved into a sub-category "Reports by U.S. Inspectors General" or similar. Ich (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fish and chips in Greater Manchester

Created by myself in error. Better Category:Fish and chip shops in Greater Manchester exists but I missed it. Malcolma (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Media from Mfa.am

Should be deleted as Template:Mfa.am was deleted A1Cafel (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:30 Łobzowska Street in Kraków

duplicated Category:30 Łobzowska Street in Kraków Misiek2 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I don't see the duplicate category, but it is empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Steamed prawns with garlic 蒜蓉蒸蝦

I couldnt find the deletion button. 181.43.5.243 18:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion of the category, if there is a home for the contents. Should they be upmerged? Josh (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. What's the reason for deleting?--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me the strange title.

-Unsigned comment above by 181.43.5.243

Rename Category:Steamed prawns with garlic 蒜蓉蒸蝦 to Category:Steamed prawns with garlic (complies with category naming policy)

@TaronjaSatsuma: Current category name is a violation of category naming policy, so actually a simple rename should suffice, as opposed to deletion. Josh (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: renamed without redirect (unlikely search term). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Spectrum analyzer (radio)

Rename Category:Spectrum analyzer (radio) to Category:Radio spectrum scopes as common name for these devices, replaces strangely-formed original name. Josh (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Please rename better name. --Clusternote (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: renamed. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Preserved bus in the UK (TIB 2574)

Empty cat, cannot find appropiate images. Hullian111 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Preserved bus in the UK (TIL 6496)

Empty cat, cannot find appropiate images. Hullian111 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard request, entry *has* been found: File:Maghull Coaches bus (TIL 6496), MMT Atlantean 50 event.jpg Hullian111 (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: withdrawn/resolved. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Male cosplay of Pokémon

Empty and unneeded. OmegaFallon (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:FreshCo Brentwood

Empty category since October 9, 2022 Ooligan (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Ooligan: Anyone know what happened to the original contents? If they were a successful COM:DR, it sounds like this should be a speedy delete. Josh (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were my photos and I asked for them to be deleted because my camera sucks. (lol) Mucube (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Control panels (engineering)

Control panels (engineering), Control panels (computer hardware), and Control panels (computer peripherals) seem an odd use for dab info when they are a linear hierarchy in reality. Josh (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current organization:

Control panels (engineering)
- Control panels (computer hardware)
  - Control panels (computer peripherals)

Recommend renaming to:

Control panels
- Computer control panels
  - Computer control panel peripherals

This naming is better in line with category naming policy. Josh (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, better! --Leo Miregalitheo (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: renamed. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tagliata (Suzzara)

There is no Tagliata in Suzzara. Tagliata is in Guastalla (Reggio Emilia) GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. And there is already Category:Tagliata (Guastalla). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Avenue du Général-Leclerc (Vanves)

Please delete this category of a non-existent street of Vanves. Thanks. Rc1959 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Patrol signature box

Oops, I made "box" instead of "boxes". Please delete this one. Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Windows with bars in Taiwan

Oops. Please delete. I already found the right category. Jidanni (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Art by Andy-roo78

Empty category, all items in it were deleted as copyright violations. Category should probably be deleted as well. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted 22:20, April 13, 2023, by Mdaniels5757. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bosona

Category:Bosona should be merged to Category:HD 206610, and Category:Naron should be merged to Category:HD 206610 b. These are both duplicate pairs, referring to the same star and exoplanet, respectively. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True. The problem I faced while creating these categories is that, as I was checking to see what common practice actually is, I realized that such cases already exist, and these objects are categorized both by common name and by one of the catalogs, usually HD catalog - and it really seemed there is no other way but to make two categories. Honestly, this confused the hell out of me and made my job excruciating. I am neutral on whatever community decide, only I would prefer common name to stay as cat primary name. Santasa99 (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious case. Bosona and HD 206610 the same object. Merged and redirected. Юрий Д.К 17:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Spectrum analyzer (radio)

Rename Category:Spectrum analyzer (radio) to Category:Radio spectrum scopes as common name for these devices, replaces strangely-formed original name. Josh (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Please rename better name. --Clusternote (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: renamed. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Preserved bus in the UK (TIB 2574)

Empty cat, cannot find appropiate images. Hullian111 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Preserved bus in the UK (TIL 6496)

Empty cat, cannot find appropiate images. Hullian111 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard request, entry *has* been found: File:Maghull Coaches bus (TIL 6496), MMT Atlantean 50 event.jpg Hullian111 (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: withdrawn/resolved. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ben Wallace

