Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/01
- for active discussions dating from January 2023, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01.
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 January 2023
Please merge with "Category:Martin Hoffmann" as both categories are about the same person. Thanks in advance. 109.76.85.144 00:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Please merge with "Category:Martin Hoffmann (Fußballspieler)" as both categories are about the same person. Thanks in advance. 109.76.85.144 00:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Category names should be plural. Should be "Windlasses" not "Windlass". Jmabel ! talk 22:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Similarly for Category:Anchor windlass, Category:Crossbow windlass, Category:Spanish windlass. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Evrik (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like User:Evrik has moved these just a few hours after I suggested it. Sorry if anyone wanted to weigh in and didn't get the chance, but I imagine this is pretty clearcut. - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Category:Bahnhof Vorchdorf-Eggenberg and Category:Bahnhof Vorchdorf are the same topic and should be merged, and it's unclear which name is correct. The operating company calls it Vorchdorf-Eggenberg, as does the most recent edition of Eisenbahnatlas Österreich. Mackensen (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: There are two different stations - so they must not merged. My english is to bad, so cannot make a correct description in english for both. In german it's described exactly. ---- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 08:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- For historical reasons there are two different names for two separate stations, which are directly side by side, but with different gauges and with different origin. The explanation is given in both categories in German. Vorchdorf-Eggenberg is for 1435 mm, Vorchdorf is for 1000 mm. Even Stern & Hafferl does not use the names always correctly, therefore you might find a few references, which are contradictory. The categories must be kept separately. MBxd1 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you both, I understand the distinction and I'll withdraw this discussion and add English-language explanations. I've seen these arrangements in Switzerland too and sometimes the station is treated as merged and sometimes not. Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
They are in fact different topics; nomination withdrawn. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete: poorly-named category has been moved. Elizium23 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
made by mistake - please delete Secretlondon (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Secretlondon, as you have created the category very recently, you could probably just tag it with {{speedydelete|created in error}} to get a speedy deletion. Rudolph Buch (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks - I thought there had to be a better way than this. Secretlondon (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
ok to remove, redundant Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in Finland | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
No such suburb, I made a mistake Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Chris.sherlock2 You can write {{Speedy|user request}} at the top. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I’ve done this now. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Done | |||
| Actions | Delete category | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
Comment @Chris.sherlock2: : In the future, please close CfDs when you implement the results of a discussion. Leaving it open causes backlog as other users have to figure out if it is really ready to close. Instructions on how to close are at COM:CFD. Thanks! Josh (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
please delete, misspelling, properly-spelled category exists Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Speedy delete of Category:Dormers windows in West Virginia | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
Move to Category:Categories of the People's Republic of China, over redirect. The category was moved to its current title by User:Gildir with the comment "Consistency with other categories"; however, reviewing other categories in the parent Category:Categories of Asia, consistency would actually require using the definite article "the" in the title. R'n'B (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- No objection. Gildir (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions |  Merge Category:Categories of People's Republic of China into Category:Categories of the People's Republic of China | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
Please change the name of the category to "Category:People with Christian prayer books" (with a capital "C") to match "Category:Christian prayer books". Thanks in advance. 109.76.85.144 23:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:People with christian prayer books to Category:People with Christian prayer books | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
empty. doesn't have any files in it Euro know (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Unnecessary, empty, and out of scope category. As if that were not enough, at least I have not seen any similar category that classifies the people involved in these acts by their occupation or social status. 81.41.172.147 13:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Soldiers in porn | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
Blatantly promotional category; part of cross-wiki advertising. JalenFolf (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Done Cat deleted as empty as all images were deleted 10:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deletion request: None relevant small company. Artickl in de-Wiki deletet: de:Büchi AG. Alpöhi (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- If not notable I'd nominate the files for deletion as 3 images is probably enough to have a category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Commons´ scope is wider than the notability criteria of some wikis and while a category is not strictly necessary for just 3 files it´s helpful to keep building and logo together in one place. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly, this was the reason to create the category. As mentioned in the deletion discussion in the German wikipedia, the company is producing a lot of equipment for the chemical industry that is wildly used in many laboratories so we can expect that there will follow other pictures. What is wrong with the pictures? I did not know that there are notability criteria for pictures in commons? Keep.--Eduevokrit (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Another reason is that there is a different company with a similar name, "Büchi Labortechnik AG". Somehow we have to differ the pictures of this two companies. --Eduevokrit (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly, this was the reason to create the category. As mentioned in the deletion discussion in the German wikipedia, the company is producing a lot of equipment for the chemical industry that is wildly used in many laboratories so we can expect that there will follow other pictures. What is wrong with the pictures? I did not know that there are notability criteria for pictures in commons? Keep.--Eduevokrit (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion, deletion of an article in de.wikipedia does not necessarily mean that the images associated with the subject are out of project scope. --Leyo 13:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Pointless extra layer, probably copied from enwiki, cf. en:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_22#Category:Films_by_city_of_location. I have already moved the subcat up into Category:Films by city. I have redirected this one but it might as well be deleted. Fayenatic london (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Films by city of location | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
In the 1997/98 season, there was no 3. Fußball-Liga in Germany. Below the 2nd Bundesliga were the two divisions of the Regionalliga. Sandro Halank (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Sandro, you're right. The 3. Fußball-Liga was not introduced until the season of 2008/2009. Please excuse my mistake. --WIKImaniac 17:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:3. Fußball-Liga 1997/1998 | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Please chanage the name of this category to "Category:Boxers of Hutnik Kraków" as that name has correct grammar. Thanks in advance 109.76.85.144 17:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Boxers Hutnik Kraków to Category:Boxers of Hutnik Kraków | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Each season in this category needs to be moved to YYYY–YY National Hockey League season or YYYY–YY NHL season to conform to naming conventions used elsewhere on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Category:National Hockey League seasons or Category:NBA seasons. Using the four-digit number for both years is inappropriate and the wrong dashes are used for every season up until the 2018–19 season category. Denniscabrams (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | rename "YYYY-YYYY" to "YYYY–YY" in subcategories | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Trump never ran for president in 2021 and there was no 2021 presidential election Kingofthedead (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per C2. I don't see the need for a CFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2021 | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
This category and its subcategories need to be relocated to "Houston Christian University" because it changed its name in September 2022. Denniscabrams (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Houston Baptist University to Category:Houston Christian University | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty category (was empty when I found it; I didn't empty it.) Trivialist (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a problem as are all the cosplay ones. We should keep track of the cosplays by characters but if they are empty, then it should be deleted under C2 for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Cosplay of Migo and Meechee (Smallfoot) | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Only contained an empty subcategory when I discovered it. Trivialist (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a problem as are all the cosplay ones. We should keep track of the cosplays by characters but if they are empty, then it should be deleted under C2 for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Cosplay of Meechee | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Contained only empty subcategories and subsubcategories when I found it. Trivialist (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a problem as are all the cosplay ones. We should keep track of the cosplays by characters but if they are empty, then it should be deleted under C2 for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Cosplay of Smallfoot | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty category (was empty when I found it; I didn't empty it.) Trivialist (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a problem as are all the cosplay ones. We should keep track of the cosplays by characters but the main category doesn't even exist so it may not be a character people cosplay. If it is empty, then it should be deleted under C2 for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Cosplay of Percy Patterson | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Only contained an empty subcategory when I discovered it. Trivialist (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a problem as are all the cosplay ones. We should keep track of the cosplays by characters but if they are empty, then it should be deleted under C2 for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Cosplay of Meechee | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Contained only an empty subcategory when I found it (I didn't empty either this category or the subcategory). Trivialist (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per C2 for now. I would support keeping if there were images so we can keep track of the cosplays by characters categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Cosplay of Migo (Smallfoot) | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
duplicate of Category:Tunisia in the 17th century Robby (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:17th century in Tunisia into Category:Tunisia in the 17th century | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
duplicate of Category:Tunisia in the 18th century Robby (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:18th century in Tunisia into Category:Tunisia in the 18th century | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
The category contains media files depicting those who stormed the Brazilian Congress on 8 January 2023. As per what was concluded on Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Terrorists, the designation of "terrorist" heavily depends on the speaker's point of view, especially when it comes to party politics. Designating the protesters/rioters as "terrorists" would be indeterminate and value-laden (also see COM:RAC#Subject identification).
Therefore, with reference to the category of Participants in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, I propose that the category should be renamed as "Participants in the 2023 Praça dos Três Poderes attack". 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- I created it with “terrorists” because that’s how they’re being designated by the Brazilian media. I wouldn’t mind a change in its title, but would recommend something different from “participants”, like maybe “vandals” or something similar, as they damaged a lot of valuable artworks. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @廣九直通車, I moved it following your suggestion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your action. Perhaps after some few days later this discussion can be closed as resolved.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- @廣九直通車, I moved it following your suggestion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Terrorists from the 2023 Praça dos Três Poderes attack to Category:Participants in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
- Joshbaumgartner sorry, I didn’t know that. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
All the image are related (and moved) to 2021 Causeway Bay attack, not part of the demonstrations against extradition bill A1Cafel (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Demonstrations against extradition bill, July 2021 into Category:2021 Causeway Bay attack | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
This proposal is about the sub-categories of Election apportionment diagrams by number of seats:
Rename Category:Election apportionment diagrams 48 seats to Category:Election apportionment diagrams with 48 seats
These renames better comply with COM:CAT regarding English readability. Josh (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Should this not be?
