Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09

< Commons:Categories for discussion


Category:1914 in Fairbanks, Alaska

edit

Categories of this sort are supposed to contain photos which are reasonably certain to have been taken on the date range in question. All but two of the photos in the category say "circa 1914" in the title and date field, so we can't be certain. The other two are certain according to the title and date field, but depict the former town of Chena. This is a separate populated place from Fairbanks which no longer exists (see Chena, Alaska). RadioKAOS (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circa year should be put in a decade category instead of a specific year. If an image is from another place, it should be placed there even if that place does not have by year categorization (in which case it can also be moved up to 1914 in Alaska or something). If this category ends up empty, it can be deleted for now. Josh (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corvidaes in heraldry

edit

This category has some overlap with both Category:Crows and ravens in heraldry and Category:Crows in heraldry. I don't know if we want to move it to Category:Corvidae in heraldry and put the crows and ravens and such in it, or merge it with one of the aforementioned categories, but it seems something should be done. Ilzolende (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famille Stephan

edit

This category should be renamed into Stephan family or something like that, according to the usual way of naming such categories. GerritR (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it. Skim (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xylographers

edit

I suggest merging with Category:Woodcutters. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment looks reasonable. Some of the contents should probably be moved to Category:Woodcuts instead. El Grafo (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree Merge, keep Woodcutters. I cannot see any difference between the two. JopkeB (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Imber bus service

edit

I propose renaming the category to Category:Imberbus. I think it would be more reflective of the event as it is known today, however I would additionally like to know if by doing this, should the Imber bus service article it is linked to be updated and maintained? There are many dead links in the table on the page, which appears to only go as far as 2014. Hullian111 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and concerns about the enwiki article should be raised there on the article's talk page. As for the name change, I have no problem with it. Josh (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs with aspect ratio of 21:9

edit

Should we merge this category with Category:Photographs with aspect ratio of 7:3? Because both 7:3 and 21:9 are equivalent ratio/fraction except that 7:3 is the simplest from of 21:9. Vitaium (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How turning it into a redirect? 21:9 is quite commonly used for TV screens for marketing reasons ... El Grafo (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Material profiles

edit

Does this mean Metal profiles? 186.173.251.75 02:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, timber is not a metal. Should probably be renamed something like Category:Profile (Engineering) and moved out of Category:Profiles, which is about something completely different. El Grafo (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minnigerode (Adelsgeschlecht)

edit

This category - and if necessary, the subcategories too - should be renamed: Minnigerode family GerritR (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im Sinne einer allgemeinen Systematik ist es O.K.-79.214er (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Pallandt family

edit

Diese Kategorie ist redundant mit Category:Coats of arms of Pallant zu Môriamé family, sollten zusammengeführt werden! GerritR (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of Birkigt family

edit

Bitte löschen, Fehler beim Anlegen, siehe Category:Coats of arms of Birkigt family GerritR (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of families of Mieg family

edit

Bitte das "families" entfernen, also demnach "Coats of arms of Mieg family", bitte. GerritR (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former museums

edit

I would argue that there's no clear distinction between former and defunct museums. Merge with sub-category Category:Defunct museums. The confusion can be readily seen as Commons cat Category:Former museums is linked to en:Category:Defunct museums. I personally don't care which word we use: whatever the consensus is, that's fine with me. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep for both. different aspekts!
There are two different things being addressed here. One is the building of the museum, and the other is the organization. For example: If the XYZ Museum is dissolved, the museum will no longer exist. --> defunct museums
However, if the XYZ museum changes its location, then there is a former museum building that serves a different purpose, for example, --> Former museum, now private house/primary school, etc, but not defunct museum when the museum only changed the location
see Category:Buildings by former function with a lot of entries, also Category:Former museums
see Category:Defunct organizations with a lot of entries, also Category:Defunct museums
Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 02:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Object shows

edit

Merge with Category:Battle for Dream Island–see en:WP:BFDI for more information and the four files in here are clearly out of scope. 118.148.83.75 21:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think both categories should be deleted - the BFDI logos (the only things in this tree that aren't nominated for deletion) can be sufficiently categorized elsewhere in the logos tree or directly in Category:Web series. Anyway, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Object shows. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better alternative. 118.148.100.215 01:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all files are gone; hence, the category is empty. - The Harvett Vault | he/him | user | talk - 23:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC); edited: 23:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abusive women

