Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in April 2020.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/04.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2020-04.
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:Falaises de Soubeyrannes

[edit]

doublon de category:Cap Canaille, créé par un unique contributeur, nom incorrect -- à fusionner Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr.Latreille: Pourquoi y a-t-il deux articles sur wikipedia: fr:Falaises Soubeyranes et fr:Cap Canaille (Cassis)? -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mais le Cap Canaille n'est qu'un point des falaises Soubeyrannes, non ? - Groupir ! (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr.Latreille@Groupir !@Themightyquill: French Wikipedia still have two articles. Enwiki en:Cap Canaille says "The rock face of Cap Canaille is called Falaises de Soubeyrannes". Should we merge despite of French Wikipedia solution? Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: The "cap" is for the en:Cape (geography), the "failaises" are the cliffs on the cape. I'm not sure whether two categories are necessary or not. -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are two (and in fact, three, with a so-called "Bec de l'Aigle") articles in French wikipédia about the hillscliffs and cape(s) between Cassis and La Ciotat. This should be discussed, and cleared up, but inside the French wikipédia. The problem here (inside commons) is that all of the pictures actually placed in category:Falaises... and in category:Cap... cannot be attributed to the hills rather than to the cape. They all show the site as a whole (except those related specifically to the 'Bec de l'Aigle', which have a category for them). So I noted that in fact the second category had been created by mistake by a contributor who had some pics to place and didn't notice that category:Falaises was already existing, — and proposed to join the two categories in one.
One more thing: the correct name of the hillscliffs is "Falaises Soubeyranes" (where did the creator of the category find its name?), and has to be corrected. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User categories

[edit]

This category should definitely be cleaned up. I would say we should remove thematical or annual subcats of categories already present here. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: yes, categories in here must be explicitly different from topic categories. Eg the name of category:Abraham Samuel is invalid--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Can you give specific examples of what you see that needs to be done? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: That's not what I meant. @Auntof6: For example, Category:2016 Photographs by Ailura and other subcategories of Category:Photographs by Ailura should not be in this category, because Category:Photographs by Ailura already is. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: I am normally strongly in favor of not overcategorizing like that, but that mainly applies to content categories and not administrative categories. I think designating categories as user categories is administrative and needs to be done for each category, even if it has a parent that is also a user category.
Another point: one thing that goes along with being a user category (at least if it's set up correctly) is that the category is hidden. All user categories should be hidden, and to do that, they all have to be tagged as hidden even if they have a parent that is also hidden. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category Category:User categories should be hidden too, as it it absolutely not useful for searching for a specific user category in it as it is too big. It's a maintenace category an not a normal category and therefore should not be bigger than my personal parent user categories. Kersti (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the category is mainly for administrative purposes, as already pointed out, I'd vote for leaving it like it is. Plozessor (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this is the reason why it should be a hidden category. If you look in this category, Category:Kersti Nebelsiek - Gerhard-Holten-Hütte, Osterbachtal, Tauberseck, Mühlbach, Untermühle in Knickhagen, Gänseberg, Krummbachtal (15. und 17. November 2022) You will notice that Category:User categories looks really big, but the much more useful category Category:Pictures of User Kersti Nebelsiek looks much smaller. This should be exactly the other way round as Category:Pictures of User Kersti Nebelsiek gives a useful overview over my persomal pictures. Kersti (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US Shell stations

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Petrol stations in Saskatchewan.

Note the text atop the first category: "Shell branded gas stations located in the United States." What's the difference between that and the second category? Looks like a good merger candidate to me, but I could be missing something. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and support merging Category:Shell petrol stations in the United States into Category:Shell Oil Company gas stations for consistency with the parents. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been sitting a long time. At this point, Category:Shell Oil Company gas stations is a subcat of Category:Shell petrol stations in the United States, but it should become the main cat and the "petrol" one should be merged. Seems like a consensus among those who commented. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by nationality

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Executed people by nationality.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Captives held at Guantanamo Bay by nationality.

Poorly developed. Am I right, that in Commons we try to avoid categories by nationality? If so - to be deleted? Estopedist1 (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: I suppose there is a distinction between country and nationality, but it isn't immediately obvious to me. Senator2029 12:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Senator2029 and E4024: nationality/ethnicity-categories seems to be sensitive topic. (Nationality/ethnicity-categories are still massively used in enwiki.) Are we able to empty/re-organise the category in question rationally? Eg category:Captives held at Guantanamo Bay by nationality and category:Cemeteries by nationality seems to be tough cases?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might be renamed to Category:category:Captives held at Guantanamo Bay by ethnicity and Category:Cemeteries by ethnicity, since "ethnicity" is less ambiguous than "nationality". Although ethnic groups and nations are synonymous in many cases, the latter is more problematic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our standard is definitely "by country" so that should be used whenever possible. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the categories should redirect to Category:Categories by ethnicity, since categories by ethnicity are more established and less ambiguous than categories by nationality. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panoramics in Jacksonville, Florida

