Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in February 2022.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/02.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2022-02.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Rodnover art

[edit]

No proof that any of those artists are Rodnovers if they just depicted some stuff from Slavic mythology. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I agree. There is no evidence that these authors are Rodnovers, and their drawings express Rodnoverie, and not just their artistic vision. For example, on Andrey Shishkin's website, most of the drawings do not relate to the topic of paganism in general. Perhaps the only exception is Category:Viktor Kryzhanivskyi, whose drawings are placed in the temple of Silenko (see Category:Sylenkoism). Perhaps the category needs to be renamed into Category:Slavic folk religion in art and expanded with drawings by other authors. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here the parent category is inaccurately named - supposedly the category is not for the phenomenon as a whole, but for individual representatives. I would suggest renaming this category to: Category:Slavic neopaganism in art. And the maternal category in: Category:Slavic neopaganism. See Category:Neopaganism, Category:Neopaganism in art. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment In my opinion it would be better to choose one name for modern religion(s) and use it as standard – now we have few categories which have used Slavic neopaganism, few with Rodnovery and few with Slavic Native Faith. Personally I suggest Slavic neopaganism as the most neutral of them – no one would be shocked by seeing Ynglism, Slavic Wicca, Slavic Esoteric Nazism and so on with Slavic polytheist reconstructionism together under this name, as long as we haven't accurate classification in reliable sources. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rodnover art: The category "Rodnover art" implies that the art represents Rodnover themes but does not imply that the artist himself is Rodnover; that would be the category "Rodnover artists". In any case, the artists Aleksandr Borisovich Uglanov, Andrey Alekseyevich Shishkin, Andrey Guselnikov, Andrey Klimenko, Boris Olshansky, Igor Ozhiganov, Leo Khao, Maksim Kuleshov, Maksim Sukharev, Maximilian Presnyakov, Nella Genkina, Nikolay Speransky, Valery Semochkin, Viktor Korolkov, Vladimir Pingachov, and Vsevolod Ivanov, are listed as representatives of Rodnover art in: Gizbrekht, Andrey I. (2016). "Образы деятелей российской истории в дискурсе современного "Языческого искусства" (на материале изобразительного творчества)" [The images of public figures of Russian history in the discourse of modern "Pagan art" (based on fine arts material)]. Krasnodar National Institute of Culture. UDC: 298.9:7.044/.046. Another one is Konstantin Vasilyev, cited in: Aitamurto, Kaarina (2016). Paganism, Traditionalism, Nationalism: Narratives of Russian Rodnoverie. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781472460271. p. 26.
  • Rodnovery = Slavic Neopaganism: It was decided through a long discussion in the Russian Wikipedia that "Rodnovery" and "Slavic Neopaganism" are synonyms, and while "Rodnovery" is the main term in English (Slavic Neopaganism is hardly ever used), славянское неоязычество prevails in Russian, at the moment, though родноверие is used to the same extent and possibly will prevail in the near future. In all the other Slavic languages, the equivalents of "Slavic Neopaganism" are not used, each language using the localised variation of "Rodnovery" (see the reflection of the Russian decision here on Commons: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Rodnovery). So, I am against changing the main categorisation here on Commons from "Rodnovery" to "Slavic Neopaganism" (which, anyway, is always written with uppercase "Neopaganism" in Englisn, so to distinguish modern systematically revived European and Middle Eastern religions from pre-Christian and pre-Islamic ancient "paganisms", written lowercase; such standard practice was decided time ago in the English Wikipedia). I think that the recent hasty move from "Rodnovery" to "Slavic Neopaganism" is an umpteenth attempt to split up the movement at the hands of some branches which would like to exclude others (namely, the self-proclaimed "true reconstructionists" aimed at excluding Ynglism or similar eclectic branches); there is no need to bring up "Slavic Wicca" or "Slavic Esoteric Nazism" to muddle the waters, as they are not Rodnovery/Slavic Neopaganism, as the former is a Slavicised branch of Wicca while the latter is Esoteric Nazism in Slavic countries.--Æo (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming the category to "Category:Rodnovery in art" would be a good solution to the issue.--Æo (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Czech Republic

[edit]

Move this category and all subcategories that use "[...] the Czech Republic" --> "[...] Czechia".