edit

This category feels pretty arbitrary Trade (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Does it need a better description? At the moment it's really awkward to find images of abusive people - the categories are by type of abuse (often not including people or focusing on victims or presentations about the type of abuse) and there are no categories for images focusing on the abuser, e.g. if you want a general image of an abusive woman do you look through all the Category:Female with weapons (mostly war), intimate partner violence or sort through varies categories in Category:Female criminals and Category:Abuse by subject. This category will contain general images and various categories of women who have been convicted of abusive crimes (eg violent crimes), or performing a certain type of abusive behavior (which is not likely to be criminal eg verbal abuse).
I have also created Category:Abusive people (gender neutral) and one for men. - [[User:Amousey|Amousey]] (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly hard to define. When I see mention of abuse in media, it usually refers to some kind of direct interpersonal abuse -- physical, mental, psychological, sexual, etc. -- not generally committing crimes that aren't aimed directly at specific people. A person with a weapon isn't necessarily abusive. Neither are criminals: it depends on the crime and circumstances. I see several subcategories under Category:Abusive people that I don't think belong there. I wouldn't want us to start categorizing people as abusive just because they aren't perfectly polite all the time.
Another issue is that this category for women has subcategories for females -- it should be the other way around if we're going to have both. The same issue exists in the male categories.
And how exactly is the "angry anime girl" abusive? She's yelling, but that isn't necessarily abuse. Does that image represent a specific anime character who's known to be abusive? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntof6 (talk • contribs) 0:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete, far too vague to be useful. Plus, as User:Auntof6 points out, anger and abuse should not be conflated. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Argent, gules, or, sable in heraldry

edit

The purpose of this classification is unclear - extremely wide Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobsterthermidor: It's for heraldry showing the four indicated heraldic tinctures (colors) -- argent (silver/white), gules (red), or (gold/yellow), and sable (black). There are many such categories with different combinations of colors. These categories help identify coats of arms when the colors are known. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of the House of Sponheim

edit

Wer Zeit hat, kann ja mal diesen Einzelpersonen-Unsinn (Überkategorisierung) rückgängig machen. GerritR (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ich verstehe nicht, was hier falsch ist? -- Tragant (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, GerritR wonders why some of the per-person sub-categories have exactly the same set of files. For example, have a look at following categories:
Per-person categories could be useful if these categories would include marital arms. However, we shouldn't merge all these files into the main category. Perhaps it is more appropriate to have per-branch categories, i.e. one for Sponheim-Starkenburg, one for Sponheim-Kreuznach etc. I've notified Mhmrodrigues who has created at least some of these categories to involve them into this discussion. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AFBorchert: ! Firstly, thank you for notifying me! Now, I gave some thought to the question you brought. In fact it is true that I used that kind of categorization in the past. I've created categories for all the lords of a place and included there all the files depicting the same coat of arms, as in my opinion a lord usually would pass the same coat of arms to their eldest son, who would pass to their eldest son, and so on. Therefore, I then thought it would be wise to assign the same coats of arms to the rulers who succeded each other, at least until any heraldic variation occurred. You would find this same method regarding the members of House of Wertheim, the Piast dynasty or the House of Kirchberg. However, I was notified against this method, and since then I've changed my way of editing. Now I only assign coats of arms if the image in question (or its infobox) assigns them itself to someone. Now, regarding this specific problem, I can give you my opinion (and sorry if it's biased, but you asked the categories' creator no less!):
  • The important thing to note is that it wouldn't be wise to empty a category or redirect it to some other category, when we can't possibly predict when an image that fits the category will appear.
  • Given this, firstly, I would suggest to keep the files in the categories as they are. If, in the future, an image of the specific coat of arms of (for example John I of Sponheim-Starkenburg) appear, I suggest to remove the generic coats of arms from the category of this John I, and replace them for the specific one. But if, and only if, a specific coat of arms appears. I will do the same regarding the aforementioned family categories I edited.
  • I would only apply division by branches if the division prolongs itself for some centuries. I know that Sponheim family divisions don't last long, and the same can be said about the family itself, which is extinct in the male line also before the end of the Middle Ages. The only Sponheim branch I know that surpasses medieval times is the Category:House of Sayn, which has a proper category itself, with all the divisions in branches it deserves. In summary, I wouldn't advise to create subcategories in the Sponheim family. You would risk having subcategories with not much to fill them.
Hope I've helped in the matter. Greetings, and have a nice week! Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coats of arms of families or of branches of families should'nt be confused with coats of arms of single persons. So there are two options: 1. The specific coats of arms you're waiting for will never appear or 2. If so, they will look different, because of merging and marshalling with other coats of arms (for example of abbeys, dioceses, the teutonic order and so on) or because of personal specification (adding something referring to the specific person).--GerritR (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lost specimens