- Leutha (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Leutha: Thanks, yes of course! Josh (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Leutha (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Election apportionment diagrams 48 seats to Category:Election apportionment diagrams with 48 seats Rename Category:Election apportionment diagrams 70 seats to Category:Election apportionment diagrams with 70 seats Rename Category:Election apportionment diagrams 75 seats to Category:Election apportionment diagrams with 75 seats Rename Category:Election apportionment diagrams 126 seats to Category:Election apportionment diagrams with 126 seats | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
useless (with advertisement) Mateus2019 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I think it is useless but isn't the better way to delete the images first and then the category is useless? Keeping the images here is the problem, not the category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep for now: @Mateus2019 and Ricky81682: So long as we have these images, this category should be kept to categorize them. If the images are out of scope file a deletion request for them. Once they are deleted and the category is empty, the category itself can be speedy deleted. Josh (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Empty category (was empty when I found it; I didn't empty it.) Trivialist (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a problem as are all the cosplay ones. We should keep track of the cosplays by characters but this is the intersection of two other characters so it wouldn't be needed in my mind anyways. Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Cosplay of Yogi Bear and Cindy Bear | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
duplicate of Category:Tunisia in the 16th century Robby (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete @Robby: , in the future you can use Template:Badname. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | redirect | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
There was one image in it with a sticker on a pole. I’ve migrated that into Historic images of Katoomba. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- No objection on deletion. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Katoomba rally in support of the victims of the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
This category currently redirects to Women's underwear in art. This redirect should be deleted. It makes no sense. Brianjd (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't imagine someone mixing this up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Little girls' panties | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Is this a notable artist or is this art by a Wikipedian? The other subcategories in Category:Brazilian paintings in Brazil (other than a single painting) are painting by artist by museum. If this is not anyone famous, this is basically portraits by Wikimedian which should be in userspace and not in the main category space. We separate Category:Portraits by artist from Category:Art by Wikipedians for a reason. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682, @NewsRoyal, @GabrielDorneles: As I mentioned on Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#NewsRoyal: There's evidence for these images being AI-generated. It's possible that physical paintings were used as an input to the generative process, but either way I'd prefer to put them into Category:AI generated portraits and avoid using parent categories containing the word "paintings". TilmannR (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh okay i make this GabrielDorneles (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- @GabrielDorneles: You're not really supposed to change a category while people are still having a discussion about which changes to implement. It says so in the {{Category for discussion}} template at the top of the category page. TilmannR (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh okay i make this GabrielDorneles (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Since this was changed here, is this moot? I think we can still discuss this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: If you're fine with GabrielDorneles' changes, then I'd say this discussion can be closed. TilmannR (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm fine with the changes. It was exactly what I asked lol. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- I feel like this could have been a section on the category's talk page instead of a category discussion. COM:CFD says "Generally, wait at least two weeks since the discussion was started." so... I guess let's wait? TilmannR (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm fine with the changes. It was exactly what I asked lol. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: If you're fine with GabrielDorneles' changes, then I'd say this discussion can be closed. TilmannR (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. The only thing left is the user page so I suggest deletion now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete per criterion C2: Unuseful empty category. All images have been deleted ("No license since 12 January 2023") and a user page is not a portrait. If @GabrielDorneles undeletes the images or uploads new ones, I would suggest putting them in a category that matches the naming conventions in Category:AI generated images by Commons users. TilmannR (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Portraits by Gabriel Ronzani | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
I had created this category without realizing that it already existed as Category:56-6671 (spacecraft). - ZLEA T\C 02:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- This should remain as a redirect, as I'm sure I might make the same error. Josh (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:56-6671 (aircraft) into Category:56-6671 (spacecraft) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
delete | person violating Copy-rights (see her talk page Warnings), irrelevant person for a Category 198.203.28.238 23:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- See about massive abuse here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dajana_L .198.203.28.238 23:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Info: Empty, see also Special:DeletedContributions/Dajana L. --Achim55 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Dajana Lazarević | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Seems an arbitrary collection, and no guidance on how to apply it is given there. Perhaps we should create a definition; maybe "photos that are the subject of an article in at least one Wikipedia"? Or simply delete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Lean toward delete, but before doing that, make a gallery, which would be appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't Category:Quality images which are good images on Commons but photographs that are themselves 'iconic' from what I can tell. It's too arbitrary. It was previously called Category:Famous photographs but moved there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete If a more precise definition can be given, there will probably be a more precise category name that can be used. Looking through the images and subcategories, the contents appear to be a strange mix of astronomical, political, brutal and bizarre images. The only thing consistent here is that random editors had a personal view that each photo was somehow special. If the images have won an award, they should be in a category for that award. If they have achieved a particular rating from a Wikimedia site, they should be in a category for that rating. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Tending towards delete as well. If we want to keep something like this around, it needs objective criteria for what's supposed to be in there. Also, it should probably not contain any files directly. If an image doesn't even have a category on its own, it's probably not that iconic after all. --El Grafo (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- We have plenty of topics that are at least one Wikipedia. Instead of "there are articles on these paintings on Wikipedia", this is "there is an article for this photograph" and a category for the photograph is here but that doesn't mean the Commons category is that important for anyone. It would also be nice if Commons wasn't just copying English Wikipedia with all the biases that creates and instead was a stand-alone project that has its own focus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: What criteria and/or definition would you suggest for this category? JopkeB (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I'm still in the delete category as I don't see the purpose. This aren't images that Commons considers importance but images that are important because (English) Wikipedia (no one has even seemingly looked at other projects here) has considered them important enough to have an article on them. It's an odd categorization. Either Commons is making its own determination of what photographs are "iconic" or just deferring to some other project, both of which seem wrong to me. Category:Mona Lisa is organized by categories of what the painting is not in some overarching "Iconic paintings" category. You bring up en:File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg which isn't even on Commons as an image for this category so what is this other than "we have a chance to make up our own definition of great, important photographs some of which we don't even have on this project"? Ricky81682 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: What criteria and/or definition would you suggest for this category? JopkeB (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- We have plenty of topics that are at least one Wikipedia. Instead of "there are articles on these paintings on Wikipedia", this is "there is an article for this photograph" and a category for the photograph is here but that doesn't mean the Commons category is that important for anyone. It would also be nice if Commons wasn't just copying English Wikipedia with all the biases that creates and instead was a stand-alone project that has its own focus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a gallery be a better choice for that? Arbitrary selections are fine in the gallery name space, and it would offer the opportunity to add additional information as to who considers an image iconic for what reason. El Grafo (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- We can have both. A category to link to all subcategories of iconic photographs is useful. Yann (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- We can have both. A category to link to all subcategories of iconic photographs is useful. Yann (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a gallery be a better choice for that? Arbitrary selections are fine in the gallery name space, and it would offer the opportunity to add additional information as to who considers an image iconic for what reason. El Grafo (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  No consensus | |||
| Actions |  Keep (improve hatnote) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty category, containing text advertising Mytek.tn. Do we need/want this? El Grafo (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:MyTek | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
See Category_talk:Gay pride flags. Delete and move content to either Category:LGBT flags or Category:LGBT pride flags - or add a new category only for rainbow LGBT flags Amousey (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:LGBT pride flags.
Delete/merge - seems to be the same as LGBT pride flags category, see discussion on Category_talk:Gay pride flags page. Amousey (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Subsumed into Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:LGBT pride flags.
Is this category strictly speaking necessary Trade (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Trade You voted to keep Upskirt in sports. Do you have an opinion on this category? Brianjd (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Brianjd Please help me here - Why have you created this category ?, What made you think that viewers here want to see this sort of imagery ? And did you really create this category for readers and editors alike or did you create this for yourself ?,
- I'm just confused as to why you've decided to start sexualising random images on Commons .... –Davey2010Talk 11:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Davey2010 I think the {{See also}} tag above, also added by me, answers your questions. The fact that the category contains only three files, and there are no references to it in my user space, suggests I didn’t take much interest in populating it. Brianjd (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Brianjd That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked,
- So again
- A) Why have you created this category ?,
- B) What made you think that viewers here want to see this sort of imagery ?
- The Category:Downblouse category was created in '09 by someone else but that doesn't mean we need a "in sport" category and given the recent DR I'm surprised you'd create this, I'm just trying to understand the thought process behind the creation of this category. –Davey2010Talk 13:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I created this category by analogy to Upskirt in sports, where opinions seem to be mixed. I see no reason why one would be acceptable and the other not. Either it’s a straightforward description of what is visible (in which case both categories are acceptable) (my opinion), or it is unjustifiable sexualization (in which case neither category is acceptable).
- Which DR are you talking about? Brianjd (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Except the opinions aren't mixed Brian - the overall consensus there is that these categories are generally creepy and that they shouldn't be here, There is nothing acceptable about sexualising non-sexual images period.
- Don't be smart it makes you look pathetic Brian, You quite clearly knew I meant CFD.
- Your motives here are rather strange Brian, very strange indeed. . –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Davey2010 I think the {{See also}} tag above, also added by me, answers your questions. The fact that the category contains only three files, and there are no references to it in my user space, suggests I didn’t take much interest in populating it. Brianjd (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- If Upskirts in sports was deleted it would just create diffusion problems in the main category. Of course that could be solved by deleting both but that did not seem to be the point of the discussion. Trade (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Downblouse in sports Delete Category:Downblouse in tennis | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Apis mellifera - wild nests to Category:Apis mellifera wild nests | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Commonly collected objects | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Beautiful nature in Bangladesh | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty category. Wikidata item was created based on this sitelink. Yahya (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Save Future Bangladesh | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Kategorie müsste umbenannt werden nach "Mörschenhardt (Mudau)"; Quelle: Topographische Karte 1:25000, Blatt 6421 Buchen (Odenwald) Matthias Nonnenmacher (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ja, wohl ein Tippfehler Granpar (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Karlunun and Granpar: Diese Diskussion kann beendet werden. Ich habe alle vorhandenen Bilder in die Category:Mörschenhardt verschoben, analog zu de:Mörschenhardt. Einen weiteren Ort diesen Namens fand ich in Wikipedia und OpenStreetMap etc. nicht. Daher ohne Klammerzusatz.