Explanation: The formal name of "Czech Republic" may officially be shortened to "Czechia" since 2016, and this is easier to write and remember than the formal variant. For some reason, we also abbreviate "the French Republic" or "the Federal Republic of Germany" or "the Kingdom of Sweden". Enyavar (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Products of the Czech Republic, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia and Category talk:Czech Republic. Jklamo (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware, but I'm certain this will get suggested a few times more. Besides "the Dominican Republic", I don't see other category trees that don't have a disambiguation reason for not using a shorthand. And the amount of confusion around the topic seems to be staggering, what with all those 19th-century Politicians of the Czech Republic. --Enyavar (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Czech Republic is still far more commonly used than Czechia, I would argue against your suggestion that Czechia is easier to remember. Last time I was in Prague, I never heard anyone say Czechia. That doesn't necessarily mean I think Czech Republic is a better choice - just that your argument isn't very compelling. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Hm, have you recently checked the Czech Wikipedia? Even there, the official lemma is Česko, with "Česká republika" mentioned as the second alternate name (since the start even, like 16 years ago). Similarly, the WPs in German, Polish, Slovak (all neighboring countries) and French and Russian (other countries with lots of relations). I'm arguing that international naming conventions should be taken into consideration, Commons is not only made for English native speakers even though the native language of Commons is English. Sure "Czechia" might seem weird to English speakers who only ever heard of either "Czech republik" or "Czechoslovenakia", but many conventions are arcane for non-English users. Last point: I'm certainly in favor for well-considered, gradual step-by-step changes, and not a merry wild renaming spree. All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: I'm Czech (not Czechrepublican) and "Czechoslovenia" seems weird also to me, because I never heard of Czechoslovenia. Czechia was in a joint state with Slovenia last before 1918, but this joint state was called Austria-Hungary, not Czechoslovenia. Slovakia is not Slovenia nor Slavonia nor Slavinia, Austria is not Australia, Czechia is not Chechnya, Rusyn is not Russia and Georgia is not Georgia :-). --ŠJů (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yeah that was a typo. Slovenia is the alpine state next to Italy, of course I meant -slovakia. Now I feel like one of these Americans who confuse Switzerland and Sweden. --Enyavar (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first question is whether there is a reason that Czechia would have to be almost the only country which must be called with its current state form. This makes sense, for example, where one country is administratively divided into several states (Korea, Ireland, Kongo, China, the two former German or Vietnamese republics etc.). It is possible that there are a mass of ignorant and uneducated people among English users who have no idea from which noun the adjective "Czech" is derived, but we should not always adapt to the least educated people. Btw., the word "Czechia" is documented in English et least since 1841, and probably has its origin in 17th century.
It is true that native English users have become less accustomed to a one-word geographical name of Czechia than international English users from non-English-speaking countries, who also commonly use its equivalent in their own languages. The Commons should focus more on international English than on various dialects and customs of native speakers (which can be more important for English Wikipedia).
However, the main problem is that the political name of the current state unit is much less timeless than the non-political name of the country. While the non-political geographical name also makes sense to be used retrospectively, the "republic" is absurd especially in relation to periods when there was no republic in Czechia or when there was no Czech Republic, but only Czechoslovak Republic. While "Czechia" can be used as a timeless and retrospective name for the area of the current Czech Republic, the words "Czech Republic" cannot be used in relation to any date before 1 January 1969. For some branches of the category tree, which relate mainly to historical times, the word "republic" is absolutely unsuitable and unsustainable. No one sane can say that Bedřich Smetana, Jan Hus or Komenský were "from the Czech Republic", but they surely were Czechs from Czechia, although in their time this name was not yet common. For categories relating mainly to modern topics, the two names can be considered roughly equivalent. It may be difficult for Americans to understand the European concept of countries whose identity is longer-term than the identity of states as units of power. In European languages, one can speak of a "country" even if such a country has no republic or kingdom of its own. E.g. the unitary Czechoslovakia was conceived as a republic of two countries and two (main) nations, Czechia and Slovakia, Czechs and Slovaks. I suppose it makes sense to respect a continuous identity of Czechia in the categorization tree, regardless of the period in which the Habsburg Monarchy or the Czechoslovak Republic was more or less centralized, or Czechia was temporarily under the protectorate. If you want to argue how the Czechs themselves refer to Czechia in English, you must also take into account timeless educated conversations about Czech identity and history, not just superficial conversations about about today's practical things, tourism or hockey. A person who is able to say that František Palacký or Comenius were from the Czech Republic should definitely not be taken as a standard. Unfortunately, some of the previous discussions were closed by people who did not take factual arguments into account at all.
However, it is true that the adaptation of the names of Czech categories to the standard usual for other countries is still blocked by several colleagues who did not reach a consensus for their opinion, but so far they have managed to block unification. It's still a stalemate. It may still be necessary for the ignorant to get used to the fact that Czechia has existed here for hundreds of years, in various administrative forms and constelations. We have no other comparably timeless name for Czechia. --ŠJů (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your second point answers your first point. It's one of the few countries using it's full name because that's what's commonly used, and not just in English. I agree that using the Czech Republic is anachronistic in many cases, but so are an enormous number of country categories, since most modern states aren't very old. Even Czechia hasn't always existed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: The crucial problem is that geographic names can be used retrospectively much more appropriately than purely political names can. Besides, Czechia (as the land of Czechs) has had its identity for approximately a thousand years, while the Czech Republic never existed before 1969. The standard of correct English terminology should be educated users of English who knew about Czechia and were able to speak about it before 1993 and before 1969, not the uneducated ones who had never heard of it before 1993 and who cannot understand the difference between Czechia and the Czech Republic, because the peak of their language skills and historical and geographical knowledge is the conversation with drunks or the taxi driver in the streets of the night Prague. When naming the categories of other professional topics, we will also not be guided by the horizons of fools who have incomplete or mistaken ideas about the given topic.--ŠJů (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Czech Republic is way more way more used and we don't usually abbreviate category names. Especially not when it comes to names of official government entities/Geographic regions. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Factcheck, we usually do that! "the Russian Federation" gets abbreviated to "Russia" and "the Italian Republic" gets abbreviated to "Italy" - those are conventions throughout the category tree, and there are just a few deviations, like in the case of the two Congos. Also, "Czechia" has also been adopted by government bodies within the Republic; or by the UN (Czechia, compare Germany). Best, --Enyavar (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: Sure, "the Russian Federation" is abbreviated to "Russia", but that's purely because "Russia" is the more common name. It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of consensus to abbreviate category names though. It's ridiculous there is or that abbreviating "the Russian Federation" to "Russia" is at all analogous to this. "Czechia" isn't the common name in any way, shape or form, like "Russia" is. So your comparing apples and oranges. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: this argument has also already been refuted before, but once more: "Czechia" is the more common name in most languages. If you go by the Wiki lemmas, English, Spanish, Italian, Turkish and Albanian are the most prominent exceptions - notably languages of countries not directly bordering Czechia. These languages also each have the variant "Czechia/Chequia/Cechia/Çekya/Çekia", anyway. That is the reason why non-English uploaders including citizens of Czechia itself and its neighbor countries, have to first learn that Commons treats the country different from most others. Granted: "Britain" a.k.a. "England" is worse. --Enyavar (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly has it been refuted? The fact that it's the common name for Wikipedia articles doesn't mean anything. This isn't Wikipedia and that's not how we decide what the common name something is. And it's not like consensus about what to name an article doesn't change over time either. I'm sure a lot of those articles were called "Czech Republic" at some point and will be changed back to it once "Czechia" eventually stops being a trendy fad. So what exactly does it prove except that the only evidence you have comes from literally the most unauthoritative and unreliable source in existence? Seriously, where's the academics and news outlets using "Czechia" instead of "Czech Republic"? If you really wanted to go there though, the English Wikipedia article is "Czech Republic" and we base category names on the most popular English term. So I don't think how Wikipedia does things is the win you think it is. Otherwise I guess you support "Czech Republic." In the meantime even the countries government has said "Czechia" is only meant to be used in specific instances where the full name doesn't work and that they are going to continuing "Czech Republic." But sure dude, lets ignore the fact that literally no one, including the countries own government, is using "Czechia" as the common name "because Wikipedia article titles." Although I'm totally fine going with "Czech Republic" since it's the title of the English Wikipedia article if you really want that to be the deciding metric. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"trendy fad"? This is not some recent idea. "The Czech Republic" has been called Czechia (in many languages) since it broke from Slovakia in 1992. I rather trust Wikipedians to know the Lemma in their own language, and large Wikipedias generally follow some guideline that a country Lemma needs be the most commonly used term. Speaking for de-WP, I can actually give you the exact scientific metrics based on a representative linguistic media survey: Czechia is frequency-class 2^10 which means it is used about 20 times more often than Czech Republic (frequency-class 2^15). Strictly according to its rules, de-WP chose "Tschechien" as the country lemma. I don't think that the Polish, Czech and French Wikipedia choose the country lemma on a "my-whim-today-is..."-basis, either. And why would you even think that articles would be "changed back" when many were never changed in the first place? Now, for reputable news sites using the term, let's have a look at "literally no one" next: French newspaper: Tchéquie, some Czech newspaper: Česko, largest Czech newspaper: Česko, German television: Tschechien, Polish television: Czechach, Swedish television: Tjeckien, Danish newspaper: Tjekkiets, Dutch newspaper: Tsjechië...