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Panoramics.

from talk page:

Title of the category

"Panoramic" is an adjective. The title should be "Panoramas of Jacksonville". Bubba73 (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Estopedist1 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd support using of instead of in so that categories had consistent names. However there are more using Panoramics in than there are using Panoramics of. If we standardize (either way) it's 1) not a small job and 2) potentially disruptive. I agree that using of is better English than using in.
As for whether to use panoramas or panoramics, I don't know. Is panoramics a short way of saying panoramic photographs? Are there works in media other than photographs (paintings, drawings, etc ) that are called panoramas/panoramics? I also note that Category:Panoramics is a subcat of both Category:Panoramas and Category:Panoramic photographs, whatever that means. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:London Street View

[edit]

I thought this should be "London street views", then "Street views in London". But surely it's just "Streets in London"? Please consider merging to appropriate subcats thereof. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Upmerge to Category:Streets in London, and delete Estopedist1 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Western Pacific Region

[edit]

'Western_Pacific_Region' is a specific WHO term; it does not make much sense outside WHO reports; therefore, Category:Diagrams about the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Pacific Region should be sufficient Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt:
1) "Western Pacific Region" is one of regions used in WHO regional division of the world, but i suppose, this division has some objective reasons and is considered as objectively optimal for health-related items.
2) WHO documents can be not only diagrams but also maps, conception/political documents and plans, analytic documents etc. I suppose, this WHO division is intended not only for diagrams. --ŠJů (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Jochen Burghardt. We even haven't Category:Western Pacific Region. But I am not sure how to rename the nominated category to be suitable for the parent Category:COVID-19 pandemic by continent Estopedist1 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could make it a subcategory of both Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Asia‎ and Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania‎. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blue guns

[edit]

It'd be worth renaming this category to 'Rubber duck (military)' to bring it in line with the Wikipedia article and to facilitate inclusion of rubber weapon replicas that aren't blue in colour. Dvaderv2 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Producers are calling them training guns. Rubber duck is not a good alternative as it uses brackets in the lemma and is also not an official term.--Sanandros (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Training guns' does sound better, actually.--Dvaderv2 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to have to official order, where the military describes the product.--Sanandros (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanandros I've seen a few US DoD image descriptions refer to "training aids" in the context of what are clearly rubber weapons, e.g. here, here, and here. Now, this particular photo explicitly refers to "weapons [sic] training aids", but I don't know if that would be reliably distinct from the overarching Training weapons category. "Rubber weapon training aids" maybe?Dvaderv2 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the patent GB2592563A. There they name the BlueGuns as trademark of Rings Manufacturing and Red Guns as a trademark of Amarment Systems and Producers and mentioning the patent US5451162A calling it a mock training weapon. If we use the term mock training weapon I'd would be fine for me.--Sanandros (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanandros But again, would that be reliably distinct from the overarching "Training weapons" category? - Dvaderv2 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't found the term in other patents.--Sanandros (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Rubber weapon replicas"? Relevant, non-ambiguous, and would allow us to cover other 'weapons' (e.g. 1, 2, 3). - Dvaderv2 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Renaissance art of Italy

[edit]

What is the difference to supercat Italian Renaissance art . We should merge the two in Renaissance art of Italy Oursana (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian Renaissance art is also wikidata linked to en:High Renaissance, which is something more specific, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we don't use "italian" but always "of Italy" (or "from Italy" or "in Italy") in all categories. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any difference between the 2 cats. We should only use “Renaissance art of Italy” and merge with “Italian Renaissance art”
The Linking to en:High Renaissance is not correct, because It. Renaissance has also early Renaissance, and High Renaissance is not only Renaissance of Italy --Oursana (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Renaissance art was no longer just Italian. The important thing is that the entire categorization system of the art of Italy in Commons (in Italy / from Italy / of Italy) is not changed. Thanks. DenghiùComm (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ссылку я исправил, категории предлагаю слить. Online translation: I corrected the link, I suggest merging the categories. --Ыфь77 (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Petersburg State Forestry Academy

[edit]

from talk page:

Объединить категории парка и сада - merge Category:Park of Saint Petersburg State Forestry Academy и / and Category:Botanical Garden of Forest Technical University, Saint Petersburg - этот парк и сад одно и то же. Their park and garden is one and the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregZak (talk • contribs) 11 April 2020 (UTC) Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Екатерина Борисова: --A.Savin 13:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Я не смогу написать подробный ответ по-английски, однако по-русски попытаюсь объяснить. С точки зрения ООПТ и ОКН существуют противоречия в определении границ парка и ботанического сада. По одним сведениям - весь парк одновременно является и ботаническим садом, по другим - ботаническим садом является лишь небольшая его часть. Я пыталась изучать источники, они противоречивы. Однако главное основание разделить парк и ботанический сад - тот факт, что существует огороженная территория, свободный вход на которую запрещен. Эта территория на местности маркируется табличками с надписью "Ботанический сад" (эти таблички есть на снимках в категории Ботанического сада) и расположена у зданий по Институтскому переулку под номерами (по Яндекс-карте) 5с и 5 корпус 8. Эта территория доступна только для сотрудников и студентов ЛТА и используется для научной работы. Вся остальная территория открыта для всеобщего свободного посещения. Таким образом сущности парка и ботанического сада не тождественны хотя бы с практической точки зрения. При этом можно признать что категория Ботсада - это подкатегория парка.
The park and the Botanic garden of LTA is not the same. Botanic garden is a small part of the park marked with signs "Botanic garden" and closed for public use. It is area for students and scienists of LTA used for scientific research. Meanwhile the rest of park (the bigger part of it) is open for public walking. That's why we need the separate category for Botanic garden. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • А, ну ладно. Oh, it's okay then. Моя семья там только гуляла и мы не специалисты. Называли парком, но на информационных щитах при входе видел надпись, что это Ботанический сад ЛТА. Где-то фигурировало ещё слово дендрарий, и я думал, что именно это за забором. Этот вопрос знают только в самой академии. А насчёт закрытия территории - ее проректор по безопасности хотел закрыть по закону от террористов, как территории любых учебных. Территорию объезжали на "Оке" пара охранников. Институтский переулок закрывали шлагбаумами с охраной, но несколько месяцев назад шлагбаум и пост внизу сняли, а на схеме маршрутов городского транспорта по переулку ходил от Лесной автобус - кажется, 75 маршрута. Не знал, что были своя баня и больница - увидел на фото в категории. Спасибо, интересно. Я ещё помню не только детскую площадку на бункере и вокруг, но и скамейки по всему парку, таблички с названием аллей и пород деревьев с латинскими и русскими названиями и родиной вида. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregZak (talk • contribs)

OK, I guess this request is ✓ Done now. --A.Savin 01:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unicode Characters Stroke

[edit]

This is not proper English. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: which better name do you suggest? Estopedist1 (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not completely sure what this category is about, so I do not have any suggestions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Not proper English" is probably the incorrect capitalization of "Characters Stroke", which is generally undesired if these are not artworks titles, brands, or other proper names (the capital remains on the first character of the page name), and there's a missing last word "order".
In my opinion using the term "Unicode" is superfluous; in fact not all characters that have stroke order/count properties are in Unicode, or they are not encoded as a single character but as sequences (including variation sequences, or combining sequences). I would replace that with Category:East Asian characters stroke order, given that this is not just for CJKV "ideographs" in Unicode, but also concerns other scripts (notably Hiragana, Katakana, Bopomofo, and related Kanbun, Yi, plus associated symbols).
But maybe even the term "East Asian" is superfluous (I fear this could cover as well traditional Mongolian, Tibetan, Thai, and possibly other non-Asian scripts, or other unrelated historic ones (where a Chinese-inspired tradition developed even if it did not survice to modern usages, even if the stroke count and order is associated to the Chinese and Japanese typographic traditions). But it becomes less relevant today even in East Asian scripts as many other variations appear and there's a trend with increased usages of simplifications and a long history of ligatures, persisting and continuing to evolve today); the stroke count is however essential only for traditional Hanzi/Hanja/Kanji/Chunom dictionnary orders, as it is the secondary part of the main collation key based on CJK and Yi "radicals" or Kana "Gojuon". Dictionnary orders are not really properties of characters and scripts, but properties of languages and orthographies (which are continuously evolving, and sometimes with modern modern and competing orders, which have a wider coverage in an increasing usage of multiple scripts in many languages and development of litteracy and computing (accelerated by the widening usage of the Universal character set, including with composite characters as observed in Japan with many "squared" symbols that mix several scripts in the same character, including Latin letters, or emoji variants!). If you consider Japanese Kana, the stroke count is less predictable (several strokes may be fused, either with handwritten texts or in fonts). If you go to Unicode specifications, the stroke count is currently normalized only for CJKV ideographs, and visible as supplementary data in the UCD, or within charts (it is not specified elsewhere and would not relevant for joining scripts line Arabic or Devanagari, or cursive and decorative styles of many alphabets/abjads/syllabaries, or with "discretionary" or mandatory ligatures, many of these ligatures not being specified at all in Unicode, but in OpenType more extensively, but that will never be complete to cover all possible glyph variations that fonts may add and support).
Additionally, not all CJKV ideographs are normalized in Unicode, there are other composite variants still not encoded (or just as ideographic description strings, i.e. using a series of symbols between base radicals or strokes), but that have wellknown stroke counts (this is the case for Yi, Tangut, Small and Large Khitan, at least in their common form even if they have also minor variants with more or less strokes, but also with Hangul, Kanas, Bopomofo that can have supplementary diacritics not necessarily encoded as a single composite Unicode character, and that won't ever be encoded like this, for compatibility and stability reasons).
As well this includes Unicode CJK Strokes characters, which by themselves are not ordered.
So would just opt for Category:Characters strokes (without "Unicode", as these properties are not standardized in Unicode itself, except stroke characters themselves encoded in the "CJK Strokes" block, and not necessarily with "count" or "order" as there may be several competing orders, depending on relevant dictionary sources from different epochs and areas or schools, and several categorizations, and several ways to count basic "strokes" depending on typographic drawing styles and drawing tools), possibly with some relevant subcategories for important scripts, such as "Category:CJKV characters stroke order", "Category:Kana characters stroke order" (subcategorisable for Hiragana, Katakana, and Hentaigana), "Category:Yi characters stroke order", "Category:Bopomofo characters stroke order", and maybe "Category:Hangul characters stroke order". verdy_p (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Backstroke (Toverland)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Magic Forest.