- Die Category:Mörschenhard (Mudau) habe ich per SLA zum Löschen vorschlagen lassen und auch in Wikidata unter d:Q51301798 bereits an die neue Category:Mörschenhardt angepasst.
- Viele Grüße aus Tauberbischofsheim sendet euch -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 09:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
This was clearly a typo for Funtington, and I've recategorised the five files that were in it, so it's empty now and can just be deleted. Zundark (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry. Part of my mass sorting of wikilovesmonuments stuff. Please delete! Secretlondon (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. In the future, Template:Badname will work. If it's a common enough misspelling a category redirect also works. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
This category contains only two files. The parent category only has nine file, so the need for a sub category is trivial — Junglenut | talk 11:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Category:Fruit by species seems to follow a well-established and systematic approach. Breaking that pattern is less desirable than having some categories with a small number of files. Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, I'm happy with the explanations. Do I remove the notice from the Category page now? — Junglenut | talk 21:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Cross-wiki spam. --Karim talk to me :)..! 23:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- All files deleted, therefore category is deleted as well. Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Bahamas per the majority of Wikimedia projects in all langauges. Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale, Themightyquill, Estopedist1, Auntof6, and Ruthven: : Linking related previous discussions above and pinging their participants. Josh (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Going back and forth is a bit much. I'm fine with it if there is a good rationale, but it needs to be more than just playing copy cat. Enwiki is at The Bahamas and Commons uses English language category names, so while we aren't bound to follow enwiki, since both our category and their article name agree, I would need a pretty strong rationale why to break that. Josh (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | No consensus | |||
| Actions | Keep as The Bahamas | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
out of scope Trade (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Trade: Are you referring to the contents? Nominate the files for deletion and once they have been removed, the category can be speedy deleted as empty. Josh (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Trade: Category is now empty...so...speedy time. Josh (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Ansoft Solutions logos | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Two of (perspective) into Category:Groups of 2 | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Urban studies and planning to Category:Urban planning Create Urban studies with appropriate content | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Merge to Category:Chaplains to the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Is there anyone who's a chaplain of the house but not chaplains to the speaker? The full official name is preferred as the category title. Roy17 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Chaplains of the House of Commons (UK) into Category:Chaplains to the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
"Al fresco" is a synonym of "outdoor"--see [1] and [2]. Category should be merged into Category:Outdoor dining and this category redirected there. Likewise with Category:Al fresco dining by country and its subcategories. DanielPenfield (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Al fresco dining into Category:outdoor dining | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty category- is this currently needed? Ooligan (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've added a few images. Given that we have Category:Horses on book covers, why not also flags? It could be renamed to Category:Flags on book covers to make it clear that these are book covers depicting flags and not flags lying on books. --rimshottalk 15:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: This category now has content. Can we close this as resolved? Josh (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner I just responded to rimshot. I support his suggested category rename to match the other category, so can you close as resolved when ready. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Rimshot Yes, I agree with the renaming to Category:Flags on book covers. Can you do that category renaming or should I do it? Thanks for the reply and suggestion. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: This category now has content. Can we close this as resolved? Josh (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Flags on books to Category:Flags on book covers | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Drop the “the” in all sub categories. Zenwort (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Remove "the" from all sub-categories | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
à supprimer Teddy (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Manifestation contre la réforme des retraites de 2023 à Paris (19 janvier) | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty category (was empty when I found it; I didn't empty it.) Trivialist (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't have a Boo-Boo Bear category but I don't see the need for an intersecting category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Cosplay of Yogi Bear and Boo-Boo Bear | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Empty category (was empty when I found it; I didn't empty it.) Trivialist (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per C2. Would be helpful if there were enough images to justify it but if it was like one of two, it wouldn't excessive anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Toy Story 4 premiere in El Capitan Theater | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
License was deleted in 2020, the category is very unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any historical purpose to this category? The English one has been history merged into en:Category:Open Government Licence files so could this made into a redirect? Also, this is more of a G8 deletion since the template is gone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:GNSTU | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
This doesn't make sense, as there is no color photography from 1895. All these categories (up to the end of WWI) should be reverted and deleted. Yann (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: I have already given examples of color photography on my talk page some of which were "real". Here of some from the Wikipedia page about color photography which are all "real".
Sahaib (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I wrote up to the end of WWI. Most of your examples are past that date. Yann (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also I would not consider photographs that have been hand coloured to be "fake" such as File:Amundsen ombord. Gjöa 1903.1906. (9471830966).jpg because it is technically not black and white and so it does not matter if it is "real". Sahaib (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it matters. This is not a color photograph. It is a black and whote picture colored by hand, a totally different process. Yann (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have found an entire category of images like these Category:Early colour photographs. Also 1918 is an arbitrary date. Sahaib (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it matters. This is not a color photograph. It is a black and whote picture colored by hand, a totally different process. Yann (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also I would not consider photographs that have been hand coloured to be "fake" such as File:Amundsen ombord. Gjöa 1903.1906. (9471830966).jpg because it is technically not black and white and so it does not matter if it is "real". Sahaib (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I wrote up to the end of WWI. Most of your examples are past that date. Yann (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It seems like there is a use as there may exist non-BW photographs. I'm not sure why there is a separate category for black and white versus non-black and white photographs but it's been around forever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I am a prolific uploader of early black-and-white and sepia photographs. So the issue that I have had with this category (and any other category in respect of black-and-white photos) is that the black-and-white photography process and appearance, and sepia photography process and appearance were not the same, up to about 1930 when colour photography became more common. Sepia photography process uses ink (called sepia) from the cuttlefish. The prints from sepia photography look brown, not black. The sepia process allowed a softer and more subtle variation of tone, which made a huge difference in portraits. The best photographers loved it, and there are loads of very fine sepia photos on the National Portrait Gallery website. But unfortunately, some Commons editors are colour-blind, and it is difficult for them to differentiate between black-and-white prints and sepia prints. My own son is colour-blind, but he would normally ask friends for help if categorising black and white photographs in order to separate them from other colourways. So may I suggest that if you are colour-blind, and you are reading this page, please consider asking friends for help with this particular type of categorisation? That would save me re-categorising so many of my uploads. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK, fine. Yann (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | No consensus | |||
| Actions | Keep | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
What is the difference with Category:Household objects? Can these two categories be merged OR can they both get descriptions, that also show the differences between the two? What belongs to one of these categories that does not belong to the other, and vice versa? JopkeB (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:Domestic implements into Category:Household objects and also rename the subcategories with "Domestic implenets" in the title; Category:Domestic implements will get a redirect | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
duplicate of Category:Ottoman Empire in the 16th century Robby (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:16th century in the Ottoman Empire into Category:Ottoman Empire in the 16th century | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
duplicate of Category:Ottoman Empire in the 17th century Robby (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Merge Category:17th century in the Ottoman Empire into Category:Ottoman Empire in the 17th century | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
How many movie logos can there possibly be for a single film? The movie logos category tends to be for series that can have multiple logos but it makes no sense with a single film. Propose deletion and move all the categories onto the image file. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:The Polar Express (film) logos | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
As discussed in the category for the parent at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/07/Category:Cast members, these categories exist for categorization purposes alone and the Tom Hanks category is precisely a mess because of all these cast member categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- As mentioned, a discussion is ongoing as of the moment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/07/Category:Cast members. Nominating this category specifically as a separate discussion is unnecessary, since it should be handled in accordance with whatever the resolution of that discussion is. No request is being made to handle this category differently from other Cast members categories, so I am subsuming it into the main discussion. Josh (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  Unresolved | |||
| Actions | Subsume discussion into Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/07/Category:Cast members | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
What defines "vintage"? We have advertising categories by year, hard to see what this adds. Maybe convert content to a gallery? Jmabel ! talk 21:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Empty category, apparently for maintenance Sadads (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Empty category (was empty when I found it; I didn't empty it.) Trivialist (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if not empty, we have the two underlying categories so we don't need an intersecting category for the joint cosplay even if the characters are related. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Empty category (was empty when I found it; I didn't empty it.) Trivialist (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per C2 for now. I would support keeping if there were images so we can keep track of the cosplays by characters categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Cosplay of The Polar Express | |||
| Participants |
| |||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
deletion request because category is empty Jnmths (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete of Category:Lützi bleibt | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
Incorrect spelling, correct spelling is category:Aimée van Baalen Superbass (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I didn't come up with the idea of a redirect, the idea is good. Is it done in the same way for a category as for an article? I would withdraw my request for deletion in favour of a redirect, is that possible? Superbass (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Superbass: We use {{Category redirect}} for categories, but other than that, yes, it is the same as articles and other pages. I will go ahead and implement it here since there is no objection. Josh (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I didn't come up with the idea of a redirect, the idea is good. Is it done in the same way for a category as for an article? I would withdraw my request for deletion in favour of a redirect, is that possible? Superbass (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions |  Redirect Category:Aimée van Baalen to Category:Aimee van Baalen | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
Can we have a definition/description of and/or criteria for "VIews of Amsterdam"? There are now far too many photos in this category that I think do not belong here. My proposal:
- Overview of at least several streets (just one or two streets, a bridge and a canal is not enough)
- preferable from a high viewpoint, like a tower, roof or a high bridge
- there are no other objects in close-up on the photo, the main subject of the photo should be the (wide) view, not something in the foreground of the photo.