Now, if Czechia had always been called "Czech Republic" in English, the English lemma would naturally apply nonetheless, because English is the language to be used in Commons. However, the term "Czech Republic" was created in 1990, and only applies to the current state. Before, the correct term was "Czech Socialist Republic" (to formally address the sub-entity of the union state) or "Czechoslovakia" for the state, which is - surprise! - a portmanteau of "Czechia" and "Slovakia". No hidden republic there. That means that this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong... and this is very wrong. Okay, only as wrong as "14th-century kings of the French Republic". --Enyavar (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not some recent idea. I thought the metric here was when the name started becoming popularly used. Not when some random person had the idea to rename the country. If the former, which I assume it is, then Czech president Miloš Zeman recommended the wider official use of Czechia in 2013. The important thing to take away from that is "wider use." So sure, the name isn't recent, but that's not what the discussion is about. We don't decide what to call a category based on a coin toss of whichever name was invented first either, obviously. In this case the fact is that Czechia wasn't popular until at least 2016 and it still really isn't popular to any meaningful degree. At least not compared to Czech Republic.
Now, for reputable news sites using the term, let's have a look at "literally no one" Not to dispute the efficacy of your "reputable news sites" but they are all extremely recent and from European UN charter countries that have close ties to the Czech Republic, which is the exact use case that the president of the Czech Republic said the name would be used in. A few of are even Czech Republic outlets. So they aren't representative. That would be like renaming the Wikipedia article for dogs to "Canis lupus familiaris" because you read a couple of biology papers on the evolution of the species and they used the term "Canis lupus familiaris" instead of "dog." Especially with the news outlets that are specifically from the Czech Republic. Although I will say the Polish news story you cited, Czesi już dziś wybierają prezydenta. Ważny polski wątek i niebezpieczny rosyjski trop, repeatedly uses "Czech" and "Czech Republic." So I'm not sure what you think that proves. Except that the names are interchangeable, which is my argument. 99% of the news article I've read through used all three names either to the same amount or used "Czechia" Less then the other two though and it seems like your sources are no different. If it turns out to be a wash where all of them are used to the same amount then there's no reason not to just go with Czech Republic since it's been used longer.
The whole thing about the term "Czech Republic" being created in 1990 seems like a non-starter and strawman since again we aren't going by which term was created first anyway. Not to mention you haven't provided any evidence that "Czechia" was "created" before recently anyway (I'm aware that it was a name of a tribe of people at some point or something, but that's not relevant). I will say though that at least with the United States the region that the nation currently occupies is still called "The United States" before the articles of confederation were signed. It's not called "The United States Lands", "The United Stateichia", or any other nonsense like that. Otherwise it's called the 13 colonies, the old west, or some other depending on the area. But even the period of California when it was a part of Mexico is still called California. Just "California under Mexico." Not "California lands" or "Californichia" Lmao. There's zero reason this should be treated any differently. Again unless you can provide some reputable non-bias sources saying otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course these news sites are recent. Duh, they are about the election of the current Czech president this month. (I hope you didn't look at them straight through the Google-Translate lens, which converts to Republic automatically.) Do you want news reports from the same countries, from back in the early 2000sleft col. 4th, when some Czech ministry hadn't already issued some statement, but non-English media already used Czechia nevertheless? Those older mentions can be found as well, but require more effort and I suspect you will then return back to the position of "must be English to count". So let me hit Wikisource, and not just any language where the term is easily found, but the English Wikisource: I find “Long live Czechia!” in an English translation of Picek's works from 1849, as well as "The Czechs maintain that the Slovaks are Czechs, and that Slovakia is Czechia." in a 1919 book about the Hungarian Revolution. Granted, English like all non-slavic languages at the time preferred the term "Bohemia", but "Czechia" was already around to more precisely distinguish the Czech identity from Austrian-Bohemia. Reharding your comparison with the US, that is a whole different subject matter and I dunno where your "Stateichia" originates from. I am acutely aware of Category:1640s maps of the United States - but that is done for convenience because we have no widespread global consensus on how the whole US area was called at the time, not to mention the less-than-13 colonies at the time. In the case of Category:1640s maps of Czechia, we do have an exact name for the country, yet it was not a Republic back then.
For maximal confusion, of course, we could even more consequently use the terms "Bohemia" for everything older than 1919; then "Czechoslovakia" between 1919 and 1992, and finally "Czech Republic", with "Czechia" as the super-umbrella-category. I find that this separation is currently attempted in some topics, but maintained poorly. Other categories like cardinals and scribes "from the Czech Republic" are not separated like that at all, and it's also not entirely practical. --Enyavar (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Commons standard is to use for countries their non-political timeless geographical names, if they exist. The "Czech Republic" category tree deviates from this general consensus and its logic, which causes a number of problems, especially in relation to topics that concern Czechia in the periods before creation of the Czech Republic. Even an uneducated native English speaker could understand that in the 1930s or in the 19th century one could not speak of any Czech Republic, even though Czechia as the land(s) of the Czechs had demonstrably existed and had its national identity long before that. --ŠJů (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support. Valid arguments have already been submitted in previous discussions. Unfortunately, they were closed by people who did not deal with these arguments and ignored them. As it was mentioned in all previous discussions, Russia, Italy, France, Catalonia, Crimea, Lombardy or Poland are timeless geographical indications which are usually more stable than the names, arising or dissolution of power formations. Most of republics are successors of kingdoms or principalities, many republics were renamed, merged into federations or confederations or separated again, although their national identity, continuity and territorial localization and delineation remained essentially the same. If we use (for Czechia) the name of the state entity that was created in 1969 and gained independence in 1993, the application of this name to items relating to most of the 20th century and all previous centuries is absurdly anachronistic, while Czechia (defined as Czech lands) existed continually through all political situations and its non-political name can be used also retrospectively. Similarly, Slovakia existed hundreds years before the first separate Slovakian state, and the historical Felvidék (Upper Hungary) can be retrospectively called Slovakia, but surely not Slovak Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be interested to see what happens when the government eventually dumps the Czechia because no one wanted to use it. You'll probably claim whatever name is used next existed continually through all political situations. I can almost guarantee the same was probably said about "Czech Republic." Heck, I can do a search for "Czech Republic history" on Google right now and there's plenty of results from reputable sources that use the term for the pre-1969 history of the area. In the meantime, the article for "Czech lands" is barely sourced, two of the references are talking about "Bohemian Lands", not Czech ones, and there's scant results for it on Google. So no insult but this whole thing kind of smells like historical revisionism and POV editing. Which is why the only justification there seems to be for renaming the categories is that categories for the Russian Federation are named "Russia." As if they are at all comparable.
Where's the reputable sources using "Czech lands" though? Hell, where has the government or anyone else said that the name "Czechia" should be applied retroactively to the pre-2016 Czech Republic state? Let alone where has anyone said the name "Czechia" refers to the territory that supposedly existed continually through all political situations or whatever? As a side to that, this is a quote from a "The country will retain its full name but Czechia will become the official short geographic name." Is anyone seriously going to argue that the categories shouldn't continue to be named "Czech Republic" when it's still going to be used and "Czechia" is just going to be used in specific cases as an abbreviation? Come on. That would be like changing all the "United States" categories to "U.S.A." --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conclusion: The discussion has been open for 2 years now and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change the name at this time. There has also been multiple CfDs related to renaming sub-categories of this one that didn't result in a clear consensus even after multiple years of being open. So there is clearly no change the name to "Czechia", at least at this point. The same goes for the various alternatives that were proposed over the years. "Czech lands" is a none starter due to the clear ambiguity to it and unclear area that I pointed out in my last comment. I forget what the other alternatives were right now but they didn't seem any more viable at the time then "Czech lands." So this clearly comes down to "the Czech Republic" versus "Czechia." I'd like to see it revisited in a few years with a focus on which is the better of those two terms involving evidenced based arguments based on current facts and without the long winded, mostly off-topic historical side points. I think Joshbaumgartner's point in their last comment about following the "Universality Principle" succinct and should be followed in the meantime though. So any current and future categories containing the words or phrases "Czechia", "Czech lands.", or any of the various alternatives will be renamed and/or redirected to ones containing "the Czech Republic" as appropriate until such time that this is adequately resolved in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category discussion has been closed.
ConsensusNone
ActionsNone per the conclusion. Categories containing alternative names or terms will be renamed and/or redirected as appropriate and time allows.
Participants
NotesThe issue will be revisited at some point in the future if or when things change enough to justify it. The status quo will of "the Czech Republic" will be maintained until then though per the University Principle.
Closed by--Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)--Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ivan Veretennikov. 75th anniversary