Disambiguation should be required, we have at least two Ben Wallace A1Cafel (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Dab Category:Ben Wallace Rename Category:Ben Wallace to Category:Ben Wallace (basketball player)
Participants	A1Cafel (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Volodymyr Zelenskyy in advertising

IMO it is redundant to Volodymyr Zelenskyy in art, plus all content has been moved to there. A1Cafel (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category GeorgHH • talk 22:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:Cosmonauts

What is the distinction between Category:Cosmonauts and Category:Astronauts besides the first being a regional term for the later? Josh (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no generic term for the occupation of going into space to perform a mission. If there were Category:Cosmonauts and Category:Astronauts and category:Taikonauts, or whatever they call them in China would all be subcategories of the category for that generic term.
Because the space race was very heavily political it would be a huge mistake to redirect these categories to one another.
Are there differences between them, in training, equipment, recruitment? Astronauts who were going to fly in Soviet or Russian missions underwent a year or more of training, because the training, equipment and protocols were different.
I am going to repeat my most important point... because the space race was very heavily political it would be a huge mistake to redirect these categories to one another. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Geo Swan: I have no doubt that there are detail differences in training, mission, history, etc. between Soviet and American astronauts/cosmonauts, just as there are probably detail differences between astronauts from India, Japan, US, Mexico, etc. This is the reason each country has its own category for its Xnauts. This is a question about the main category, under which all of these exist, not individual country flavors.
- As to your final and most important point, you may be right, but that is exactly what we have right now, check this out: Astronauts -> Cosmonauts -> Astronauts from the Soviet Union
- This is the whole reason I asked the question. The above nesting makes no sense to my mind. If astronauts and cosmonauts are the same, why have the cosmonaut level? If they are not the same, why have astronauts under cosmonauts under astronauts? Can a single country have both astronauts and cosmonauts? And more. Josh (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Categories suck, as an organizing mechanism. They really really suck.
  - You describe a problem that well-run, top-down, commercial enterprise can avoid. When a commercial enterprise relies on a database, they empower someone to serve as the database manager. A key duty of the database manager is to maintian the schema, the database's key definitions.
    Decades ago I volunteered at my local food coop. After half a dozen years I volunteered for the special job of meeting out bi-monthly delivery truck. I'd help unload our shipment, then I would update our inventory database.
    Our database was maintained on rolodex cards. Rolodex cards have a pair of notches cut out on edge. Those notches are used to fit the cards onto a rotatable drum. The user rotates the drum to the card with the info on a particular kind of food, like, say oats. Special longer cards can have a heading on them, to separate the database into sections.
    So, around 1985 I had to ask my backup guy take over, because I got a gig, out of province. My backup guy proved to be a complete washout, and I found the database a mess, when I returned. Prior to my departure, cereal grains, like oats, wheat, barley, millet, were filed under "cereals". I think oatmeal might have been there too. There was another category for Flour. Upon my return I found that a new buyer had bought a variety of the macrobiotic version of cornflakes and cheerios, and these had all been filed under the Cereals category. Meanwhile the Nuts category had been amended. It had been retitled "Nuts and grains". Some but not all of the cereal grains had been moved into the nuts and grains category.
    Over the years I encountered this phenomenon over and over again.
  - I am going to {{Ping}} User:Blackcat, the contributor who created Astronauts from the Soviet Union, in 2013. When he or she created it they did not put a hatnote, saying what the category should or should not contain. Lots of categories need them. Arguably, ALL categories need them. Maybe 1 percent of categories have them. It is possible that when Blackcat created the category they intended it to be one of a series, for individuals who underwent NASA astronaut training, who weren't born in the USA - to go beside Astronauts from Canada, Astronauts from France, and so on.
  - Maybe these categories should be renamed category:Individuals who went through US Astronaut training, and category:Individuals who went through Cosmonaut training. IMO, while we are likely to find space tourists, who pay $1 million to go to the edge of outer space, who want to call themselves Astronauts, they probably belong in category:Individuals who went through Space Tourist training.
  - Astronauts from Canada was started in 2007. See the hatnote I added to it.
  - This confirms my suspicion that Astronauts from the Soviet Union should be merely one in a series, and should only contain individuals, from the Soviet Union, who underwent Astronaut training. I suspect that would only be Americans, originally born in the Soviet Union, who became Astronauts after growing up in the USA.
  - This is one of the ways categories suck. There is no easy way to determine WHEN Astronauts from the Soviet Union was polluted with the addition of people who really belong in category:Individuals who went through Cosmonaut training. They could have been added by some well-intentioned, bored individual, who didn't give it the thought it required, last week or last year. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the space race was very heavily political. Yes. So what? We don't care. We are Commons, not the UN nor a political think-tank. We need consistency of categorization, and whatsoever reader by passage must not necessarily know that the astronauts from the Soviet Union must be sought under "Cosmonauts" category -- Blackcat 18:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Readers shouldn't have to know what a cosmonaut is? So, why should they have to know what an astronaut is?