The name of the ride has been chaged to Expedition Zork. Mw007 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree, see nl:Expedition Zork. Hence to be moved to Category:Expedition Zork --Estopedist1 (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magic Forest

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Backstroke (Toverland).

This theme area has renamed to Wunder Wald. Mw007 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:C-GHPE (Rouge)

[edit]

I'm not sure - should we use this category with Category:C-GHPE (Air Canada), or left only Category:C-GHPE (aircraft) DS28 (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on splitting the C-GHPE category by airline then the Cats should be C-GHPE (Air Canada) and C-GHPE (Air Canada Rouge) - definitely not C-GHPE (Rouge), otherwise files should all be C-GHPE (aircraft) Ardfern (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Can you help here, user:Joshbaumgartner?--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1, Ardfern, and DS28: This is slightly confusing, since typically for aircraft registrations, the () are to contain dab info--typically the model or year--for different aircraft that carried the same registration, but in this case it is the same aircraft, just a different paint job. That said, it does make sense to have separate categories for different liveries if there are enough images to make it worthwhile, so I'm fine with keeping the existing split. I do agree that it should be 'Air Canada Rouge' instead of 'Rouge', and Category:C-GHPE (aircraft) should be removed from categories Category:C-GHPE (Air Canada) and Category:C-GHPE (Rouge) are in to clear up the overcat violations. Josh (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would prefer single cat Category:C-GHPE (aircraft), but there are many instances of additional cats to indicate use of an aircraft by two or more airlines. In this case category:C-GHPE (Air Canada) and Category:C-GHPE (Air Canada Rouge) (not Rouge) are essentially subcats of C-GHPE (aircraft). Not essential I think, but as I say, many instances (Swiss, Swissair, Eurowings etc). Ardfern (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer single category Category:C-GHPE (aircraft), cause there is not a different aircraft. It's similar with Category:VP-BDI (aircraft) and others... And sometimes livery could changed while aircraft stays in the same airline Category:VQ-BDN_(aircraft) - so I think we shouldn't create categories like VQ-BDN (dog NordStar), even we'll have 100 photos... --DS28 (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teesdale and Metcalf structures

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Teasdale and Metcalf structures.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Teesdale and Metcalf.

Correct name of company is "Teasdale and Metcalfe". Blythwood (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teesdale and Metcalf

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Teesdale and Metcalf structures.

Correct name of company is "Teasdale and Metcalfe". Blythwood (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teasdale and Metcalf structures

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Teesdale and Metcalf.

Correct name of company is "Teasdale and Metcalfe". Blythwood (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Washington, North Carolina

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Architecture of Washington, North Carolina.

Washington is a rather ordinary city of ten thousand residents. Our category doesn't have a large collection of geography-related content at the moment (it's just the maps subcategory), and given Washington's size, it's not likely to. Let's get rid of this extra layer of navigation and make the maps a subcategory of the city category; if someone ends up uploading a good deal of additional geography content, this can always be recreated. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The categories in question are setup the same across the board in other towns and cities in North Carolina to keep consistency in organization (they are also linked together). If their is "nothing" then the category should not exist; but if their is something, then the organization should be in place so it, and anything new, has a place to go to. What we do not want is everything dumped in one category; the better the organization, the better it is to find related media content. --Washuotaku (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the contents? If so, can you explain why "setup the same across the board" can cover just ten localities? Half of them are in small cities, too; you have Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem, but the other five cities put together have only about 80,000 residents. Don't pretend that such-and-such is standard when it's demonstrably not the case. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lumping everything in one directory doesn't help either. We should make efforts to categorize properly all the images as much as possible so it makes it easier to find, identify and hopefully used. --Washuotaku (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support upmerging away this "Geography of" cat and all the other categories in Category:Geography of North Carolina by city. None of them contain enough entries that they will clutter the parents, and some of the topics (such as "Nature") are barely geography anyway. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: you are free to solve this stale discussion. Unlike that someone opposes Estopedist1 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Architecture of Washington, North Carolina

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Geography of Washington, North Carolina.