[edit]

COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baylor Lady Bears basketball players

[edit]

Proposing move from Category:Baylor Lady Bears basketball players to Category:Baylor Bears women's basketball players. The team has rebranded so that men's and women's sports are both just "Baylor Bears". I would have made this move without discussion, but it's blocked by a redirect standing at the new name. IagoQnsi (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baylor Bears basketball players

[edit]

Proposing move from Category:Baylor Bears basketball players to Category:Baylor Bears men's basketball players. The team has rebranded so that men's and women's sports are both just "Baylor Bears" (instead of the women being the Baylor Lady Bears). The current name is ambiguous and sounds like it includes women's players, when in fact women have their own category. I would have made this move without discussion, but it's blocked by a redirect standing at the new name. IagoQnsi (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about the rebrand. –IagoQnsi (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:College athletic programs in the United States by team

[edit]

Proposing move to Category:College sports teams in the United States by name, to match other subcategories of Category:College sports teams in the United States IagoQnsi (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a logical move. Waz8 (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neretvanski kanal

[edit]

Delete - it's a duplicate of the Category:Neretva channel Santasa99 (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i didn't notice the older category that's a good reason. Explanation. When I formed this category I did not notice the older category, because the older category was not in the corresponding category: Category:Straits of Croatia --Vhorvat (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, is it better to leave an English translation: Neretva channel, or later renamed after the Croatian name of this sea channel: Neretvanski kanal. --Vhorvat (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toledo Rockets

[edit]