JopkeB (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
ːCompletely agree. I noticed that some pictures of Amsterdam are highly overcategorized. I'll do my best to remove the redundant categoriesː this is one I encountered a lot at files that do not comply with your (logical̠ standards. I'll work on it. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Jeff5102, for your reaction and your efforts to make Commons better. I'll wait another two weeks to see whether there are other opinions and then I'll make the changes. JopkeB (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Keep Add criteria in description + remove files that do not belong here Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
Why does this category exist? It looks like all the subcategories are in its parent category Category:Coats of arms of the House of Orange-Nassau as well. Either this category is redundant OR the subcategories should not be in Category:Coats of arms of the House of Orange-Nassau as well. JopkeB (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@User:Fry1989: Could you, as the initiator of this category, please give your opinion about this question? --JopkeB (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: That is a tricky one. I would prefer to:
- move all the subcategories to Category:Coats of arms of the House of Orange-Nassau, to be sure they are all there
- make a redirect for this category.
- But I have no idea whether there is a function for this category I do not know of. That is what I try to figger out with this discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Well we can let your proposal remain open for a bit. In a few weeks we still have no contributions, then I say we close and move forward. If later a purpose is identified, it can always be re-created with contents that match that definition. Josh (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- That is a good idea. I'll wait another two weeks, then I'll make the changes and close this Cdf. JopkeB (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Well we can let your proposal remain open for a bit. In a few weeks we still have no contributions, then I say we close and move forward. If later a purpose is identified, it can always be re-created with contents that match that definition. Josh (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) move all subcategories to Category:Coats of arms of the House of Orange-Nassau; (2) make a redirect for this category Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | If later a purpose is identified, this category might be re-created with contents that match that definition. | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
- see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:LGBT flags
- see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:Gay pride flags
Duplicate name, we need to decide between LGBT flags and LGBT pride flags, see Category_talk:Gay pride flags page. Amousey (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Subsumed Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:LGBT flags and Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:Gay pride flags discussions into this one. Josh (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Category:LGBT pride flags seems to be for the rainbow flag, and Category:LGBT flags for pride flags in general. I would suggest moving the non-rainbow flag files/categories out of the former and renaming it to "Rainbow pride flags". - Nikki (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
There appears to be an implicit consensus that the categories need clarifying. Nikki's suggestion is appropriate: Category:LGBT pride flags will refer to w:Rainbow flag (LGBT), and Category:LGBT flags will refer to w:Pride flag. Category:Gay pride flags will be a subcategory of LGBT flags. Pinging participants Amousey Joshbaumgartner Nikki (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Should be renamed to "Benjamin Netanyahu". No matter the official webpage of the Israeli Government and the Google trend showed that Benjamin is the most widely used first name of Netanyahu A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. It's a bit odd to render what is probably the same sound in the original as two different letters in English, for contrast German has two Js (Benjamin Netanjahu) while French has two Ys (Benyamin Netanyahou), but that's how it is. Category names should be in English, which is Benjamin Netanyahu. The child categories need to be renamed as well. --rimshottalk 15:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- His own official website states "Benjamin Netanyahu". Josh (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Rename Category:Benyamin Netanyahu to Category:Benjamin Netanyahu | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
The category is empty Yeagvr (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | Speedy delete | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
Category is empty; duplication of Category:Complesso universitario di San Pietro Martire Yeagvr (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved without objection | |||
| Actions | category is a redirect to correct one | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
Surely this category should be Tax office (파주세무서)? Zenwort (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Certainly, it could be a child of Category:Tax offices in South Korea. I'd suggest simply Category:Tax office in Paju, Gyeonggi-do. --rimshottalk 15:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Empty category Trivialist (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Trivialist: Did you empty the category before starting this discussion? There is no way for anyone to make any judgments when you do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: It was empty when I found it. I did not empty it. Trivialist (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Alright. Without any context, I guess delete as an empty category. This was a category under Category:Scoob! at some point but it's empty now for some reason. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like the creator and/or later editors hadn't settled on how to categorize characters from Scoob!—the first version of one related category was in Category:SCOOB! characters, but it was removed later. Trivialist (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: It was empty when I found it. I did not empty it. Trivialist (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Empty category (was empty when I found it; I didn't empty it.) Trivialist (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per C2 for now. I would support keeping if there were images so we can keep track of the cosplays by characters categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Split into Category:Writing (activity) and Category:Written works. Per the existing hat note, this category is a mash of two different concepts which both are covered by the English word "writing", 1) the activity of writing, and 2) the works created as a result of writing. Splitting would improve compliance with the Modularity, Selectivity, and Simplicity Principles. Josh (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, would think that Category:Hand-written works would be a natural sub of Category:Written works, as the result of the activity of Category:Handwriting. Category:Written works should be all-inclusive of any output of the writing process from a hand-scrawled note to an e-book, with sub-cats to cover the different varieties. If you think the term is perhaps not exactly right, maybe a name like Category:Writing (product) to indicate more exactly that it is the product of the writing process would work better? Josh (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Generally, Commons places the product of an activity as a child of the activity. Thus, I might refine the suggestion to:
- Maintain categories under Category:Writing (activity) for different types of writing processes (handwriting, typewriting, writing using a word processor, etc.)
- Create Category:Written works (or Category:Writing (product)) under Category:Writing (activity) and move all of the products of writing under this category.
- Maintain categories under Category:Written works for different types of writing (hand-written pages, printed books, emails, etc.)
- @JopkeB: I also agree with the distinction you make there that hand-written and electronically-published are not mutually exclusive, so they will need to be handled with the subs. Josh (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Josh: I completely
- @W like wiki: Absolutely no problem for me, Written works was my initial suggestion and partly rooted in my participation in the CfD re: Art works, so I'm fine with that, though Writings is not a bad suggestion either. I think I would still lean towards works being in there. I think the structure is probably the most important...the name can be tweaked later in light of experience. Josh (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Josh: “the structure is probably the most important...the name can be tweaked later in light of experience.” I love this,
Great! --W like wiki good to know 03:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Josh: “the structure is probably the most important...the name can be tweaked later in light of experience.” I love this,
- @W like wiki: Absolutely no problem for me, Written works was my initial suggestion and partly rooted in my participation in the CfD re: Art works, so I'm fine with that, though Writings is not a bad suggestion either. I think I would still lean towards works being in there. I think the structure is probably the most important...the name can be tweaked later in light of experience. Josh (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Results so far
[edit]@Joshbaumgartner and W like wiki: I think it is time to move forward. Resume of the discussion and actions:
- Rename Category:Writing to Category:Writing (activity) = the activity of writing; subcategories:
- Handwriting, Typewriting, Writing using a word processor, etc.
- Category:Written works OR Category:Writings [new] = works created as a result of writing; should be all-inclusive of any output of the writing process from a hand-scrawled note to an e-book, from bestsellers, published books, articles and other products to self-published works just to give away to frieds and family (like family trees and personal stories) and non published works like personal notes and diaries. Move all of the results of writing under this category. Some subcategories may be:
- Category:Writings by writer / Category:Written works by writer with subcategories like Categories:Writings of ... and Category:Handwriting by writer
- Category:Published written works = written works published in print/online
- Category:Hand-written works
Questions
- Do you agree that these are the results of this discussion?
- What do we choose: Category:Written works OR Category:Writings?
--JopkeB (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Support I agree with this. I think "written works" is the more explicit name. Writing should be dabbed, not just redirected to Writing (activity). Josh (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions |
| |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | It turns out that a lot of subcategories belong to both (activity + works) or neither. For now I did some reorganization, but kept this category. Please look into it and reorganize further. JopkeB (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC). Rest of the reorganization has been Done by User:Sbb1413 on 19-1-2024. move the files in Category:Writing to proper categories. Done by User:W like wiki on 15-2-24. | |||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
too specific ZandDev (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Move to parent Category:Photographers and artists who died in 1856 which is more for expired copyright issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as per Ricky81682. --Bohème (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted, the single subcat move to Category:Photographers and artists who died in 1856. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
This person is not notable, although he poses with famous people. Delete the image with the airplane, the other images can be kept. Please note Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sandro Salsano 1.jpg Ellywa (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a misunderstanding. The images with only the subject were deleted (decided by myself). The remaining images are the subject with notable people and an aircraft. Ellywa (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Kept, in use. Whatever the notability or lack of person, arranges images -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Is this category strictly necessary? Trade (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: --Trade (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- And exactly one image, at that. Category:Nude people with toys would suffice, no? Only possible justification for this is that if there is a reason to include The Muppets as an ancestor category, there might be a reason to section this out just so it wouldn't appear directly in that category when someone looks there (law of least surprise).
- Related question: doesn't that picture (NSFW) raise issues as a photograph of copyrighted toys? - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: A good point. I have no experience with COM:DR, but if someone gets it deleted, then this category becomes a speedy. Josh (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: we don't do so consistently, but we often do it. For example, that's exactly how we got Category:Nude or partially nude people with toothbrushes: "Law of least surprise." - Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure I see that as a big issue on this one, and besides its tangential to the core of the issue, on which I think we agree: Nude people with toys should be sufficient to house this one file. Josh (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: we don't do so consistently, but we often do it. For example, that's exactly how we got Category:Nude or partially nude people with toothbrushes: "Law of least surprise." - Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the way that college sports teams are categorized on Commons, there is a parent category for a given school's sports program (e.g. Southern Methodist University athletics for the SMU Mustangs), and then there are subcategories for all the teams at that school (e.g. SMU Mustangs football, SMU Mustangs men's soccer, etc). However, there is a special case: sometimes, the men's basketball team and the women's basketball team will have a combined category (e.g. SMU Mustangs basketball, which has subcategories SMU Mustangs men's basketball and SMU Mustangs women's basketball).