As I asked above why isn't the the parent category category:Space travelers, or category:Individuals who underwent training for space travel? Geo Swan (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Not all space travelers or those who underwent training for space travel are astronauts, so no.

We do not name categories to assuage people's egos, so I may call myself an astronaut all I want, it doesn't grant me the right to sort myself under Astronauts on Commons. "Astronaut" is a profession, defined as a person who commands, operates, or serves as crew on board a spacecraft. Could we name the category Category:People who command, operate, or serve as crew on board a spacecraft? Sure if we wanted to. Or we could just call it Category:Astronauts. Blackcat is correct to remind us that tip-toeing around political sensitivities (especially those of a by-gone age) are not the mission of Commons.

Are Cosmonauts people who command, operate, or crew spacecraft? If so, then they are Astronauts. The only question is what distinguishes them as a special sub-class of astronaut, and whether that distinction warrants maintaining a separate category for them on Commons. In turn, if we deem it worth keeping, we need to sort out what makes an astronaut a cosmonaut, so we can then correctly sort some astronauts into the cosmonaut sub-category and avoid sub-categories of cosmonauts that cover astronauts at large.

Your hatnotes trying to restrict use of 'astronaut' to those who went through US training are flawed, as the definition of "astronaut" is not "someone who went through US space training". Josh (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, my fellow countrywoman Samantha Cristoforetti - of whom I am very proud - is an astronaut from Italy ... -- Blackcat 15:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blackcat Congratulations to Ms Cristoforetti! She got her final space travel training in the USA? I'd say that if Russia insisted she get some space train there, prior to riding on Soyuz, she could claim to both an Astronaut and a Cosmonaut. Geo Swan (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, sorry, your latest makes multiple points. I am going to use a numbered list to respond to them. If you reply could you please respond using those numbers?

We agree that not everyone who trained for space travel is an Astronaut.
But I am unsure exactly what point you are trying to make.
Yes, space tourists aren't astronauts. That is why category:Space tourists should exist beside category:Astronauts in category:Individuals who trained for Space travel.
I remember watching the first space tourist, who paid $10 million for the privilege. My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I think I remember his trip took place during the very last year of the Soviet Union. Surprisingly, he is missing from space tourism. He was an American who had made millions from software. In the days before his first press conference reporters were champing at the bit. Their big killer question was "Isn't your trip an indulgence, when $10 million could make a big difference with problems here on Earth - like Poverty." His answer was both serious, and shockingly funny. He agreed that his $10 million could make a big difference addressing poverty. Then he said "do you know the take home pay of the average Soviet rocket scientist?" There was unexpected laughter, and the reporters realized this was not the gotcha question they thought it was, as they did know what a Soviet rocket scientist got paid. That is so long ago, so you may not remember. Pitiful. Their pay was pitiful, and often months overdue. Part of his $10 million would go towards their salaries. So, he helped address Poverty, and he helped preserve their dignity so they didn't go work on the rocket projects of a guy like Saddam, which enhanced public safety, around the world.
We agree "We do not name categories to assuage people's egos..." We should name them to be as useful as possible.
You write "'Astronaut' is a profession, defined as a person who commands, operates, or serves as crew on board a spacecraft."
- Excuse me? Don't Astronauts only operate NASA spacecraft?
- Astronauts can wait decades for their first flight. It is still their profession, even if you haven't yet gone up.
"correct to remind us that tip-toeing around political sensitivities (especially those of a by-gone age) are not the mission of Commons..."
Excuse me? Political conflicts, of the past, don't disappear, just because you or I no longer remember them. NASA spent $20 billion on landing on the moon, in 1968 dollars. The rivalry was tight, and the Soviet Union spent a comparable amount.
"Are Cosmonauts people who command, operate, or crew spacecraft?"
As above Astronauts are trusted to fly NASA spacecraft. And, similarly, Cosmonauts are trusted to fly Russian spacecraft, while Taikonauts are trusted to fly Chinese spacecraft.
I am not keeping track of how many billionaires offer space tourist flights. Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos both offer(ed) those flights. Are the pilots they trained Astronauts?
What about when they graduate from suborbital flights, that give a good view, and fifteen minutes of zero-g to truly orbital trips? I don't think they should be called Astronauts then.
"...we need to sort out what makes an astronaut a cosmonaut..."
Simple, training.
Individuals who complete NASA astronaut training are Astronauts, even if they never get a chance to go to space. Individuals who complete Cosmonaut training are Cosmonauts.
Individuals who complete Taikonaut training are Taikonauts.
If an Astronaut who traveled to the ISS on a Soyuz, was trusted to get Soyuz pilot training, they he or she would be both as Astronaut and a Cosmonaut. Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons talk:category scheme space exploration#Individuals who underwent training for space travel. Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Here is the content of the comment by Geo Swan there. In the interest of avoiding fracturing the discussion amonst different forums, I am quoting their comment below:

Category scheme space exploration

At Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Cosmonauts I suggested there were weaknesses in the exisiting categories for individuals who underwent training for space travel.

I suggested the existing categories Category:Cosmonauts, Category:Astronauts and category:Taikonauts should be given longer more descriptive names, like category:Individuals who went through US Astronaut training, category:Individuals who went through Chinese Taikonaut training, and category:Individuals who went through Cosmonaut training.

Some of the existing categories, like Astronauts from Canada, Astronauts from France, seem to contain individuals from those countries who underwent US Astronaut training.

A complication is that, if I am not mistaken, on Space Shuttle missions, NASA distinguished between career astronauts, who went through and maintained broad qualifications, and "Mission specialists", who underwent enough space training to safely perform their experiments.

I noted that, we are likely to see more people who traveled to space as space tourists. They aren't astronauts.

I suggest category:Canadians who went through US Astronaut training should supercede Astronauts from Canada, and so on.

category:Cosmonauts contains category:Astronauts from Kazakhstan, category:Astronauts from Russia, category:Astronauts from the Soviet Union, category:Astronauts from Ukraine. If they are cosmonauts why would we call them astronauts? Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010 User:Foroa redirected category:Taikonauts to category:Astronauts from China. I don't think this is a very good idea. The early space race was very highly political. So, picking one of the names for space travelers fails the neutrality requirement.

What should the parent group be? category:Space travelers should not be the parent category for Astronauts, Cosmonauts, Taikonauts, because NASA, and probably those other agencies, classes an individual as an Astronaut once they have completed their training, without regard to whether they get to go to space.

So, category:Individuals who trained for Space travel, or similar, would be a better choice, as the parent category for:

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Thank you for the additional details. I appreciate your bulleted list and indeed will attempt to reference the numbers above for the ease of sorting the conversation.

(1) The only point I was making about space tourists was a direct answer to your question: "why isn't the the parent category category:Space travelers" As the parent category of Cosmonauts is Astronauts, I simply answered: "Not all space travelers or those who underwent training for space travel are astronauts, so no." Now maybe you meant an even higher level parent category, in which case both your question and my answer seem rather moot. However, if you are insinuating that Astronauts and Cosmonauts ought to live parallel under this new parent you are suggesting, my answer remains a resolute no, for the reason I stated.

(2) Categories should be named in accordance with category naming policy. They should obey the Universality Principle and the Hierarchic Principle.

(3) You ask: "Don't Astronauts only operate NASA spacecraft?" Answer: No. Any operator onboard a spacecraft in space is an astronaut. There is no limitation to spacecraft of a particular agency. As for those who have yet to actually get a mission, you are correct to point that out, and to be comprehensive, in addition to "one who commands, operates, or crews spacecraft", you can add, "or is professionally capable (i.e. trained, equipped, qualified, in readiness, etc.) of doing so", or some such similar language. Just as a soldier who never fights in a war is still a soldier, that is implicit in the definition of the profession, so normally doesn't need to be spelled out.

(4) None of what you stated is a reason for Commons to cow-tow to political sensibilities over proper category naming and organization.

(5) You ask: "Are the pilots they trained Astronauts?" Yes, if they are trained to operate a spacecraft onboard while in space. It is not up to me, Commons, or this CfD to define what constitutes a spacecraft, or where space starts. You may not consider some of the mentioned flights to be real spaceflight--I do not think I have much of an opinion on the matter, not that it matters. If they are qualified to operate a spacecraft in flight, they are an astronaut.

(6) If training is the only differentiator, then I don't see the point. Not that training is not important, it just isn't a good basis for Commons categorization schemes. People can go through any number of professional training programs and citations and references to verify this cannot be maintained in category assignment. That kind of data is perfect for Wikidata to manage, and we can display it here with {{Wikidata Infobox}}, but trying to categorize everyone by their training is a nightmare.