Proposing move to Category:University of Toledo athletics to match all other categories for American college sports teams IagoQnsi (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree Unless there are other team names there, in which case, Category:University of Toledo athletics could still be a base category for all. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamresari Temple

[edit]

Is this a typo (missing w) or an alternative spelling? Enyavar (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. The wp article is at en:Tamreswari Temple but the articles consistently uses "Tamresari" -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dominator (roller coaster)

[edit]

Problematic requested move:
Nominator's (user:Astros4477) rational: this category to be moved to Category:Dominator (Kings Dominion), because: "Not the only roller coaster under this name". Date: 2 February 2022

The request seems logical, but the subcat is Category:Dominator (Geauga Lake). One roller coaster in two locations? The third (probably unrelated) is Category:Dominator (Dorney Park) Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. It is the same roller coaster that was relocated from Geauga Lake to Kings Dominion. --Astros4477 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vaiz kürsüsü

[edit]

Isn't a just a minbar in Turkish? 129.242.129.238 15:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:San Miguel (Sitio Brown-Mapalad na Parang)-Doña Remedios Trinidad (Sitios Talamsi, Tubigan, Kalayakan, Durumugan - Cabiao, Calumpit, Culago) Road

[edit]

This is essentially the same road as Category:San Miguel-Doña Remedios Trinidad Road. This must be  Delete as needless fork of the said mother category — it encourages redundant content and COM:WEBHOSTing content, even if Wikimedia Commons is NOT a social media website where numerous near-duplicates can be dumped (in a Judgefloro (talk · contribs)-style).

The sole occupant, one file, has been moved there (by me). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category deletiom request also applies to Category:San Miguel (Sitio Brown-Mapalad na Parang)-Doña Remedios Trinidad Road, which previously hosted 21 files by FBenjr123. I have moved the said files to Category:San Miguel-Doña Remedios Trinidad Road, the true mother category. Since there are manageable number of images of this little-known road, there is no need to create subcategories based on obscure and unnotable segments. This leans to COM:WEBHOSTing (!). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: , on Category:San Miguel-Doña Remedios Trinidad Road - I personally stayed for 10 years in San Ildefonso and in DRT particularly Kalawakan which has many Sitios; there are 2 or even 3 road ways to reach it: a) via Cagayan Valley Road or Pan-Philippine way starting from Sapang Putol, San Idefonso, to Akle beside Talbak DRT - this is, as it should be One Subcategory; b) Cagayan Valley Road or Pan-Philippine way starting from Kamias, San Miguel to Sibul; then from Sibul to Kalawakan, DRT; c) howerver, there are 2 ways to reach this Largest Barangay Kalawakan (see the map) in fact it is larger than the largest Bagong Silang Caloocan City : i) via Sitio Brown of Sibul to Sitio Talamsi of DRT, which take 1 hour and the other way via Sitio Brown of Sibul to Sitio Durumugan as you can view the 447 photos of this finished road in Category:Kalawakan, Doña Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan then unfinished in 26 July 2015 Kalawakan is almost 1/3 of Bulacan province; therefore, it humbly is requested that Category:Kalawakan, Doña Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan roads to San Miguel and on the other side to San Ildefonso and on the other San Miguel, should technically be broken into Sub-Categories in line with the rules of Commons of Category creations; very sincerely FBenjr123 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Mirrored reply from [1]: FBenjr123, we do not need to break the road into segments. It is just a plain, ordinary, and obscure road. Please do not repeat the mistake of the now-blocked Judgefloro (talk · contribs) of dumping tons of near-duplicates and treating Commons as a social media site (when in fact it isn't). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:No.1 Torpedo

[edit]

This category treats a certain korean projectile as if its the prototype of all torpedos. A better name should be found, and the conspiratorial tone of the descriptions be changed. Enyavar (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:ROKS Cheonan sinking torpedo? I'm not sure I understand what this is about, but I agree No. 1 Torpedo sounds like the first or best torpedo in the world. =) -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the subcategories are strange as well; I think but am not absolute certain that this category and its subs are intended to hold "evidence photos" for the Original Research of the uploader. I have no idea if we have a user portal for naval matters where we can ask if some of the photos are Commons:out of scope anyway? We could keep some, delete all the subcategories, and rename this parent category. --Enyavar (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos about transgender people

[edit]

I just created this category, but maybe a better title would be "Videos about transgender issues" or some such? I want to avoid the term "transgenderism" as that's considered offensive/objectionable per Wiktionary. Brainy J (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Menstruationsshaming

[edit]

Misspelled category, shouldn't it be "Menstruation shaming"? Brainy J (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The German-language article on this topic is called "Menstruationsshaming" = "Menstrual Shaming". Hence this correct naming in German. Greetings that come from the heart from ---Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ein unbelegter Begriff kann kein korrektes Lemma sein. --Georg Hügler (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Erie Basin

[edit]

There is something weird here... I googled "Erie Basin". This page seems to say it is a store, in Red Hook neighbourhood of Brooklyn, founded in 2008. [2] So, why does this category contain so many photos that clearly predate 2008? Did someone redirect Category:Red Hook to a category about a store? That does not seem like a good idea. Geo Swan (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, another google hit [3] says that, as the original sandspit, of Red Hook, eroded, a new one formed, was extended with land-fill, and this was known as "Erie Basin". Then this category is in DESPERATE NEED of a hatnote. Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, a considerable mess has somehow built up. Google Search has for unknown reasons given first place to a neighborhood jewelry store that named itself after the 19th-century marine terminal that was built to serve ocean traffic on its way to and especially from the Erie Canal. In the 20th century the Basin was the site of a ship repair business with dry dock, and now is the site of the Erie Basin Park and an Ikea store. So, far as I see, Forgotten NY has it right, and ought even be used as a principle source for an ENWP article. I see no reason for either WP or Commons to notice the jewelry store, which is only interesting for its success in Search Engine Optimization. Perhaps when Springtime returns I'll bicycle there and snap some more photos and, umm, maybe this time get one of the jewelry shop. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operation manuals

[edit]

redundant, See also categories: User guides, User's manuals, Owner's manuals, Instruction manuals, Operation manuals and Operation instructions. 