These combined basketball categories are unuseful and thus I am proposing they be deleted. There is no such thing as the "SMU Mustangs basketball" team; there is only the men's team and the women's team. The men's and women's basketball teams at any given school are not particularly linked to each other; they have separate players, separate staffs, separate histories, separate achievements, and sometimes even separate stadiums. There is almost never a case where it would make sense for an image to be in any school's "basketball" category; it would be better placed in either the men's or women's category (or, if an uploader is unsure, it can just go in the parent category for the school). These categories do not aid discoverability, as they are not linked to any Wikipedia articles, and we can simply add the "men's" and "women's" categories to all the same parent categories.
The downsides of these categories are great. To get from a given basketball team to the parent athletic program, you must go up two levels in the category tree instead of just one, which is cumbersome. This is usually a very needless step, as usually the "basketball" category has very little in it (just one or both of the men's/women's teams, and sometimes a stadium). These categories also create confusion: if you are looking at Duke Blue Devils men's basketball, you can find some of their historical home venues (Alumni Memorial Gymnasium and The Ark, which predate the existence of the women's team), but you cannot find their current venue (Cameron Indoor Stadium); you need to go up one level to Duke Blue Devils basketball to find it. This is a problem for every school where the men's and women's teams share a stadium; it is cumbersome to have to go up a level to find the stadium.
Thus, I think they should be deleted. Additionally, 11 schools have a "basketball players" category, which combines the "men's basketball players" and "women's basketball players" categories, and 2 schools have a "basketball coaches" category. I think these should be deleted for the same reasons. See below the fold for some minutiae about the deletion process.
Before deleting the "basketball" categories, all the parent categories that each "basketball" category is currently tagged in should be copied to the "men's" and "women's" categories (except for Category:College basketball teams in the United States by name, as that category should also be deleted). So for example, each of SMU Mustangs men's basketball and SMU Mustangs women's basketball would be added to Southern Methodist University athletics and Basketball teams in Texas. Any stadiums found in the "basketball" category should be added to both the "men's" and "women's" categories (e.g. Cameron Indoor Stadium should be added to Duke Blue Devils men's basketball and Duke Blue Devils women's basketball).
Some edge cases:
- There exist 2 shared "basketball coaches" categories: Butler Bulldogs basketball coaches and Nebraska Cornhuskers basketball coaches. Each of these has precisely 1 women's item, and the rest of the contents are for the men's team, so I propose we rename them to "men's basketball coaches" and move the women's items to the respective "women's basketball" categories.
- In combing through all these categories, I've found precisely four individual files which relate to both the men's and women's teams at their respective schools (Duke Blue Devils basketball mark.svg, Ole Miss Rebels basketball logo.svg, Tuckerbanners.jpg, 2014 UConn National Championship teams at the White House.JPG). Just like the stadiums, these should be copied to both the "men's" and "women's" categories.
- I had expected there would be some photos that I could not determine whether they were from a men's game or a women's game, and I was going to propose such files be placed in the parent category for the school. However, it turns out that there were no images for any team that I couldn't sort as men's or women's.
Full list of deletions:
- Category:College basketball teams in the United States by name
- Category:Air Force Falcons basketball
- Category:Akron Zips basketball
- Category:Alabama Crimson Tide basketball
- Category:Alaska Nanooks basketball
- Category:Arkansas Razorbacks basketball
- Category:Auburn Tigers basketball
- Category:Baylor Bears basketball
- Category:Boise State Broncos basketball
- Category:Boston College Eagles basketball
- Category:Boston University Terriers basketball
- Category:Bowling Green Falcons basketball
- Category:Bradley Braves basketball
- Category:Brigham Young University Cougars basketball
- Category:Buffalo Bulls basketball
- Category:Butler Bulldogs basketball
- Category:Cal State Northridge Matadors basketball
- Category:Cameron Aggies basketball
- Category:Central Michigan Chippewas basketball
- Category:Chattanooga Mocs basketball
- Category:Chicago Maroons basketball
- Category:Clemson Tigers basketball
- Category:Colorado State Rams basketball
- Category:Connecticut Huskies basketball
- Category:Davidson Wildcats basketball
- Category:Dayton Flyers basketball
- Category:Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens basketball
- Category:DePaul Blue Demons basketball
- Category:Detroit Mercy Titans basketball
- Category:Dillard Bleu Devils and Lady Bleu Devils basketball
- Category:Drexel Dragons basketball
- Category:Duke Blue Devils basketball
- Category:Duquesne Dukes basketball
- Category:Eastern Kentucky Colonels basketball
- Category:Eastern Michigan Eagles basketball
- Category:FIU Panthers basketball
- Category:Florida Gators basketball
- Category:Florida Gulf Coast Eagles basketball
- Category:Florida Southern Moccasins basketball
- Category:Florida State Seminoles basketball
- Category:Fordham Rams basketball
- Category:Fresno State Bulldogs basketball
- Category:George Mason Patriots basketball
- Category:George Washington Colonials basketball
- Category:Georgetown Hoyas basketball
- Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets basketball
- Category:Gonzaga Bulldogs basketball
- Category:Goshen Maple Leafs basketball
- Category:Green Bay Phoenix basketball
- Category:Hawaii Rainbow Warriors and Rainbow Wahine basketball
- Category:Hillsdale Chargers basketball
- Category:Holy Cross Crusaders basketball
- Category:Houston Cougars basketball
- Category:Indiana Hoosiers basketball
- Category:Indiana State Sycamores basketball
- Category:Iowa Hawkeyes basketball
- Category:Iowa State Cyclones basketball
- Category:Jacksonville Dolphins basketball
- Category:Kansas City Roos basketball
- Category:Kansas Jayhawks basketball
- Category:Kansas State Wildcats basketball
- Category:Kent State Golden Flashes basketball
- Category:Kentucky Wildcats basketball
- Category:La Salle Explorers basketball
- Category:Lake Superior State Lakers basketball
- Category:Liberty Flames and Lady Flames basketball
- Category:Louisville Cardinals basketball
- Category:Loyola Ramblers basketball
- Category:Loyola Wolf Pack basketball
- Category:LSU Tigers basketball
- Category:Manhattan Jaspers and Lady Jaspers basketball
- Category:Marquette Golden Eagles basketball
- Category:Maryland Terrapins basketball
- Category:McNeese State Cowboys and Cowgirls basketball
- Category:Memphis Tigers basketball
- Category:Mercyhurst Lakers basketball
- Category:Miami Hurricanes basketball
- Category:Michigan State Spartans basketball
- Category:Michigan Wolverines basketball
- Category:Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders basketball
- Category:Minnesota Golden Gophers basketball
- Category:Mississippi State Bulldogs basketball
- Category:Missouri Tigers basketball
- Category:Montana Grizzlies and Lady Griz basketball
- Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers basketball
- Category:Nevada Wolf Pack basketball
- Category:New Mexico Lobos basketball
- Category:New Orleans Privateers basketball
- Category:Niagara Purple Eagles basketball
- Category:Nicholls State Colonels basketball
- Category:North Carolina State Wolfpack basketball
- Category:North Carolina Tar Heels basketball
- Category:North Florida Ospreys basketball
- Category:Northeastern Huskies basketball
- Category:Northern Colorado Bears basketball
- Category:Northwestern Wildcats basketball
- Category:Notre Dame Fighting Irish basketball
- Category:Oakland Golden Grizzlies basketball
- Category:Ohio Bobcats basketball
- Category:Ohio State Buckeyes basketball
- Category:Oklahoma Sooners basketball
- Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball
- Category:Oregon Ducks basketball
- Category:Oregon State Beavers basketball
- Category:Penn State Nittany Lions and Lady Lions basketball
- Category:Pittsburgh Panthers basketball
- Category:Portland Pilots basketball
- Category:Princeton Tigers basketball
- Category:Providence Friars basketball
- Category:Purdue Boilermakers basketball
- Category:Queens Royals basketball
- Category:Quinnipiac Bobcats basketball
- Category:Radford Highlanders basketball
- Category:Rice Owls basketball
- Category:Richmond Spiders basketball
- Category:RIT Tigers basketball
- Category:Saint Joseph's Hawks basketball
- Category:Saint Louis Billikens basketball
- Category:Saint Mary's Gaels basketball
- Category:San Diego State Aztecs basketball
- Category:San Diego Toreros basketball
- Category:San Francisco Dons basketball
- Category:Santa Clara Broncos basketball
- Category:Seattle Redhawks basketball
- Category:Siena Saints basketball
- Category:SMU Mustangs basketball
- Category:South Alabama Jaguars basketball
- Category:South Carolina Gamecocks basketball
- Category:South Florida Bulls basketball
- Category:Southern Nazarene Crimson Storm basketball
- Category:St. Bonaventure Bonnies basketball
- Category:St. John's Red Storm basketball
- Category:Syracuse Orange basketball
- Category:TCU Horned Frogs basketball
- Category:Texas A&M Aggies basketball
- Category:Texas Longhorns basketball
- Category:Tulane Green Wave basketball
- Category:UC Davis Aggies basketball
- Category:UC Irvine Anteaters basketball
- Category:UC Santa Barbara Gauchos basketball
- Category:UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen basketball
- Category:United States Naval Academy basketball
- Category:USI Screaming Eagles basketball
- Category:Utah Utes basketball
- Category:Vanderbilt Commodores basketball
- Category:VCU Rams basketball
- Category:Vermont Catamounts basketball
- Category:Villanova Wildcats basketball
- Category:Virginia Cavaliers basketball
- Category:Virginia Tech Hokies basketball
- Category:Wake Forest Demon Deacons basketball
- Category:Walsh Cavaliers basketball
- Category:Weber State Wildcats basketball
- Category:West Virginia Mountaineers basketball
- Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks basketball
- Category:Western Michigan Broncos basketball
- Category:Wichita State Shockers basketball
- Category:Wisconsin Badgers basketball
- Category:Xavier Musketeers basketball
- Category:Butler Bulldogs basketball players
- Category:Connecticut Huskies basketball players
- Category:Dayton Flyers basketball players
- Category:Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens basketball players
- Category:DePaul Blue Demons basketball players
- Category:Duke Blue Devils basketball players
- Category:Loyola Wolf Pack basketball players
- Category:LSU Tigers basketball players
- Category:North Carolina State Wolfpack basketball players
- Category:Notre Dame Fighting Irish basketball players
- Category:Wisconsin Badgers basketball players
–IagoQnsi (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if you think that would simplify things without sacrificing functionality, then go for it. That said, there are a number of wikidata links that would be affected by this change, but I'm unsure that should be considered as a factor in this sort of thing. Mbrickn (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Neutral I don't have any preference at all on this. Michael Barera (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: I've combed through all of these categories, and there are very few common contents: just the stadiums and 4 other files (see my 'deletion details' hidden section above). Every other file/subcategory we have relates only to one of the two teams. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Close as Kept, established, in use in category tree. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
what's the difference between looking downward and Category:People looking down?? RZuo (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any. Would suggest merging the categories. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think It's better not to merge the categories. The two are completely different.