In conclusion, it appears clear that "astronaut" is the right name for the profession, which would include all people of all countries who are members of it. "Cosmonaut" is a term used by Russia and some other countries and space programs denoting astronauts which are qualified to operate spacecraft of their particular program. "Taikonaut" is an informal term recently entering the lexicon to call astronauts of the Chinese space program. In any case, they are all "astronauts", and so Astronauts is the right category and name for the main topic.

As for Cosmonauts, is this name exclusive to the Space program of the Soviet Union and following Space program of Russia? In cases where we have categorized astronauts of a particular program, using the terms specific to that program make sense, such as Pilot-Cosmonauts of the Russian Federation.

Anyway, looking forward to further clarification on that point, I think we are making progress on getting down to what needs to happen here. Josh (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: , and we don't care what Russia claims. Cristoforetti might have as well trained in Rwanda, South Africa, Viet-Nam, Australia, she's an astronaut. Period. -- Blackcat 10:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one claimed Ms Cristoforetti was not an astronaut.

If she was trained to operate a Soyuz she would be both an astronaut and a cosmonaut. Geo Swan (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, thanks for keeping your cool. A phenomenon I encountered soon after I started participating at WMF projects, in 2004, was what I thought were "proofs by claims of obviousness". Intelligent people can manifest this. There are things they feel are so obviously true they don't require an explanation

I'd respond by saying, well, if it is obvious to you, and I don't get it, could you offer an explicit explanation anyway? Many people silently leave the discussion, at this point. I'd like to think they represent people who (1) made a good faith effort to offer that explicit explanation; (2) couldn't do it; (3) realized that their position was not only not obvious, but wasn't true. I've never seen anyone acknowledge, "Hey everybody! I thought this was obviously true. I now realize it was not."

Some people ended up feeling a permanent sense of frustration, with me, over this kind of question.

A smaller group of people, yet, after 19 years quite large, feel a permanent sense of rage, with me. So, thanks for not going that route.

You wrote: "None of what you stated is a reason for Commons to cow-tow to political sensibilities over proper category naming and organization."

I agree. Commons category curators should not rely on politics, or what "makes sense" to them, in picking category names.

No, we shouldn't blindly roll over and accept the terms preferred by NASA, or its opposite numbers in Russia, China or India.

But here is where I think you may have slipped into proof by claims of obviousness. You write, as if it is obvious, that anyone trained to operate a spacecraft is obviously an astronaut. NASA certifies individuals are qualified to fly US spacecraft. I argue that, if they were cross-trained to fly a Soyuz they were both an astronaut and a cosmonaut.

In spy movies James Bond (1) escapes from prison; (2) manages to sneak his way onto a fighter base; (3) finds a fighter all fueled up; (4) his mastery of flying UK fighters is enough for him to climb in, taxi out to a runway, and let her rip, completing his daring escape.

Spacecraft are more complicated than that. Jet fighters may very well be more complicated than that, outside of spy movies. There are a bunch of switches to be flipped, in the right order, prior to blast-off, labeled in Cyrillic, or Chinese. NASA astronaut training does not qualify someone to operate a Soyuz

So, I dispute that preserving the distinction between astronaut and cosmonaut is an instance of kowtowing. Geo Swan (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are the pilots trained to fly the spacecraft designed for billionaires, like Bezos and Branson astronauts? Well, no if aren't trained to operate a NASA spacecraft they aren't astronauts. There are a bunch of movies, including Executive Decision, where the pilots have been killed, and a passenger who is only half trained ends up landing the plane. They say "any landing where you can walk away is a good landing. Due to switchology, and labels in Cyrillic, operating a Soyuz is not like Kurt Russell flying a 747, before his pilot training trained him to fly a Cessna.

Executive Decision, good film. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: I'm not sure that I stated anything as being obvious--I am pretty sure that was first mentioned in your latest comment. I have merely stated that an "astronaut" is "someone who operates, pilots, or crews spacecraft". While it maybe was considered obvious that this included those who are professionally prepared to do so but have yet to actually do so, I was happy to explicitly spell out that inclusion and not solely rely on 'obvious' inference.

You continue to insist that the term "astronaut" is exclusive to NASA. Indeed, NASA does of course have its own specific definition of who it considers an astronaut. However, the word and current usage of the term at large predates NASA's existence (it is first attributed to Neil R. Jones in 1930), so while NASA may have adopted and applied the term for their own use in the 1960s, it is not exclusive to them. How could "astronaut" be exclusive to NASA if NASA did not even exist?

I appreciate that we should not rely on things being 'obvious' to make our points. However, there is a concept of prima facie that can be applied here, in that on its face it is extraordinary (it would go against the obvious) to consider a term exclusive to an organization when that term was coined several decades before that organization existed. Just because it is extraordinary does not mean it is automatically false, but it would require substantial evidence to substantiate it as true.