Washington is a rather ordinary city of ten thousand residents. Our category doesn't have a large collection of architecture-related content at the moment (it's just the buildings subcategory), and given Washington's size, it's not likely to. Let's get rid of this extra layer of navigation and make the buildings a subcategory of the city category; if someone ends up uploading a good deal of additional architecture content (e.g. "Federal architecture in Washington, North Carolina"), this can always be recreated. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The categories in question are setup the same across the board in other towns and cities in North Carolina to keep consistency in organization (they are also linked together). If their is "nothing" then the category should not exist; but if their is something, then the organization should be in place so it, and anything new, has a place to go to. What we do not want is everything dumped in one category; the better the organization, the better it is to find related media content. --Washuotaku (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the categories in question are definitely not set up the same across the board: "Architecture of PLACENAME, North Carolina" categories exist for just six jurisdictions, four of which (Kinston, New Bern, Salisbury, and Washington) aren't even significant cities. No such category for important cities like Greensboro, Fayetteville, Winston-Salem, or Raleigh. And don't start creating more categories to make a point. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is only in a few locations, does not mean it cannot be duplicated elsewhere if their is need. We should make efforts to properly categorize media to make it easier to identify, search and use; having everything in a bucket makes things more difficult. While Washington, NC is not in the high end on the spectrum, it still hits it and should be organized. --Washuotaku (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fortification wall at Gour (Bangladesh Part)

[edit]

This is the same monument seen from India also. This is at the zero point border of Bangladesh-India border and commonly known as Kotwali Darwaza. Nahid Hossain (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidHossain: we have Category:Kotwali Darwaza. Is it necessary to have two categories: for India and for Bangladesh? Estopedist1 (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: That's why I started this discussion here. Need to merge them together so we can get all the images in a single category. --Nahid Hossain (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, as there's only one image in the category and the image's title is a spelling variatin of Kotwali Darwaza. And I am tempted to close the discussion for this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is Kotwali Darwaza from the Bangladesh side. The monument is in India but is very near to the international border and is also seen from Bangladesh. I think we can create a new category Category:Kotwali Darwaza (from Bangladesh), which would be a sub category under Category:Kotwali Darwaza and Category:Gauḍa, Bangladesh. Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Components of Rubik's cube

[edit]

Capitalisation aside: Components? Not pieces or parts? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said "capitalisation aside", but the capitalization is fine. It was named for Ernő Rubik, so "Rubik" should be capitalized. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the region of Mount Rainier National Park

[edit]

I believe this newly introduced category is a liability. It is not particularly useful in its own right, and I don't think that people starting from Category:Mount Rainier National Park will be in any way benefited by having to guess that if they are looking for contemporary images of a geographic grouping of buildings within the park such as the Sunrise Historic District, they have to guess that they need to come through this obscurely named category to find them. Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a series of categories re. US national parks. I think it necessary to distinguish the history of the national park itself (from the moment of its foundation) and the history of the region around it which would eg. also comprise buildings from former centuries (see above), pictographs from native people of the region, archeological founds and such. These are not part of the actual history of the national park itself. What would you propose as a title for such a category?Hornstrandir1 (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hornstrandir1: I'm still not sure I get the point of the category. What I will say is that a geographic place (e.g. Category:Sunrise Historic District) certainly should not be buried under a "History of" category. Could we at least agree that geographic places should not be buried like this in the hierarchy? And can you clarify what we are trying to get at here?
In general, I dislike "history of" categories. Everything is "history" once it has happened. Categories like "FOO in the 19th Century" or "FOO before 1950" make sense, and have clear criteria. But "History of?" Is the Obama Administration now part of the history of the United States? The Reagan Administration? FDR? I suspect the answers have more to do with how old you are than with any objective criterion. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could the need here be better met by categories like Category:Region of Mount Rainier National Park in the 20th Century, or even narrower periods, which would be applied to individual photos or (perhaps) events? Because a photo taken this year in the Sunrise District certainly doesn't belong down under History of… - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking here about history as an academic criterion. And yes, of course your examples (Obama vs. Reagan Administration etc.) are now part of the history of the United States. - On the other hand, if we are talking like here about a district with houses from eg. the 19th century, there are 2 possibilities, their actual situation (i.e. the date when the photo was taken) and - more interesting: when they were built. But if you eg. put them into a category like Region of Mount Rainier National Park in the 19th Century, it would not be exact, depending on when the park was founded. Hornstrandir1 (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have categories like Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1920. We could have one that is more geographically local (e.g. Category:Built in the region of Mount Rainier Park in 1920). But we should not consign an entire place where people live and work in the present day (give or take a pandemic) to "history". - Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the things you propose above: "buildings from former centuries (see above), pictographs from native people of the region, archeological founds" already have their own cats. Pictographs/pictoglyphs (rock art) and archeological sites are also of great interest to me and "history of region" in effect already exists by the way they are categorized currently. Personally, I think less cats rather than more is the way to go, not combining a hodgepodge of topics under a vague cat like "history of". Just my opinion, of course. Regards, Kalbbes (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it suits the purpose to find "over-categories". And history is such a one: The regions in the U.S. have been influenced by the lifes of native people and their forebears (up to the immigrants from Asia over the Bering Land Bridge) as well as by immigrants from Europe and other continents of the world who came later.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose the use of this category pattern. I frequently work in National Park categories and I find it troublesome when useful categories are buried too deeply in very general categories like this. I don't agree with the desire to distinguish things that existed before the National Park from the park itself. In many cases, such as Category:Mesa Verde National Park, these things are an integral part of or even the entire reason for the park. I don't think we should attempt to turn the Commons category scheme into a complete ontology and I think it causes a lot of problems when we attempt to do so instead of just categorizing things by what they are pictures of. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment One fundamental problem is that this is a "history of topic" category where the topic itself (Region of Mount Rainier National Park) does not exist. Josh (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, Hornstrandir1, Kalbbes, and BMacZero: At some point this category ended up empty, so can we just delete at this point? Should we make it a redirect to something versus a simply speedy delete? Josh (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I'm fine with that, of course, since I never liked the category in the first place. - Jmabel ! talk 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel I couldn't agree with you more. History categories, for Commons, are problematic...categorization by date is far better. My other problem with this is the 'region' part. Josh (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it.16:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Hornstrandir1 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, per my comment above. Krok6kola (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC) (formerly User:Kalbbes)[reply]