- upward=up+forward, downward=down+forward.three-quarter? --Benzoyl (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Down and downward are interchangeable in common English as directional references, in indicating a direction below the horizon. If we want to distinguish between different degrees of down, then a more precise naming is needed, not just making up distinctions for 'down' and 'downward'. For example:
- Category:People looking down - looking at an angle below the horizon
- Category:People looking down and forward - looking down at an angle below the horizon but not directly down
- Category:People looking directly down - looking down at an angle nearly perpindicular to the horizon
- Category:People looking down - looking at an angle below the horizon
- Josh (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Down and downward are interchangeable in common English as directional references, in indicating a direction below the horizon. If we want to distinguish between different degrees of down, then a more precise naming is needed, not just making up distinctions for 'down' and 'downward'. For example:
- It's a distinction without a difference. I agree with merging the categories. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ReneeWrites:
I agree. For now(edit: no longer empty) Josh (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ReneeWrites:
- i think there's another distinction: between how the head is tilted and to which direction the eyes are looking.
- people can still look up when their heads are slightly tilted down, look left when their faces turn right.
- then there's the variable of angle. to put a continuous range into discrete cats is difficult, because there're no clear boundaries.RZuo (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: 13:02, 2 February 2023,
- Cat-delete is very premature.
Someone@ReneeWrites: removed this category at the past few days. [3] --Benzoyl (talk)- @Benzoyl: Well that is not cool. Thanks for uncovering that. I've struck my earlier comment as a result. Josh (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @RZuo: Indeed, we could get endlessly complex, which I doubt we really want to. Category:People facing 36 degrees up while looking 72 degrees up is probably not a category we ever want to have. However, some distinction will make sense. How much should depend on the amount of actual media there is to support the sub-categorization. Thus I would recommend we outline only the basic structure and allow it to be expanded as supported by actual hosted file content. There are a few things to classify things along:
- What are we determining the facing/direction of? I think primarily it is the body, face, and eyes that anyone would be concerned with for starters:
- What is the frame of reference? The most obvious is the frame of the viewer's image, but other frames of reference can include the real horizon, the subject's body, or even face:
- Viewer's frame of reference = People by direction of eyes relative to the viewer -> People looking towards the viewer, People looking to the left of the viewer
- Subject horizon = People by direction of eyes relative to the horizon -> People looking up relative to the horizon, People looking down relative to the horizon
- Subject's face = People by direction of eyes relative to face -> Eyes oriented up relative to face, Eyes oriented left relative to face
- Subject's body = People by direction of face relative to body -> People facing forward relative to body, People facing left relative to body
- Which basic directions and combinations do we consider? The six basic directions (forward/back/up/down/left/right) are a starting point, but it can get compex from there:
- Single general direction = People facing forward, People looking left, etc.
- Complex directions (2x) = People facing forward and up, People looking down and left, etc.
- Complex directions (3x) = People facing forward, up, right, People looking forward, down, left, etc.
- How true must the heading be? This refers to how well lined-up the subject is with a particular direction (i.e. directly or generally facing a given direction)
- Generally (within 60 degrees of the indicated heading) = People facing forward, People looking left, etc.
- Directly (no more than a few degrees off of heading in any axis) = People facing directly forward, People looking directly left, etc.
- First, I am not advocating for or against any or all of these options, merely outlining the potential scope of the discussion and what will need to be worked out before we can really adopt a schema going forward. Second, I am more concerned with the structure of the category tree than with actual names. All of the above names are for example and can be changed later, even after adopting a schema, if deemed necessary. Consider them working titles for now. Josh (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- For example, see how a maximal categorization could be applied (again, not necessarily advocating this level of detail, just illustrating):
- These are just some of the permutations someone could apply to this image. Josh (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being late...
- @RZuo: 13:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggesting, very appropriate Category-name.
- I created
- I agree now,
- @Joshbaumgartner: Thanks for the great suggestions!!
- Many photos chaotic in Category:People looking up and Category:People looking down. Category-segmentalize is necessary for user's practical.
- Sorry, I can't answer right away, because I have to more study for category-structure in this large‐scale case.
- But intuitively now, one thing I can say for sure, I would be happy if your segmentalize ideas came true from now on.. --Benzoyl (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted, empty. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, category Lighting devices should be merged into Lighting fixtures, both mean the same! Note: Before Lighting devices was connected to wikidata item lamp (Q1138737) what I already changed. Here is the old version: Q1138737, old version (at this time also still with wrong image, wrong english description and wrong link to en:Lighting fixture via redirect en:Luminaire). Regards --W like wiki good to know 18:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- As I understand it:
- Lighting devices are Devices used for Lighting and thus are a very broad collection of objects
- Lighting fixtures are Lighting devices which specifically hold/mount/connect a light-producing component (lamp/luminaire/etc.)
- Thus these are/should be seperate categories. There was a big CfD on this topic a few years back but I can't find it in a quick look, and I'm not sure if it ever concluded. Josh (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- 1. I do not agree : they mean not at all the same!
- 2. Yes Josh, Category:Lighting fixtures is a sub-category of Category:Lighting devices.
- 3. @ W like wiki : The latter holds any object related to artificial lighting regardless of whether it is destinated
- to produce light such as oil lamps, butter lamps, gas and kerosene lamps (burners), light bulbs, neon lamps and tubes...
- to connect, hold or house light-generating objects, see → sockets, lamp stands and posts, lanterns...
- to contol lighting systems see → dimmers, lighting consoles...
- Note that focusing or magnifying globes (so called lacemaker's globes or cobbler's balls) do not fall under any of the functions mentioned above. They aren't lamps nor are they lighting fixtures. So where else should they be categorized if you delete or merge the lighting devices category ?
- I hope this helps. Kind regards, --Bohème (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Bohème: ok thank you! I understand your concept! But are you sure, that for example controls are also Lighting devices.
- In Wikidata a lightning device is an apparatus, fixed or portable, whose primary purpose is to produce artificial light?
- Category:Lighting devices is also part of Category:Light-generating objects!
- So if your concept is right (which makes sence, especially with the example cobblers balls), both points above should be updated/changed!? Regards --W like wiki good to know 16:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Bohème: ok thank you! I understand your concept! But are you sure, that for example controls are also Lighting devices.
I only noticed this discussion after I posed a similar question at Category_talk:Lamps.
The current situation is very confusing as Category:Lighting fixtures, Category:Lighting devices, Category:Light-generating objects and Category:Lamps all seem to hold a more or less erratic collection of lighting-related media.
Is it correct to broadly define:
- en:Lamp as a light bulb, LED or any other (technical) object which emits light in a narrow sense
- en:Light fixture as any kind of (self-contained) object used to light up any specific (or unspecific) area (and optionally includes a (lightbulb) socket, (lamp)shade, case, housing, stand, post, mount etc.)
- en:Lighting devices as all of the above plus any other lighting-related devices that do not necessarily produce/emit/cast light themselves - as defined by Bohème above
- en:Light sources as any light-emitting entity/ phenomenon (including the sun etc.) as in en:List_of_light_sources and Category:Light-generating objects ? (Comment: In this case it should maybe be considered to merge the category into the current redirect "category:Light sources" as a volcanic eruption, nuclear reaction and the sun might not usually be called 'objects' in a narrower sense.)
If so then all of these categories may actually serve a distinct purpose and to help the confusion we would probably be necessary to
- add a succinct and comprehensible definition to each category
and of course
- clean up the respective content so that it may serve as an example for future categorisation.