You have made the extraordinary claim that the term "astronaut" is exclusive to NASA. I say extraordinary claim because none of the definitions I have seen (Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Wikipedia, Britannica, Cambridge, etc.) restricts its use to NASA in their primary definition (some do detail how other terms exist that are used by specific countries or programs) and the term predates NASA by some margin. My research is not exhaustive, so I am not categorically rejecting your claim, but strong supporting evidence would be required to substantiate your claim. Without such substantiation, we must rely on the common English usage of the term, as defined by several credible sources for such definitions (as listed previously), which is not exclusive to NASA, but instead a broad term for any professional space traveler. Josh (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, Cosmonaut : Astronaut = Soccer : Association football. One is the proper name, the other is the vernacular name. Since this discussion has taken its toll and there's nothing but one who still defends this inconsistent name scheme, within one or two weeks I am going to redirect Cosmonauts --> Astronauts if no one else but Geo opposes. -- Blackcat 13:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on closure. Provided that this is a techinical discussion regarding the naming of a category and not a challenge or a mind game, we are not interested about the political use of the term cosmonaut. That said, since the unambiguous consensus was for stopping using cosmonaut as a term with any different meaning than astronaut, and since no new objections were raised since my last contribution, I proceeded as follows:

every occurrence of cosmonaut/s has been redirect to the correspondent topic about astronaut/s; in the main category Astronauts I added a line that reads This category is about astronauts, term which is, for the purposes of this project, considered equivalent to cosmonauts.
also on Wikidata i removed the link to Cosmonauts and inserted the statement that the term is believed to be equal to Astronauts.

That's all. Thanks to all the participant to the discussion, whatever their opinion was. -- Blackcat 15:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Weather and climate

Rename Category:Weather and climate to Category:Atmospheric conditions , as Weather (short-term state of atmospheric conditions) and Climate (long-term collation of atmospheric conditions) are distinct sub-categories. Josh (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current name is actually clearer, and much more likely for people to find. I would never even consider using the phrase "atmospheric conditions" for anything that wasn't basically short-term (weather) rather than longer-tern (climate). - Jmabel ! talk 23:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jmabel: Fair enough. This is just a combination of two different categories (Weather and Climate) and thus a violation of the Simplicity and Selectivity Principles, so I would be fine with just deleting it. Is there anything here that isn't just contents of either Weather or Climate? Josh (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Joshbaumgartner: Probably OK to do that. My only concern is that it is currently the only link putting Category:Weather under Category:Climatology. Maybe make that a direct connection? - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jmabel: Yeah... I think the analagous discipline for Weather is Meteorology, as Climate is to Climatology. These are mashed as parents for Weather and climate but it should probably be decoupled. I say this as a complete layperson, so anyone expert in the field that knows better may correct that interpretation.
    - Also, and this may be beyond the scope of this chat, but connecting sciences with what they study by making them categories of each other seems to be implemented a bit haphazardly. To my mind, I would think that if something is borne of a discipline (e.g. from the field of Aerospace are borne Aircraft) then the discipline should be the parent (e.g. aircraft go under aerospace somewhere). However, in the case of weather and meteorology (or climate and climatology), weather and climate exist regardless of whether we study them or not, so it seems to me weather ought to be the parent from which is borne the study of weather (meteorology) making Meteorology really belong under Weather somewhere. But, maybe I'm getting too philosophical here. Josh (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it's an OK approach to put the science/discipline at the top of the hierarchy. Yes, there is a difference between science and engineering, but for a lot of fields the two are somewhat muddled together. - Jmabel ! talk 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - With reference to how weather and climate are connected: sometimes the right relationship is {{Cat see also}}. - Jmabel ! talk 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep Climate and weather are linked and should be related. Furthermore, if you delete this category you have to do the same for every sub-categories and in every country, continent, etc... present in Category:Weather and climate (ex. the sub-category Category:Weather and climate by country has a multitude of links which each have links into other categories). Pierre cb (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierre cb: Thank you for that comment. I agree that climate and weather are linked, as are running and jogging, trucks and vans, or food and drink. This is the whole point of the Simplicity and Selectivity Principles, in that we should not create categories simply to combine linked/related items together, but instead that such links are implemented by virtue of having a common parent category (Hierarchical Principle), and facilitated by horizontal navigation aids such as navboxes or {{Cat see also}}. I agree that it would be a bit of work to uncouple these two appropriately, but keeping a wrong in place just because it would take work to fix is not a justification I am ready to sign up for. Instead, we can determine the correct path forward, and it can be implemented over time, at a minimum helping curb the spread of non-optimal practices in the meantime.
@Jmabel: You are correct about {{Cat see also}}. As for the hierarchy of sciences and their subjects, as I said its a mix out there currently, and I certainly am not prepared to make any proposal to address it on that scale at this time. Anyway, I was digressing from the real topic of this discussion I think. Josh (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think your have no idea the work involved with the sub-categories to redistribute. For instance, how will your redistribute categories like Category:Weather and climate maps which has not only sub-categories but each of them is a mix of weather maps and climate maps like Category:Maps of weather and climate of the United States which can be different from other sub-categories? You are engaging yourself in undoing the work of a multitude of users over 20 years : an Herculean task! Pierre cb (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierre cb: Not undoing the work of others, but building on the work of others. Diffusion is a normal task in categories, and is not undoing anyone's work any more than a relay runner taking the baton to the next point is undoing the work of the team member who passed them the baton. Josh (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, you have no idea of the task. Pierre cb (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General conclusion to keep a parent category with understanding that Weather and Climate are two different things underneath it. Content should be diffused between them when feasible, but can be retained at the parent level if it depicts both. Name should comply with Commons category policies and be comprehensive for all contents. Josh (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Applied disciplines