edit

Anyone know exactly what a "lost specimen" is or have a less ambiguous name for the category? Otherwise I think I'm just going to up-merge the images to somewhere else if no one can provide a better alternative. Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a scientific specimen that has been lost/disappeared one way or another, and is now only documented by illustrations or casts. The name could perhaps be clearer, but it's a thing. FunkMonk (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume your talking specimens for instinct species, not specimens that have been lost in a drawer somewhere or something since the category seems to exclusively contain images of instinct animals. If that's the case then why not just create specimen categories for the individual animals like Category:Raphus cucullatus specimens for specimens of Dodo birds? Otherwise it seems kind of pointless to have a unique category for "lost" animals (whatever that means) since it's kind of inherent to animals like the Dodo bird that they aren't around anymore. Or should images of specimens for every currently non-exiting, pre-modern animal be put in the category? Doing so would be rather redundant but that seems to be where this category system is leading. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not exclusive to extinct animals. All animal species, including living ones, have type specimens, or other important specimens that are used to define them, and in some cases, these are lost. What this category does is give an overview of such specimens. It could be changed to "Lost scientific specimens" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure not sure what "lost" means in this context. Is the specimen lost or is the animal that it's a specimen of lost? Category names should be unambiguous and not be about multiple subjects. Neither of which is really satisfied by the name of this category. Let alone whatever is suppose to go in it. Since at this point it could contain anything from images of specimens for extinct animals or ones of stolen and missing Moon rocks, which you'd have to agree have nothing to do with each other. So I don't think the word "lost" is really helpful here. I'd be open to changing it to something like Category:Extinct animal specimens since it's essentially what the category currently contains images of, but it seems like you wouldn't be open to that. Changing it to "Lost scientific specimens" or similar doesn't really solve the ambiguity issue though. Let alone the fact that missing Moon rocks have absolutely nothing in common with extinct Dodo birds. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But "extinct animal specimens" is not what this is about at all, yet again, it is specimens of any animal, extinct or living, that have become lost one way or the other, either by destruction, misplacing, theft, etc. If we want the name to be more specific, we should not make it even vaguer. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leyte, Philippines

edit

Duplicate of either Category:Leyte (province) or Category:Leyte (island). howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a Wikidata entry (disambiguation item) about Leyte, then you can make this a parent or "container" category. I should spare some time to teach the relationship between Wikidata, Commons and Wikipedias at Wiki gatherings. 186.174.249.153 16:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Principality of Wallachia

edit

There already is Category:Wallachia which is about the same subject. Can this newer category be deleted, or can the two be merged? Alin2808 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make some arrangements around it. If you don't like them, go your own ways. 186.174.249.153 16:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me to be distinct. Wallachia is a region that even today exists as part of Romania. The Principality of Wallachia was an entity within the Ottoman Empire that had roughly the same borders. This category would be appropriate for images from the era before Romanian independence, especially images that are not simply places but which record a moment in history. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an entity within the Ottoman Empire. And the "Wallachia region" is the same as the historical Wallachia, as the description on the page says "Wallachia or Walachia is a historical and geographical region of Romania". There is simply no use for a separate Principality of Wallachia category.
Also if you check this separate category, you'll see that it's pretty much empty aside from the maps. Alin2808 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep I think this category should stay: according to the Wikipedias I consulted (NL and Romanian translated into English) Wallachia was an independant state from ±1330 – 1859 and therefor it can have a category of its own if there are files. The subjects of the files do not matter, files are files.
The subcategories are empty, at least Category:Categories of the Principality of Wallachia‎ and its subcategories should be removed (but that requires a discussion of its own), the other one might get images or other files later. JopkeB (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:External hard drive