Category:Droste effect origin

[edit]

The title of the category is not the primary property of the described object. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While a category could be made for this (something like "Droste packaging exhibiting the Droste effect" or "Droste packaging with recursion"), I think it should just contain categories for individual revisions of the tin design, which themselves would be under 'Droste tins' or 'Droste packaging', under the main Droste cat. Basically such a cat would only exist so that the current 'Droste effect' cat (which could be renamed more neutrally and cleaned up, but that's a different discussion) could link to the ur-example, but I agree it needn't be named such. Arlo James Barnes 23:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't even notice Category:Droste cocoa tins existed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the more I'm looking through the related categories, the more of a mess it seems. It will take some work, but it seems pretty uncontroversial maintenance so I imagine we could just start anywhere. Maybe sorting by decade might be a good first step? Otherwise, label language, shape, and contents are also ways the collection could be 'sliced'. Arlo James Barnes 23:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vehicles in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956

[edit]

All photos taken 'Hungarian Revolution of 1956 in Budapest' so we should rename the category for some what refer to Budapest or to create a subcat example Category:Vehicles in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (Budapest). BTW same true to the two subcats Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have any photos of vehicles in the 1956 revolution outside Budapest? If not, there is certainly a possibility that such photos exist, no? I think it makes sense to just change the parent category to Category:Vehicles in Hungary and keep it for the whole country, and add subcategory Category:Vehicles in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (Budapest) if necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think no photo outside Budapest. So all files should be to move the a new subcat Category:Vehicles in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (Budapest).
And its subcats Category:Tanks during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Category:Trams affected by Hungarian Revolution of 1956‎ these also need to create new subcats as Category:Tanks during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (Budapest) and Category:Trams affected by Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (Budapest)‎ plus to the subcat of subcat Category:T-34-85 tanks in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956‎ (Budapest)‎. This means all of the previous categories will to contain only the new categories. It would be ok? BTW either choice, rename or new subcat create means all of the photos must be moved - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streekbezoek Juliana aan Voorne-Putten en Rozenburg 26-4-1951

[edit]