Mateus2019 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Mateus2019: . If you think these are redundant, please ignore the See also category advice, and please use the category what you think it is right. Each category has a different role, in my opinion. --Clusternote (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment To the contrary in my humble opinion, each one is a synonym.
Let's compare the google hits
"Operation manual" About 8.430.000 results
"User guide" About 135.000.000 results (ranking 1st)
"User's manual" About 14.800.000 results
"Owner's manual" About 26.300.000 results
"Operation instruction" About 565.000 results
or maybe Category:handbooks? About 5.940.000.000 google hits If they are synonymous, only one should remain. Greez, Mateus2019 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the differences are like this:
  • Operation instructions are merely the instructions, and not imply the manual.
  • Owner's manuals are the documents (manuals) about the item that consumers can purchase, and does not correspond to the software or services that have a license agreement.
    • User's manuals are for the software or services that have a license agreement.
      • User's guides are often the supplemental documents to the user's manuals.
--Clusternote (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – For our purposes, these terms are synonyms. (A lexicographer or librarian may find the nuance of interest, but Commons needn't be hyper-specific. Why? Because a person browsing for a reference booklet on how to use, operate, or maintain a product, vehicle, software, or process will not know which subcategory to peruse. There is general agreement that this is so. Senator2029 22:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Even if you don't need these category, putting everything in one category might be useless temporary complacency. This discussion seems that for the people needing these sub-categorization  or  the umbrella term category (for the sub-categories mentioned above).--Clusternote (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC) [edit] --Clusternote (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pítko pod pergolou (Marta Taberyová)

[edit]

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Juandev) rational: this category to be moved to category:Pítko pod pergolou, because: "No need to have disambiguation". Date: 2022-01-23

The request seems rational, but eg Category:Fountains in Stodůlky has also the creators name. For the sake of clarity, the disambiguator clarifier seems OK Estopedist1 (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it literally means "Drinking fountain under the pergola" I don't see a problem with disambiguating with the artist's name... -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pítko pod pergolou" is very unspecific description. There are many drinking fountains under pergolas around the world. --ŠJů (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in Ukraine by municipality

[edit]

Is Category:Populated places in Ukraine by municipality redundant with Category:Populated places in Ukraine by hromada? Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantasy Art

[edit]

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:46.132.185.202) rational: this category to be moved to category:Fantasy (genre), because: "To avoid confusion with Category:Fantasy art, which is a distinct, yet almost identically named category". Date: 2022-01-17

Enwiki article is under en:Fantasy. Recently the category was renamed by user:Sicklemoon (Sicklemoon moved page Category:Fantasy to Category:Fantasy Art: Fantasy is a broad and complicated category "Art" needs to be added to this title for clarity) Estopedist1 (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantasy (genre) sounds clear and reasonable to me. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who originally proposed the move, I support moving to Category:Fantasy (genre). 46.132.189.8 16:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--just checking in--hope my rename was reasonable/not inappropriate. I'd add that Fantasy Art should be a rational subcategory of Fantasy (genre). As would be Fantasy Films, Books, &c. Let alone Fantasy . style like... sword & sorcery, Tolkien-inspired, Japanese.... what have you. The rabbit hole beckons for those who have an interest Sicklemoon (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantasy fiction

[edit]

Rename Category:Fantasy fiction to Category:Fantasy literature to reflect content, as a subsection of the Fantasy genre. Also, because fantasy literature is redundant. There's no such thing as fantasy non-fiction. Note that it links to en:Fantasy literature. Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Because all fantasy is fantasy fiction, the current name of the category might confuse people into thinking that this is the main category for topics related to the fantasy genre. This is not, however, the case, as the "main" fantasy category is currently located at Category:Fantasy Art (which, in my opinion, is also confusingly named, but that issue is already being addressed in a different CfD thread). 2001:14BB:63B:8A13:510E:FE46:D30A:FC47 11:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Orleans Arena

[edit]

I am proposing merging the contents of Category:New Orleans Arena into Category:Smoothie King Center, with New Orleans Arena serving as a redirect into Smoothie King Center. A conversation has took place here about the proposed merging. The merge is being requested due to a precedent somewhat being set, and continued on here, here, here, here, here, and here. If a broader discussion needs to occur whether this is the correct method of organizing these articles, that would be fine. But in this instance, there is a method and precedent that has been set on Commons that should be followed for consistency. Astros4477 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Pinging @Waz8, EurekaLott, Missvain, SecretName101 as Users with some work in this area. Astros4477 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Astros4477, for providing what you consider other precedents; as in our earlier discussion you'd provided only one. Broader discussion involving other cases may or may not be useful, but at present categorization of this particular building is the subject of this discussion. Let us focus on this particular case. Quite simply, "Smoothie King Center" did not exist until 2014. As I understand it, "New Orleans Arena" is the permanent name of the structure. On or about February 2014 Smoothie King company arranged a marketing deal to have the Arena branded as "Smoothie King Center" for 10 years - going forward, not retroactive. I do not object to having media from during this time in a category with the advertising name. I do object to having media predating this agreement categorized with a name that did not exist at the time of the photos. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say an important matter in this conversation is if venues have "permanent names". Take, for example, en:Footprint Center. This arena lost its sponsorship in 2020. Instead of reverting back to some sort of "permanent, non sponsorship" name, the arena had two names (PHX Arena and Phenix Suns Arena) in subsequent seasons, implying this arena has no "permanent, non sponsorship" name. Thus, if Smoothie King Center lost its sponsorship, there is no guarantee they would revert back to New Orleans Arena.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know that I can take credit -- or blame -- for setting the precedent, as I was just following what others had done with related venues. Anyway, I do believe that images of a venue should all be in a single category regardless of whether or not the name applied to each of its years of existence. While this is not technically correct, from a reader's point of view, it's more convenient to have one category. They are probably more interested in finding all of the media rather than only that which used a certain name at a given time. Therefore, in this case where a "permanent name" has not been established (as was the case for SkyDome), I support the single category Smoothie King Center with New Orleans Arena redirecting to it. I will let someone else have the soapbox now. Waz8 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that, unless major renovation or tenant changes differentiate the eras that used the different names, there is not much reason for a different category. Only arena I have separated by different eras it had different names was Seattle’s (and only for interior shots), because its interior has been vastly redone over the different eras. SecretName101 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uci Turtusi