edit

This should most likely be plural. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, is should. Really no need for a discussion here, imho, just go ahead and move it. El Grafo (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to Category:External hard disks --Elmepi (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Screws in Germany

edit

Delete - pointless over-categorization. There is no significant or useful intersection between "screws" and "Germany". Possibly there could be so for some very narrow uses (a scuplture of a huge bolt in Hamburg?), but that's not how this is being used. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I see it as the beginning of Category:Screws by country. There are lots of categories by country and categories in Germany, so why not this one? JopkeB (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Screws don't have any strong link to countries, so what would be the point in Category:Screws by country? It's just extra layers of useless navigation to make finding screw images harder. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps screws differ from country to country. We also have all kind of tools by country. What are your criteria for having a category by country? JopkeB (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps screws differ from country to country. An excellent and relevant question. They don't.
Screws would differ from country to country (for our purposes here) if either there were local artisan screw-making traditions, with variations. Such as there are for bread, cheese and the shape of goats. But not for screws. Or else that some screws had a particular geographic attachment, such as if the Düsselfdorf Haus am Schraubenmuseum had a giant woodscrew outside. But that's more of a Midwest USA or New Zealand thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexually fluid people

edit

Rename to Abrosexual people to reduce confusion. I propose renaming to Abrosexual people to avoid confusion with Genderfluid, and for consistent category names since all other sexual orientation categories involve the word "people". I added the category description in English bad on wikidata/WebMD definition. - [[User:Amousey|Amousey]] (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no confusion. "Sexually" refers to sexuality here, not gender. An alternative is "People with fluid sexuality". Many people in this category don't even know the label abrosexual. In this case, a syntagma is needed. Also, try renaming the title of the Wikipedia list before this category. MikutoH (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, is this about people uploading pictures of themselves jerking off? 186.173.202.213 00:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Problem behavior

edit

Problem behavior? You mean inventing such meaningless categories? Then don't do it. Who is forcing you? 186.174.249.153 16:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The category is so meaningless that other meaningless categories like abusive men, abusive women and abusive people are all under this. It looks like men, women and "people" are different species, and they are all subcategories of a behavior!!! 186.174.249.153 16:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They must be removed by signaling OVERCAT. Allforrous (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely ridiculous category. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. User Sockpuppet has already been blocked. Allforrous (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep To me this looks like a good category, grouping subcategories about problematic behavior, what is wrong with it? The only objection I can think of: perhaps the name should be changed, because now it is directly copied from the EN-WP and might not meet all the Commons criteria, like being in plural. But for the rest it seems OK to me. --JopkeB (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete The category is way to subjective and western/Euro centric. One countries or cultures problem behaviors might be totally fine in another. Like should Category:Homosexuality be put in here just because it's considered problematic in a good part of the world? Clearly not. So at the end of the day what good is this category except to be a dumping ground for behaviors that just European Christian whites think are problems? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1, Allforrous, and Jmabel:   Question-1 In which countries or cultures Vandalism, Hooliganism‎, Misconduct‎ and other misbehavior is accepted or OK within the society? I cannot think of one. (I admit that there might be societies which encourage this kind of behavior towards people outside their own circle, but that still is a problem to those people outside that circle.) So it may not be as subjective and western centric as is stated.

I think a lot of these subcategories should have a common parent category like this. We can discuss the category name, a good description and which subcategories may not fit in. Proposals:

  • Better category name: ?
  • Description: Unwanted habitual activity, behavior that causes nuisance to others.
  • Check subcategories and files:

  Question-2 Do you agree?
  Question-3 Should this category be only about human behavior or also about problematic animal behavior? JopkeB (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: The terms you list (and the category name itself) are really more pejoratives about behavior than descriptions of behavior so in terms of the possibility of, say, "hooliganism" being socially acceptable, we run into the No true Scotsman fallacy. But the same behavior that might be called by one of these names in one social context might be entirely acceptable in another. In the Soviet Union, the term "hooliganism" was applied to a large swath of activities that are simply considered an exercise of free speech in the Western democracies. In Saudi Arabia, women dressing in men's clothing is considered problem behavior; before we say "edge case," let's remember that as late as the 1960s, dressing in clothing considered inappropriate to your gender could get you arrested in New York City. - Jmabel ! talk 02:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Jmabel here. The only alternative I can think of is something like Category:Deviance (sociology) but that category should probably be confined to the sociology of deviance, not categories containing images of deviant behavior per say. So I don't know what else to do here except up-merge the contents and delete it. Otherwise it's just to subjective. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel and Adamant1: I now see your point, it is the other way around: behavior that we in the West are considering acceptable and not problemetic, might not be in other cultures and then it is a problem to decide what should be in this category and what not (and what the exact definitions of the subcategories are, I understand that they might differ from culture/state to culture/state as well).
Can Category:Deviance (sociology) indeed be an alternative for some of the subcategories? It looks good to me. JopkeB (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: I have no problem with using Category:Deviance (sociology) as an alternative. It might be worth double checking the categories in Category:Problem behavior before moving them to make sure it's appropriate though. Like you could probably just get rid of Category:Aggressive panhandling altogether since it doesn't even seem to have any images of people panhandling aggressively or otherwise to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pieve dei Santi Ippolito e Cassiano a Coneo

edit

same as Category:Santi Ippolito e Cassiano (Coneo) LigaDue (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Love hearts

edit

Unclear category definition/redundant:

What even is a "love heart" as opposed to a regular heart symbol? The category has zero interwiki links, no description, nothing other than a French translation. The whole thing should probably be merged into Category:Heart symbols El Grafo (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

related:
--El Grafo (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Merging. Love hearts is a very loaded term, Heart symbols is a lot clearer and more neutral. Kritzolina (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Oppose merging. Kritzolina, you yourself mentioned in another talk page discussion that images such as File:Sustainable Development Goal 3.png show heart symbols that are not love hearts. However, most photos on Category:Heart symbols are actually love hearts and this is the most common use of the symbol. However, being it can be and is used in other contexts as we discussed on another talk page (such as in health and lives in video games), I think it’s better keeping these as separate categories as is currently the case. We could however trim Category:Heart symbols by moving most of the photos in it to Category:Love hearts. I also think it would be helpful to cut most of that discussion on File talk:Reeperbahn on a spring afternoon 2022.jpg and instead move it here where its far more relevant. The request for comment on that page has drifted off-topic to what should be placed there, rather than the exact issue with that specific photo. Helper201 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Merging. Why should we try to interpret the meaning of a photograph every time we try to sort it instead of just describing what it shows? By the way, "Love Hearts" seems to be the name of a type of candy (see w:Love Hearts). Bücherfresser (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Merging. In English Wikipedia there is no separate article for "Love heart". "Love heart" redirects to "Heart symbol". In that article "Love heart" is not mentioned and thus not defined. "Love heart" cannot be found in Webser's ([1]) or in dict.cc ([2]). It does not seem to be a very commong term in the English language, at least not in dictionnaries. The article "Heart symbol" in English Wikipedia is interlinked with articles in 34 other language versions of Wikipedia. Compared to "Love heart" it is a culture-neutral termin while there is a tendency that "Love heart" constitutes an English-speaking bias. Best withes, --Leserättin (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files from 500px (uncategorized)

edit

Such maintenance category should be deleted when empty, as 500px has already stopped distributing photo with acceptable CC license on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Conformal mapping

edit

This should probably be pluralised. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clothed women by type of clothing

edit

I don't understand. What is the function of the initial Clothed here? Could it be Naked women by kind of clothing?! 186.173.202.213 00:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably only to clarify it is an index of clothed women vs. women in general. It isn't hurting anything to have it there, but it isn't really necessary either. Josh (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages from books

edit

I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is a useful category or not, but right now it is barely populated, and unconnected to the category tree. Either we should (1) hook it in to the category tree and use it, (2) empty it and delete it, or (3) turn it into a redirect. I have no inclination among the three options. Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Category:Book pages? Omphalographer (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avril Lavigne songs

edit

Empty and unlikely to ever hold anything that's not a copyright violation. El Grafo (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see below. --El Grafo (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment When starting the discussion I had already removed all the unrelated files and subcategories which have been brought back now. FWIW, there is a connection between this song and both Kroeger (writer) and Manson (co-vocalist), but this is not how we model these connections at Commons (if we model them at all):
--El Grafo (talk)

Category:Rock songs

edit

This entire subtree only consists of empty categories. Not a single file.