Thanks for all your help,
KaiKemmann (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
PS: In this discussion in 2019 Andy Dingley and Joostik previously discussed the Lamp category
- @Ingolfson, W like wiki, Explicit, Joostik, Lx 121, Neo-Jay, Rhadamante, Grzexs, Bohème, Lionel Allorge, ArwinJ, W!B:, Stepa, Foroa, WikipediaMaster, Jmabel, G.dallorto, Aiko, Ranveig, Allforrous, Skinsmoke, Tony Wills, Bdk, Pieter Kuiper, Tano4595, Hovitzer, Glenn, Kreuz und quer, Dmitry G, and Joshbaumgartner:
- I agree with KaiKemmann. The categories that do not have an elaborate enough description, should be supplemented by e.g. KaiKemmann's clarifications. --Glenn (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- That would be fine with me. Are there any objections? And, conversely, is anyone willing to take this on? - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: No objection, only an addition: I speak English at intermediate level but it is difficult to understand the exact differences among the terms. It could be useful to add a detailed description in English (seems done) and in other languages with synonyms (at top of the listed categories but maybe better if done with Wikidata) and check the connection between these categories and respective Wikidata items. --ZandDev (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- That would be fine with me. Are there any objections? And, conversely, is anyone willing to take this on? - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with KaiKemmann. The categories that do not have an elaborate enough description, should be supplemented by e.g. KaiKemmann's clarifications. --Glenn (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- There is an obvious difference between 'devices' and 'fixtures': fixtures are fixed. They are permanently-attached devices. So there's a subcategory relationship in all this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Closing. Adopting KaiKemmann's solution, with ZandDev's minor amendment. Now someone needs to go through and actually execute on this (I realize some has already been done). Pinging all others involved, sorry if I missed someone:
- @Ingolfson, W like wiki, Explicit, Joostik, Lx 121, Neo-Jay, Rhadamante, Grzexs, Bohème, Lionel Allorge, ArwinJ, W!B:, Stepa, Foroa, WikipediaMaster, Jmabel, G.dallorto, Aiko, Ranveig, Allforrous, Skinsmoke, Tony Wills, Bdk, Pieter Kuiper, Tano4595, Hovitzer, Glenn, Kreuz und quer, Dmitry G, Joshbaumgartner, and Bohème:
many strange things about "space", "outer space", "universe"... some major clarification and cleanup are needed.
- Category:Space Category:Outer space Category:Universe exist simultaneously
- afaict, it seems "astronomical objects (all galaxies, stars, planets...)"+"outer space"="universe". that's how "outer space"'s definition on enwp is. "Outer space, commonly shortened to space, is the expanse that exists beyond Earth and its atmosphere and between celestial bodies."
- but in colloquial usage, outer space is often synonymous with universe.
- and "space" is the colloquial, short form of "outer space".
- that gives rise to Category:Space in art.
- but "space" itself has broad meanings. it could just mean some empty region? which i guess is the reason behind Category:Space in Azerbaijan Category:Space in Germany Category:Space in Poland Category:Space in Ukraine?
--RZuo (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @RZuo: I support your intension of clarification! Beside your notice here I made some clean up of these categories:
- moved the files related to outerspace from space to outerspace
- placed Outer space as a subcategorie of Space
- placed Outer space as a subcategorie of Universe (like Matter was already). But in physics or astronomy I think no one talks about "outer space" because space is everywhere and there is no "outer space" just "outer earth".
- placed Space as a subcategorie of Physics
- Outer space was already a subcategorie of Astronomy
- Still the clarification needed, on en:outer space: "Outer space (..) is the expanse that exists beyond Earth and its atmosphere and between celestial bodies." So question: Where to put Astronomical objects, are they part of Outer space or are astron. objects + outer space = universe? Regards --W like wiki good to know 18:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- There has been some debate on whether astronomical objects belong to the outer space. According to Space law, "Many questions arise from the difficulty of defining the term "space". Scholars not only debate its geographical definition (i.e. upper and lower limits), but also whether or not it also encompasses various objects within it (i.e. celestial objects, human beings, man-made devices)." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Categories having to do with broad stroke philosophical concepts or topics never work well. In this case the Wikidata infobox doesn't even seem to fit with most of the images in the category since it's for the general concept of "space" having to do with a three-dimensional continuum containing positions and directions. Not outer space like most of the images related to. So if it were me I'd just either delete the category or turn it into a disambiguation page. Maybe with a couple of categories having to do with "space" but that make it clear which images of "space" should go in the categories, the one having to do with positions in space or outer space as it were. A category for images of "space" is kind of useless on it's own though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- @W like wiki, Adamant1, and Sbb1413: The question of objects is a good one. Are islands part of the ocean? Should then Islands be a sub of Bodies of water? Should Midway Atoll be a sub of Pacific Ocean? The same question applied to outer space has the same kind of mix. It would seem logical to most at first glance for Stars to be in Outer space, but if we classify Astronomical objects (target of Celestial bodies redirect) as part of outer space, Earth is an astronomical object, but Outer space is specifically beyond Earth's atmosphere, so can't include Earth. It think we should approach Outer space as merely being the 'open' space between 'bodies', and not include those bodies as subs. As to Adamant1's comments about images of space therefore not really being feasible, I might agree, but we don't just host images. We also host other media (e.g. information graphics and texts) which may indeed specifically describe that open space, as well as topics (e.g. Astronautics, which is particular to navigation of that open space), and so I think the category is still viable even if we don't have any images strictly of space itself (I'm not sure we don't). Josh (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: The islands (excluding the seven traditional continents) are obviously part of waterbodies, including oceans. Therefore, Islands should be a sub of Bodies of water. On the other hand, the Astronomical objects are part of the Universe, and not part of the Outer space. The outer space should be considered as the open space between heavenly bodies (as defined in Wikidata). You don't have to use the category Outer space strictly for the space itself, you can include celestial bodies there, especially in the hypothetical category Astronomical objects from space. The proposed relation of astronomical objects with the outer space and the universe is the following:
- Universe — the "everything" category, including every people and objects we've seen so far.
- Objects — for all objects in the universe.
- Astronomical objects — for astronomical objects, as internationally defined.
- Outer space — for the void between astronomical objects.
- Objects in outer space — for the objects seen from another object in outer space (hereinafter "from space").
- Astronomical objects from space — for all images and videos of astronomical objects taken from space.
- Earth from space — for the views of Earth from space.
- Mars from space — for the views of Mars from space.
- Satellite pictures — for all images of astronomical objects taken from orbiting spacecraft.
- Spacecraft in outer space — for images and videos of spacecraft taken from another spacecraft.
- Astronomical objects from space — for all images and videos of astronomical objects taken from space.
- Objects in outer space — for the objects seen from another object in outer space (hereinafter "from space").
- Objects — for all objects in the universe.
- Universe — the "everything" category, including every people and objects we've seen so far.
- --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- As Adamant1 has pointed out, the category Space is rather useless. It can be converted into a dab page linking to other useful categories like Outer space and Dimensions. The "space by country" categories like Space in Germany and Space in Ukraine can be deleted or redirected to night sky categories like Night sky in Germany and Night sky in Ukraine respectively, which would contain images and videos of the outer space from respective countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Joshbaumgartner: The islands (excluding the seven traditional continents) are obviously part of waterbodies, including oceans. Therefore, Islands should be a sub of Bodies of water. On the other hand, the Astronomical objects are part of the Universe, and not part of the Outer space. The outer space should be considered as the open space between heavenly bodies (as defined in Wikidata). You don't have to use the category Outer space strictly for the space itself, you can include celestial bodies there, especially in the hypothetical category Astronomical objects from space. The proposed relation of astronomical objects with the outer space and the universe is the following:
- There has been some debate on whether astronomical objects belong to the outer space. According to Space law, "Many questions arise from the difficulty of defining the term "space". Scholars not only debate its geographical definition (i.e. upper and lower limits), but also whether or not it also encompasses various objects within it (i.e. celestial objects, human beings, man-made devices)." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Implemented the proposed category scheme, converted Space into a dab page. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
This seems like a category of trivia. This is not Category:Saroo Brierley by location which would be where the media files we have Sarro Brierley show him to be but just images of places he has been. It makes zero sense for every image of the Howrah Bridge to be placed into this category because he visited that bridge. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This category and all the subcategories are basically trivia. I think Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog is correct that the location is not illustrative of a location. I wouldn't even want to image how many categories a Hollywood set would be stuffed with if we let it go on. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
These are also included here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This discussion is over the content categories in the format "Topics in country". These appear to be used to contain a small list of about 6 'main topics' for the country in question. However, all of these 'main topics' should also simply be directly under the country's main category, so the "Topics in country" category does not serve any purpose but to create COM:OVERCAT violations. Recommend ensuring all main topics are correctly in their parent country main cat and delete the "Topics in country" category. Josh (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. And when ensuring that the "main topics" are in their respective country categories, could we please also put them in alphabetical order instead of grouped at the top of the category? -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Apparently I created the category in 2014. I suspect it was because Category:Topics is some kind of main root category, and "Topics by country" was to move some by-location stuff out of the main category. I have no objection if you want to delete it or change it. --ghouston (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Such as, Category:Science and technology is a subcategory of Topics, so Category:Science and technology by country becomes a subcategory of Topics by country. --ghouston (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: Thank you for that feedback, and I have no quarrel with your initial intent here (though it may be duplicated more comprehensively by Categories by country...but that is a separate question). I think the categories I am concerned with (such as topics in Austria) have been created quite recently and well after your initial creation of the category, and which I recommend we upmerge/delete. Josh (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I fully support this: Ensure all main topics are correctly (and alphabetically sorted) in their parent country main cat and delete the "Topics in country" categories. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | Delete Category:Topics by country and "Topics in country" children | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Josh (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
how to distinguish merchants from Category:Businesspeople?