Merge Category:applied disciplines into Category:applied sciences as they essentially cover the same ground. Applied sciences is better fleshed out and linked to sister projects, while this is all lacking for Applied disciplines. Josh (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep as in Wikipedia coexist. --Allforrous (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous: What is the difference between the two? Josh (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and because not all of these are fully-describable as sciences, just usually overlapping with it, such as applied ethics. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is to keep both categories. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Border Control Posts

Can this category be merged into Category:Checkpoints in Poland‎? It looks like this category is about the same subject, and now it causes confusing. If no: What are the differences between these two categories? Which files/subcategories should be in this one and which in the other? Can you give descriptions for both categories? JopkeB (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kategoria ta powinna pozostać, bo dotyczy pododdziałów granicznych które ochraniają granicę państwową w przejściach granicznych. Natomiast punkt kontrolny, jest to przejście graniczne gdzie swoje czynności wykonuje więcej różnych służb związanych z odprawą graniczną podróżnych i środków transportu. Ponadto graniczna placówka kontrolna mogła prowadzić kontrolę graniczną na kilku podległych przejściach granicznych. Wlodek k1 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into English (by Google Translate): This category should remain, because it concerns border subdivisions that protect the state border at border crossings. On the other hand, a checkpoint is a border crossing where more different services related to border clearance of travelers and means of transport perform their activities. In addition, the border inspection post could carry out border control at several subordinate border crossing points.

So, this is about checkpoints, but with less facilities? If yes, I suggest:

Rename this category to a category with "Poland" in the name, and without capitals (Example: Category:Border control posts in Poland). Now it looks like this category is for the whole world. [I can easily rename categories, just let me know what the new name should be.]
Give it a good description, describe also the differences with Category:Checkpoints in Poland‎, as you did here (that may be in Polish).
Make it a subcategory of Category:Checkpoints in Poland‎ instead of Category:Border control.

--JopkeB (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proponuję nazwę kategorii "Graniczne placówki kontrolne w Polsce" Wlodek k1 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since all category names should be in English, it cannot be "Graniczne placówki kontrolne w Polsce". The translation by Google Translate is "Border checkpoints in Poland".

Is that correct, is that the new name you propose, should it not be "Border control posts in Poland"?
But that is a Pleonazm/Pleonasm. Checkpoints in Commons are always at a border. Then it will be "Checkpoints in Poland", just like the existing category; both categories will then be merged, this one then will get a redirect to Category:Checkpoints in Poland‎.

Please let me know what you want an what the new name in English should be. JopkeB (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponieważ widzę, że nie rozumiemy się, proponuję nazwę "Graniczne placówki kontrolne Wojsk Ochrony Pogranicza i Straży Granicznej w Polsce". Ty przetłumacz to na angielski aby było poprawnie. Pozdrawiam Wlodek k1 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have ask for help by someone who does speak Polish on Commons:Bar#Please:_help. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that this category has been renamed to Category:GPK in Poland (with a parent in Polish). So this discussion can be closed. --JopkeB (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	partially resolved
Actions	None anymore, category has already been renamed, but not to a category name that was agreed upon
Participants	Wlodek k1 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Panoramics of cities

as part of the ongoing effort to rename cats following Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Panoramics, i suggest

move Category:Panoramics of cities to cat:panoramas by city
move Category:Panoramics of cities by country to cat:panoramas by city by country
- move subcats, e.g. cat:Panoramics of cities in Germany to cat:panoramas of Germany by city
Category:Panoramics of cities by name's purpose -- a flat list cat for all the "panoramas of <city>" in the world -- would be served by cat:panoramas by city.