Full disclosure: that is after I removed Category:Chad Kroeger and File:Manson en concierto 6.jpg from Category:Bad Girl (Avril Lavigne song). (Kroeger has co-written the song and Manson contributed vocals, but none of the files had any direct relation to the song).

Do we have any free rock songs that we could sort in here? Do we want to keep this around just in case? Or just nuke the whole thing the same way it appeared out of nowhere by the hand of User:2601:81:4300:1E50:50D0:BCB0:624E:360B? I don't know, please discuss. El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HERC2

edit

Category:HERC2 is both parent and child of Category:Blue human eyes, but should only be parent or child. Josh (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Should be neither, IMO. A photo of a person with blue eyes isn't an image of HERC2, and a diagram of a protein structure isn't an image of blue eyes. Not every "related to" relationship needs to be represented in the Commons category hierarchy; that's what Wikidata is for. Omphalographer (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Omphalographer: Makes sense to me, and I agree that parent/child categorization should be used to reflect every kind of conceivable relationship. There are some topics where people have seemingly tried to reflect everything known about a given subject in its categorization and I don't think it is a good approach. Josh (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you mean "should not be used"? But yes. Omphalographer (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men with 1 object

edit

as well as its parents

Either overly specific or overly broad, depending on how you look at it. Category:People with objects already subcategorizes by the kind of person and kind of object; it's not clear why we need a third dimension for the number of objects - and doubly so when there's exactly one photo (!) so categorized. Omphalographer (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree but it's not clear which solution you propose, I'd also support   Delete/redirecting it if that's what you propose. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Yes, I'm proposing that we delete these categories entirely. The single photo they contain is already adequately categorized. Omphalographer (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinchilla Café presents 2022-09-16

edit

Category was moved to correctly titled category RobinIsadorable (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Erva-mate como exemplo de resíduo orgânico

edit

I think probably this category should just go away; if not, it belongs (possibly renamed) somewhere under Category:Ilex paraguariensis. Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe it's best as a subcategory under Ilex. Maybe it can be broaden to ilex on signs, posters, outdoors, labels, etc. Arcstur (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images by source

edit

  Merge Category:Images by source into Category:Media by source Just as Images by subject would just be a mirror for Topics, this is the same for Media by source. Josh (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if Media by source was turned into a cat containing Images by source and Videos by source. In general merging, condensing and diffusing categories is something I find useful but I think I'd oppose merging these since it's a useful distinction to distinguish between only-images and other media. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories which should only contain image files

edit

  Delete category Most of the contents are categories of screenshots. It seems like an attempt to limit those categories to screenshots (vs. audio or video clips), but this would seem to be addressed by including "screenshots" in the category name and having a hatnote. I don't think this category helps much as there is no way (besides individually visiting each category) of identifying which of them contain non-'images'. The hatnote template can stay on them, but it just should stop auto-catting them here and this category can be done away with. There are a few 'image' categories here, but the same applies, they say 'image' in the name, they don't need a category like this to track them. We don't have a 'Categories which should only contain aircraft' for all of the 'aircraft' categories..and so on. Josh (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melanie B

edit

Suggest renaming to "Mel B" as per Google trend, that is the most commonly search and used name A1Cafel (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lineups of Italy national rugby union team

edit

it should be renamed as Category:Italy national rugby union team lineups‎ to match all the other categories in Category:Rugby union line-ups PeeJay (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melanie Chisholm

edit

Should be renamed to either "Mel C" or "Melanie C" as per Google trend, they are more commonly search and used than the current name. Slightly pefer "Mel C" as it is the highest number of search, but I'm also fine with "Melanie C", but definitely not "Melanie Chisholm" A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/09&oldid=902676407"