[edit]

Tohawi Romli Lionelsowz2021 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lionelsowz2021, apa yang ingin anda diskusikan? --Achim55 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Record producers

[edit]

"Record producer"? Isn't this a confusing and non-obvious category name, now that putting audio on vinyl records is a fringe activity? Category:Music producers currently redirects here. Shouldn't it be category name? Geo Swan (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good question. I think it's still pretty firmly "record producer" in industry parlance, and the English-language article is at en:Record producer without even mentioning "music producer" as a synonym. I have a lot of musician and critic friends (and even a few producers). In context, they usually just say "producer", but out of context that is way too ambiguous. I actually can't remember ever hearing "music producer". - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for not taking my questions as a criticism. I have some correspondents who think categorization is obvious. I think it is anything but obvious.
One school of thought is for the category name to reflect what insiders call the thing. And another approach, often at odds with that, is for the name to be one that makes sense to outsiders.
Here are some examplesː
  • There are some related technologies that replace ordinary canal locks. Here in Ontario, Canada, we have two lift-locks - my preferred name. Up until I started working on the wikipedia I thought everyone called them this. However, in the UK, this technology is called a boat-lift. In China, their name for this technology is translated as a ship-lift. They finally completed the largest one in the World at the Three Gorges Dam. And, of course, they have about a dozen of them in Germany, where they use a German name. I always thought naming the technology either a boat-lift or a ship-lift was a bad idea because both terms ALSO refer to a completely different technology - large dockside cranes that lift vessels out of the water for maintenance.
  • Vehicles I have always thought of as streetcars all fall under the highlevel Category:Trams. Another synonym - trolley.
  • Category:Bridges (nautical). Some people have argued this room should be called a pilothouse, or even cockpit.
  • Modern charcoal is made by baking wood in a permanent, re-usable, brick kiln. Traditionally, charcoal was made by digging a shallow hole; building a big pile of wood in that shallow hole; then cover the pile of wood with the dirt from the hole, and light it on fire. The dirt makes sure there is incomplete combustion, that leaves the charcoal behind. The volatile elements in the wood are either burned off, or drip to the bottom of the hole. I found some pictures of the charcoal piles, and tried to add them to a category for charcoal piles, only to find that redirected to a Category:Charcoal clamps. I was told that charcoal clamp was a technical term, where-as charcoal pile was just a term I made up. I pointed out that early in the history of atomic energy the term "atomic pile" was used for stacks of Uranium bricks packed close enough that neutrons shed durng atomic decay was captured by nearby atoms, turning them into Plutonium. I am sure Szilard and Fermi picked the term "pile" because there were analogies between their atomic pile and primitive charcoal piles.
What would he call a guy like Scooter Braun? Okay, looked him up... Category:Scooter Braun ...his current categories say nothing of his role in the music industry.
...I added Category:Talent agents, which is what wikidata says he is... Still not satisfied though. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dead-end prism

[edit]

This is an unknown expression in English language (no matching Google results), and seems mostly redundant to Category:Buffers. Same for all subcats by country. --A.Savin 23:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete +1 zu A.Savin, incorrect name. Explanations of the creator of this category are not convincing. --Wahldresdner (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the discussion on my page, the nominee is clearly confusing dead-end station and a completely different concept dead-end buffers[4]. What are the names of the devices shown in the following photos [5][6][7]? Buffers? And that's exactly what I put in the category. 攝影師 (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here [8], on the diagrams on pages 12 about the Junction Station, such devices are designated as "Hump made of sand". But, the fact is that such devices are not always made of sand (perhaps because of its erosion by rain), this can be seen even from photographs where gravel or soil is also used, and in some cases it is still fenced off with an iron pyramid. 攝影師 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the nominee (A.Savin): "dead end" in Russian is "тупик", and the name of the category in its current form is translated as "тупиковая призма". 攝影師 (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete in the absence of category description (ideally textual with an example image), it's hard to determine what should be included and if the category was correctly applied. It's also not easy to suggest a workable alternative. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please help complete the cleanup. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arthur D. Collins, Jr.

[edit]

Category:Art Collins? 191.116.3.235 00:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Alphonsus churches

[edit]

Rename Saint Alphonsus Liguori churches to match Alphonsus Liguori and avoid confusion with Saint Alphonsus Rodriguez churches. 129.242.129.238 08:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Andrew

[edit]

Rename Saint Andrew the Apostle to match with English wikipedia, and avoid confusion with Andrew of Crete and Saint Andrew Stratelates. 129.242.129.238 08:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Benedict churches

[edit]

Rename to Saint Benedict of Nursia churches to match with Benedict of Nursia and to avoid confusion with Saint Benedict the Moor churches. 129.242.129.238 08:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politician travel maps of the world

[edit]

Please help finding the best name for the category. I named it because it needs to be a child/sub of Category:Travel maps of the world; however I found it also needs to be a child/sub of Category:State visits. So... Category:State visit maps of the world? There might be more maps sitting around in other relevant categories that would need to be considered. Enyavar (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today I found Category:Maps of countries visited. --Enyavar (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today I moved the few files/categories from the countries-visited-category to the Ptmotw-category and created sub-cats. --Enyavar (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar whatever solution there will be, the country name has to be in nominative case not genitive case (e.g. not French, but France). Then we can also add the template: {{Countries of Europe}} Estopedist1 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, please do so. My suggestion is a scheme like this: Category:Maps of countries visited by politicians of Uruguay, but I'm open for other ideas of course. --Enyavar (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tinplate toys

[edit]