Rename to Category:Regional visit of Juliana to Voorne-Putten and Rozenburg 26-4-1951 or perhaps Category:Regional visit of Juliana of the Netherlands to Voorne-Putten and Rozenburg in 1951? Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all: formally you are undoubtedly right.
  • But: how many non Dutch speakers will be interested in these kind of categories, compared to the number of people from the Netherlands who are interested, should translate the English text into Dutch every time, and realise it is about a streekbezoek? Region might mean so many different kind of areas, streek is only one of them.
  • If it still is mandatory to translate this title into English: I cannot find a good translation for "streek". A "streek" is a small part of a country, it is smaller than a province, but bigger than one city or village; it might contain several populated places and the area in between them. "Region" on the other hand might be much bigger and contain even several countries. My suggestion would be not to translate streek and just name it "Visit of ..."
  • About Juliana: she was queen in 1951 and in that capacity she visited this area. So my suggestion would be: "Queen Juliana". Please do not use such an artificial term as "Juliana of the Netherlands": in the Netherlands she is known as queen, princess, even as princess of the Netherlands (and many of other titles), but not as Juliana of the Netherlands.
So, IF it is mandatory to translate this title into English, my suggestion would be to rename this category into Category:Visit of Queen Juliana to Voorne-Putten and Rozenburg 26-4-1951. JopkeB (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Thanks for your thoughts. This category is in Category:Juliana of the Netherlands in 1951. Her main category is at Category:Juliana of the Netherlands. If you wish to rename all related categories to "Queen Juliana", I would urge you to create a seperate discussion for that issue. For now, a move to Category:Visit of Juliana of the Netherlands to Voorne-Putten and Rozenburg 26-4-1951 sounds fine to me. If you'd like to put in "Streekbezoek Juliana aan Voorne-Putten en Rozenburg 26-4-1951" as a category description, that might help people from the Netherlands find understand it. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: No, I do not wish to rename all related categories to "Queen Juliana". And I agree with you that the general categories schould have Juliana of the Netherlands in the category title: by year, in art, wearing fur. These are for her whole life, regardless of whether she was princess or queen.
But during this specific visit she was there as a queen. So I would think that you then use queen in the category name. See also subcategories in Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom: by no means all of them have "of the United Kingdom" in the category name. The same applies for many other kings and queens. Or would you change the name of all those saubcategories as well?
Now for this specific category: I would prefer just Juliana (your very first proposal) over Juliana of the Netherlands. So then it would be: Category:Visit of Juliana to Voorne-Putten and Rozenburg 26-4-1951 or Category:Visit of Juliana to Voorne-Putten and Rozenburg in 1951. JopkeB (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Sure, okay, that makes sense. Do you think the whole date is necessary or should we just keep the year? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: As far as I know, she only visit Voorne-Putten only once that year, so the year might be sufficient. JopkeB (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Category:Visit of Juliana to Voorne-Putten and Rozenburg in 1951 seems good. You can execute your suggestion Estopedist1 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North European Russia

[edit]

Convert to disambiguation. This category's own description says it is synonymous with the political division of Category:Northwestern Federal District, and a geographical region is represented by Category:Northwest European Russia. Note that en:Northwest Russia considers "Northwest Russia" and "Northern European Russia" synonyms for the same geographical area. Themightyquill (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: I wonder that enwiki has 0 links to en:North European Russia. Logical antonym would be en:South European Russia (also 0 links in enwiki, Commons equivalent Category:South European Russia) Estopedist1 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:District councillors of Hong Kong

[edit]

They are referred to as members of District Councils instead of district councillors as per https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap547!en-zh-Hant-HK?INDEX_CS=N , please rename accordingly. To the creators of these cats, please check the ordinances first next time and dont make up other names. Roy17 (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: it seems that  keep. Enwiki has also Category:District councillors of Hong Kong Estopedist1 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St. Mary's Castle Church

[edit]

Pko nominated the category for deletion with the reason ”Wrong name" and removed the redirect to it from Category:St. Mary's Castle Church (Malbork Castle). I think discussion would be good to decide which should be the main category, and which will be the redirect. Jonteemil (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They also moved all the files.Jonteemil (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biology images without english description

[edit]

and also: Category:Chemistry images without English description

We maybe need this kind of category, because English-language diagrams are most needed. But, maybe with name like "Biology files without English description"? Also note we have at least one analogue yet: Category:Chemistry images without English description" Estopedist1 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So why not rename this category?-- Karelj (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Karelj: word "description" may be ambigious in Commons. Maybe it is rational to confine category's name, something like "Biology diagrams needing English translation"?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From me ( in my feelings) is connection "Needed translation" more ambigious than word "description", but your proposal of category name seems to be also accaptable. -- Karelj (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No need to have all images described in all languages and no need to describe all biology or chemistry images just in English, especially when the description contain correct scientific taxonomy in Latin or is properly categorized. Missing description in one of many languages is not a defect. (Btw., the adjective English is capitalized as a proper name in English language). --ŠJů (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete useless and impractical cat.--RZuo (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky81682 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images from DecArch without English description was created by User:André Costa (WMSE). if they are still curating the files and this cat only serves a temporary purpose, it can be deleted after they finish. RZuo (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If memory recalls the plan was for the museum to add English descriptions (or possibly for these to be added by volunteers through some event). That was years ago though. Note that this was created as a hidden category so essentially for maintenance use rather than consumption by everyday users. That said I'm fine with the category being deleted. Also with SDC now available there are built in mechanisms for identifying images without descriptions in a given language. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ceramiki Museum in Bolesławiec

[edit]

This museum's name in English is "Museum of Ceramics in Bolesławiec", as may be seen on its official web page. Current category's name includes Polish word "ceramiki" which may be translated as "of ceramics" - there is no reason that name should be partially in one language partially in the other. - Ysska (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

per Google search, the English name is not well-established. I guess we should use Polish name Estopedist1 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cable cars in Switzerland

[edit]

Someone redirected Category:Cable cars in Switzerland to Category:Funiculars in Switzerland, even though not all cable cars are funiculars, and not all funicular are cable cars.