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/merchant_1 "a person who buys and sells goods in large quantities, especially one who imports and exports goods"
many businesspeople do the same thing, buying and selling?
if the distinction cannot be drawn clearly, i suggest merging into businesspeople. RZuo (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Businessperson#History has some info about the etymology of these words. RZuo (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The way I've always understood it is that merchants are more a class of trades people or crafters who sell the goods they create. Whereas a business person is say a business owner or someone who is generally involved in a business. Although there is some overlap there, but I think it's reflected in the fact that Category:Merchants contains sub-categories like Category:Wine merchants. I wouldn't really consider someone who creates bootleg wine in their basement as a part time hobby a business person. Even if they might sell at the local flea market or wherever. To be a business person you really have to own or run a legitimate, formal company and do it as a full time occupation. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Salespeople.
- I think:
- merchants are people who buy and sell goods for their own account, independently. (S)He only buys and sell goods, does not create goods or services. (In French: marchand = vendeur/vendor; in Dutch: koopman: koop = buy, man = man.) I think in general a merchant works alone or has a few employees, perhaps a dozen. I think a wine merchant does not make wine himself, but selects and buys boxes with bottles of wine directly from several wineries and sells them to other businesses, like restaurant and shops.
- business people might own (or have founded or have shares in) a large company, which also might create goods and/or services themselves, not just buy and sell goods.
- So Merchants might be a subcategory of Business people.
- I would like to keep both, also because "merchant" is an old word, dating from the Middle Ages and the category can and does have images from that time. I suggest to give both categories good description showing the differences between these two categories. JopkeB (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Conclusions
[edit]- Category:Merchants and Category:Businesspeople schould both stay.
Action Category:Merchants should become a subcategory of Category:Businesspeople.
@RZuo and Adamant1: Do you agree with these conclusions? --JopkeB (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- i agree with #1 and 2. we do need proper descriptions and definitions of the merchants cat, so that users dont categorise people arbitrarily.
- i think the definition of businesspeople is rather straightforward and very broad -- any person doing any business.
- as for merchants, i dont know what exactly. besides, there's the problem of the equivalent word in different languages. RZuo (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with point 1. To me a merchant is an individual seller of goods who might or not do it as part of a formal business. Whereas "businesspeople" are solely people who has founded, owns, or holds shares in a private-sector company. Like plenty of Category:Fur traders did so informally and not not as part of a business venture. Otherwise your just blurring the lines when it comes to the definition of a business and making it more about the general activity of doing something involving money and/or trade then an "organization undertaking commercial, industrial, or professional activity", which is the current definition for Category:Business. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
So the proposed descriptions should be adjusted. Now we have different opinions:
- business people:
- any person doing any business (RZuo)
- people who has founded, owns, or holds shares in a private-sector company (Adamant1 and EN-WP)
- people who might not just buy and sell goods, but also produce them (JopkeB)
- a merchant
- an individual seller of goods who might or not do it as part of a formal business (Adamant1)
- someone who buys and sells goods for his/her own account, independently, and does not produce goods (JopkeB)
- a person who trades in commodities produced by other people (EN-WP)
I propose to stay as close to the EN-WP as possible. Then we might get:
- business people: people who have founded, own, and/or hold shares in a private-sector company; that is: people who are involved in buying and selling goods, and might also produce them, in one way or another.
- a merchant: a person who trades in commodities produced by other people.
@RZuo and Adamant1: Can you agree with these descriptions? If not: what should be changed?
- Yeah, I'm cool with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- business is not just goods. accountants', lawyers', physicians'... practices are all "businesses". they only provide service.
- that does show that merchant, however, is someone who buy and sell something.
- businesspeople dont only work in private sector either.--RZuo (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, businesspeople might not only buy and sell goods, but might also just provide services. That we should change.
- A merchant not just trades in commodities, but also in other kind of goods. That we should change as well.
- Can you give an example of businesspeople who do not work in the private sector? JopkeB (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Director-General of the BBC, List of presidents of Petrobras...
- are they businesspeople? i think yes. are their businesses in the private sector? i think no. RZuo (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick reply. You might be right, so I have changed the description below. --JopkeB (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
So then we get:
- business people: people who have founded, own, and/or hold shares in a
private-sectorcompany; that is: people who are involved in buying and selling goods and might also produce them, in one way or another, and/or are providing services. - a merchant: a person who trades in goods produced by other people.
"private-sector" might however still be removed from the first description. --JopkeB (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | (1) Category:Merchants should become a subcategory of Category:Businesspeople. (2) Both categories should get descriptions. Done | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | JopkeB (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
Rename to Category:Ancient Roman philosophy, consistent with parent Category:Ancient Roman culture and subcat Category:Ancient Roman philosophers. Fayenatic london (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- @User:Fayenatic_london By now there was moreover created Category:Ancient Roman philosophy. I suggest to simnply transform Category:Roman-era philosophy into a redirect to this newly created category. Robby (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
This category is empty and there was no comment in this discussion for over a year. Therefor I close this discussion and make a redirect for Category:Roman-era philosophy to Category:Ancient Roman philosophy, as Robby suggested. --JopkeB (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Cette catégorie devrait être fusionnée avec Category:Historical trams in Lyon , qui a le même objet avec des contenus distincts Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Cela semble nécessaire. Bonne journée --Quoique (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oui, je suis également favorable à cette fusion de catégories pour évider la redondance et les doublons. Damien P (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Most of the topics under this category do not use the article "the" ahead of "Andaman and Nicobar Islands". "The" would be the more natural English reading, but there are odd cases of various political entities using or refusing "the" in English usage of their name despite normal English construction. Since most articles I have looked at and other references to this one use "the", we should adopt a "the" in category names as follows:
Of course, if there is the opposite case to be made, then "the" should be removed from those which use it:
Either way is fine, we need to pick one. Josh (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't know what articles you looked at, because you've provided no links. Every article across all Wikimedia projects omits the definite article. This is against the style guide for enwiki and other wikis. Unless you can furnish examples of other Commons categories prefixed with the definite article and proposing harmonization with standard practice, we'll oppose this isolated request.
- Elizium23 (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Elizium23: The very first words of Andaman_and_Nicobar_Islands are "The Andaman and Nicobar Islands is a...", and it is sprinkled with phrases like, "...placed the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in one...". I could list a bunch more such quotes, but hopefully you get the idea. If using "the" is somehow a violation of the style guide (I don't see these Islands mentioned anywhere in that guide...maybe you could provide the link?), then it sounds like the enwiki main article needs some prompt attention! You say, "Every article across all Wikimedia projects omits the definite article", but this demonstrably false, we have definite articles in category names all the time all over the place (how many "X of the United States" categories do we have?), including some in this very category tree. I'm just not sure where you are getting that from (links?). Also, you were so quick to jump in (bravo!) that you got in while I was still completing my initial post, please see the full post above for my proposal. I'm not sure exactly what you are opposing (or who the mysterious "we" refers to), as it is an either-or situation, unless you are just blanket opposing any fix and want to retain a mix of some categories with "the" and some without "the" in them. Josh (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles begin with "The" because they're written in complete sentences. Categories (and article names) refer to an item or object or concept, and are not complete sentences, they are the most compact representation of the term we can muster.
- So you're comparing apples with oranges. Elizium23 (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Elizium23: So you want to remove "the" from every category name on Commons?!? Are you being serious or just vexing? Josh (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wait a minute (just saw your Bahamas posting), you don't think I am proposing changing Category:Andaman and Nicobar Islands to Category:The Andaman and Nicobar Islands do you? I was pretty clear that this CfD is about its children (see the renames I proposed), not the main category. No I am not proposing to make it like the Bahamas is. If that is what you are opposing, I get your vehemence, even it was based on a misreading of the proposal. So that said, perhaps you could weigh in on which of the two proposals I did make above you would support? Josh (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- (my two cents + not sure if I'm replying in the right place) Both with and with the definite article are valid, but mean two different things. The A & N I are what these archipelagos are called, but A & N I, without the definite article, is the legal designation of these islands, as a union territory of India. I would vote to remove "The" from (sub)-headings of sections or articles, but retain the definite article in all inline text, except when referring to the legal entity (as a union territory of India) and not the region. Akshaysurendra1 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Elizium23: The very first words of Andaman_and_Nicobar_Islands are "The Andaman and Nicobar Islands is a...", and it is sprinkled with phrases like, "...placed the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in one...". I could list a bunch more such quotes, but hopefully you get the idea. If using "the" is somehow a violation of the style guide (I don't see these Islands mentioned anywhere in that guide...maybe you could provide the link?), then it sounds like the enwiki main article needs some prompt attention! You say, "Every article across all Wikimedia projects omits the definite article", but this demonstrably false, we have definite articles in category names all the time all over the place (how many "X of the United States" categories do we have?), including some in this very category tree. I'm just not sure where you are getting that from (links?). Also, you were so quick to jump in (bravo!) that you got in while I was still completing my initial post, please see the full post above for my proposal. I'm not sure exactly what you are opposing (or who the mysterious "we" refers to), as it is an either-or situation, unless you are just blanket opposing any fix and want to retain a mix of some categories with "the" and some without "the" in them. Josh (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Akshaysurendra1: I agree with what you are saying, if I am reading it right. Just to clarify, are you supporting:
- This would apply to all children categories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Josh (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks and yes, I concur with all these three changes. Thanks! Akshaysurendra1 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
There's a rough consensus to rename all the subcats of the nominated category to use "the" before the "Andaman and Nicobar Islands". I'm putting an {{Mbox}} notice to rename all the subs as such. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)