Shoule be merged with Category:Tin toys; but which name should persist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unassessed QI candidates

[edit]

Per discussion at Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates it seems that this maintenance category is not needed since no action is expected to take place after passing through the QI process without getting an assesment. As such, it should probably be deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I'd favor deletion, too, as I agree with User:Smial in the linked thread that nominators can make up their own minds about whether to renominate them or not. I think the reason why most of the photos in this category are never rated is probably that no-one can decide whether to promote them or decline them. I know I've sometimes bowed out of rating a photo because I couldn't make up my mind. They could be moved to CR, but it's possible there will be cases in which no-one votes on them there, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of disagree. I think it is still useful, if there is a way to look up which QI candidates went completely unassessed. I however think a category might not be the optimal solution for this. As I see it, this would be a good use for structured data. The wikidata:Property:P6731 with the value wikidata:Q63348069 is added, when an image is determined as QI. In case of unassessed QI candidates, we could add this as a new value and automatically add it to the unassessed ones.
This way I could use a SPARQL query to search for my unassessed QI candidates, if I wanted to. FlocciNivis (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot about this thread.
    In terms of the quality of a candidate, being unassessed is the same as being declined in the vast majority of cases. We have a lot more people who only ever promote, comment, or abstain, than people willing to decline. Being unassessed usually means a few people looked at it, and none of them thought it should be QI.
    There are some exceptions, though. For example, if a nominator responds to someone's criticism, because of the way QIC is structured the person who provided criticism doesn't get a ping. It has happened to me multiple times that I've addressed a problem but nobody noticed before time ran out. Upon renominating, they typically pass.
    Of course, none of this has anything to do with the category. I agree with those who have said they don't see the purpose. In terms of the QIC rules, there's no difference between something that has never been nominated and something that's renominated after being unassessed. You can nominate them just the same. So I guess I'm in the  Delete camp. That said, I certainly don't object to using structured data for this. I think we should be doing that more. Using structured data would mean more easily being able to say, for example, "show me unassessed candidates with more than one version" to find those where someone may have fixed a problem, or "show me unassessed candidates sorted by when they were nominated" or something. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I don't really care much about this category, even though it can be useful and give you a hint whether a previously nominated image got declined or whether it was an unassessed candidate, only by looking at the entry of the file, without a tedious search in the respective QI candidate archive. Nevertheless, this category may be deleted if it annoys anyone as soon as QICBot stops adding imagex to it (after which it would be useless anyway). Before that happens, I am strongly in the  Keep camp. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trains in Tallinn

[edit]

Some of the images in this category are not trains. Parent category is Category:Transport in Tallinn and I suggest this category should be renamed Category:Rail transport in Tallinn Geo Swan (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan if current category will get proper content, it will be OK. Some countries have parent, eg Category:Trains in France by city‎, and Estonia can also have this "by city" category tree Estopedist1 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superfluous images

[edit]

The images are not superfluous and shouldn't be removed from the normal category tree Multichill (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same here: keep them in the category tree, delete "Category:Superfluous images". Taylor 49 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I had been trying to tag unused & poor files that are now completely superfluous, and in future should not be used because of their very low quality.
I did not request their deletion - others may decide whether they are worth to be kept or not.
When you like them, do whatever you want! I won't care anymore about. -- sarang♥사랑 10:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they are removed from the normal category tree, they are difficult to find. If they are superfluous, then they are either not in scope or {{Superseded}}. What is the point of the category? –LPfi (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: As told in the category a user had been very busy two years ago in generating a flood of poor PNG images; may be that he intended to use them somewhere, but currently almost all are unused; the few usages are now replaced by SVG.
The told user categorized his images mostly into Icons or other main categories, instead of selecting a more differing one.
I thought that keepeng them there, or in better differing categories (instead of "icon" e.g. Eye icons) bears the danger that somebody finds and uses them. Images so poor IMHO should not be used; when needed a much better SVG can be generated swiftly.
Unfortunately another user was upset by that and started an edit war re-categorizing these images; therefore I stopped caring about.
The images are not all out_of_scope, and not all have a superseding image. Their common property is their superfluousness. -- sarang♥사랑 10:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no better image for some in-scope use, then they are not superfluous and they should be in a category where they can be found. If their quality is so bad that they are useless even in that case, then they should be deleted. –LPfi (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it seems to me that the "Superfluous images" refer to png that are originally svg. is that correct, User:Sarang?
for these images, i raised a discussion: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/01#Uploaded_PNG_previews_of_SVG_files:_delete_or?. my opinion is that they should all be deleted.
it's so freaking annoying that new users just keep uploading these crap. another perennial example: youtube logo, like File:Youtube Simgesi.png. (i did nothing about this file because i knew of sysops' reluctance to delete and clean up these crap.) RZuo (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with speedy mass deletion of PNG images converted from existing SVG images. But not with random moving into less useful or useless categories. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glacial streams

[edit]

Seems redundant to Category:Supraglacial streams. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb Glacial streams sub-categories seem to be about streams whose waters originate from a Glacier. This category is not redundant. You could rename perhaps to "Glacier fed streams" or "Glacial fed streams." "Supraglacial streams" are streams on the glacier itself. When this supraglacial water emerges below the glacier's terminus, it becomes a glacier fed stream or glacial stream. The same idea with a "subglacial steam" upon emergence below the terminus. Ooligan (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mariniersbrigade

[edit]

Alreasy exists as Marine Brigade in the Dutch East Indies Tekstman (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panoramic views of Lake Como

[edit]

Meaningless category name (what is 'panoramic' in this case, when most photos are wide views but not panoramas?). Suggest upmerging to Category:Lake Como, and then recategorising in other subcategories. Mike Peel (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a definition/description of "panoramic views"? I think at least Category:Panoramics should have a clear definition and point out what should be in this category and its subcategories and what should be out. After we have consent about this definition we can compare it to the photos in Category:Panoramic views of Lake Como and judge about this category. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Panoramics and Category talk:Panoramics. --JopkeB (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/02&oldid=806308180"