agree? RZuo (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support "of" as the most broadly applicable preposition. More specific prepositions can be used as subs of 'of' (i.e. 'in', 'from', etc.) if and when appropriate, but the base should be 'of'. Josh (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion with no obvious consensus, meaning both categories should be kept. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Volcanology by country

Subcategories are a mix of "of" and "in"...we should settle on one or the other. To start, I lean to "in" as most science/country categories use "in". Josh (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closest analogy is Category:Geology by country, which is entirely "of". "Of" seems correct to me.. "in" would imply that the volcanologist would live or work in the country and study volcanoes anywhere. — hike395 (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: That's where I started from, but my concern is that science in general is categorized by country using "in" because it depicts the science being done within the country's borders. Scientists being subs of their disciplines add a wrinkle because you are correct that a scientist from Bulgaria is not necessarily going to be working inside Bulgaria. Theoretically, we should have scientists both categorized by both 'from' and 'in' relations (e.g. Scientists from Bulgaria in Hungary or some such), but we aren't there yet. For now, almost all scientists (~90%) use a 'from' relation to their country of origin, while most sciences (~70%) use an 'in' relation. Geology and some others on the other hand use 'of'.

If we are going to go with "of" here on the grounds that a "scientists 'from' country" category can live under a "science 'of' country" category without issue, we should apply that logic to all disciplines in general. Josh (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making the argument that photographs of "scientists 'from' country" can live under a "science 'of' country" category. In fact, I think that photographs of scientists 'from' country should be in a separate tree, joining only at the science (volcanology) root. Photographs of "Volcanology of country X" are typically photographs of volcanoes of country X that illustrate some scientific point. Photographs of "Volcanologists in country X" are photographs of people who live or work in country X. Very different, and IMO shouldn't be mixed together. — hike395 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Use of for basic volcanology by country categories, more specific relationships can be fleshed out as subs if required
Participants	Hike395 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Chickens

see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01/Category:Domesticated chickens in zoos

"Chickens" or "Gallus gallus domesticus"? Per the Universality Principle, we should use either one or the other, but while most categories use "chickens", several use "gallus gallus domesticus". I would recommend "Chickens" remain the parent category name and be applied to subs vs. the other way around, as it is almost universally referred to in common English usage as "chickens", not "g. g. domesticus", so this would be compliant with category naming policy. Josh (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Triplec85 has suggested using "gallus gallus domesticus" in the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01/Category:Domesticated chickens in zoos, thus I think that this should be resolved at the parent category level and consistently applied through the sub-categories. Josh (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AnRo0002: is well versed in species and genera. What do you mean? -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 07:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest to keep the category Chickens (general category: poultry) as we use for most of the domesticated animals the common names like cattle, horses, donkeys, pigs, rabbits, cats and dogs (see: mammals by common named groups). In the case of ducks and geese I would like to see a clearer differentiation between endemic, invasive and domesticated species. anro (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner and AnRo0002: - keep at Category:Chickens; as AnRo says, we use English names for domesticated animals. In particular, note that "Gallus gallus domesticus" is not a valid scientific taxon name, so it should not be used either for this category, or for any of its subcategories. Any subcategories that do use that, should be renamed. - MPF (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Triplec85: Are you okay with the suggestions above? If so, we can close this as resolved. Josh (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I'm ok with the suggestions above. Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 00:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Use "chickens" for category names of this and child categories
Participants	Triplec85 (talk · contribs) AnRo0002 (talk · contribs) MPF (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Gay nightclubs in Toronto

4 low res images of no educational value. Offensive to certain people. Should be deletetd. 82.135.82.50 10:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The images give a good example of a strip act which was/is a distinctive feature of many gay clubs. Greetings, Paul2 (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the following:

Gay nightclubs exists, so the rationale that it is offensive would have to be taken up at that level.
Per Paul2 the images have some value. Regardless, if the images are to be deleted, that belongs at COM:DR, not here. So long as the images exist, we need a place for them.

Josh (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.yohomo.ca/blog/queer-friendly-bars-toronto there're probably 18 or more gay nightclubs in toronto. more files will come.--RoyZuo (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No action.--RoyZuo (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/02

Category:Vauxhall/Opel Vivaro and Movano models

Vivaro/Movano Discussion

Peugeot Expert/Partner models

Navigation menu

Search