Some funiculars are not driven by cables, at all. Rather the vehicle's driving wheel is a gear that, engages with a toothed third track.

And then there are aerial cable cars, like File:Faido Cable Car.jpg, the image that first drew my attention to this mess. Geo Swan (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • We should just avoid "cable cars" in any category name. Although it's clearly intended here to refer to aerial cableways, the term is commonly confused (on WP, if nowhere else) with ground-based cable railways. This should probably become a disambig page. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • See here Category:Cable transport for a widely understandable use of the different words. It's true that cable car is in some places used for cableways or aerial lifts. But I don't think that this is a technically proper use of the term. I think the terms should be used as indicated on the cable transport category page. If you think, they should be revised, then you should discuss it there, not only for Switzerland. Switzerland doesn't have cable cars (like the one in San Francisco) but has many funiculars. A funicular is by definition a cable transport. The "toothed third track" is called a rack and rack railways are something very different from funiculars.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the ongoing discussion if a funicular is only a funicular, if it has two cars, or also if it only has one. Now the question ends at the point where Wikipedians want to decide, not to call a thing a funicular that is called funicular by the law. Then we should have to distinguish between a "funicular (legal term)" and a "funicular (Wiki term)". And the law is very clear in distinguishing a funicular from a rack railway. Thus we can close this part of the discussion.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect really produced a mess with many aerial lift images categorized as funiculars. I changed it to Category:Cableways in Switzerland therefore. 84.184.111.108 10:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IPA symbols in SVG format

[edit]

Very unusual naming, suggest removing “format” for unification. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: it should be "category:SVG IPA symbols"--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Should the other subcategories of Category:SVG glyphs also be renamed then? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: I guess so, except category:Valid SVG created with ...:Glyphs--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black Africans

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/03/Category:Black people.

As a follow up to Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:People with black skin that I read as we should not categorize people as black. Therefore the old category was changed into a disambiguation page.

Now we have this category where most of the people in the category are not black but brown. So what to do? Ignore or change to brown or dark or make another disambiguation page? --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely do not change to brown, anyway. We can think about Category:Sub-Saharan Africans, but we might be better deleting it completely. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term Black is the most commons usage, at least in the US. I realize the terms keep shifting and some people try to make distinctions between black and brown, but I think we should go with commons usage, instead of trying to be activists in terms of changing the language, before the actual usage in society changes.--Sanya3 (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Sanya3: Thank you both. That US often uses the term black could be an argument. But what does the people in Africa call themselves? Do they use words like black, native etc. or do the just refer to themselves as Africans or something else?
For me it is not about being an activist but about what is correct. Many are not black but brown. So to me calling someone black is wrong. We could put a "" around and call the "Black" Africans. But I'm sure it would also feel wrong to someone.
I think the color based category will be a problem no matter what because there will be cases where someone is light brown. Do you put them as black or white? Like if 2 sisters with the same parents but one is slightly whiter than the other. I think in the future where people mix more and more it will be a problem.
And what to do with people from Mexico and India are they black or white? Perhaps the best is to ignore it for now and let someone else find a solution in the future. --MGA73 (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping my assumption of good faith, stretched though it is, is not misplaced, but this seems incredibly tone deaf, given the recent publicity over the "Black Lives Matter" campaign. And no, the previous discussion did not in any way say that "we should not categorize people as black". I suggest this embarrassment be speedily closed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: As mentioned below one of the problems is how should we define black? If you can find a definition that is guaranteed not to offend anyone lets hear it. Besides if we want to separate people based on their color of skin then where is the category (Black/Brown/White) for Barack Obama for example? He is not categorized by color. --MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your question seems to be based on the false premise that it is possible, or even desirable, "not to offend anyone". I'm not interested in pursuing such fallacies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Well I think that if we can avoid to offend anyone it is good. But it was you that first mentioned tone deaf and Black Lives Matter so I assumed that you was concerned about not offending anyone. But as I said I think it is a problem to define who is black and who is not black. If you can provide a good definition lets hear it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is "black" a bad word? I see it widely used in both America, Africa and Europe all the time for people of Sub-Saharan descent.*Treker (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi *Treker! I don't think that black is a bad word. It is just incorrect as many as those called black are brown. And how do we define black? Do we use some sort of racial definition that if you have more than 1/8th "non white" in your blood then you are black otherwise you are white? Or do we use some color based definition that if you are more than <whatever> on some well defined color scale then you are black otherwise you are white? Or should we ask those on the photo if they feel black or white not to offend anyone? Where is the definition? I dont think "black" is reserved purely for people from sub Sahara. If we categorize based on "mixed blood" then it could easily turn into a discussion of "how pure" your blood have to be before you are classified in one category instead of the other. --MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surprised to find this discussion. In the US, both where I live and in the country, "black" seems to have gained cache. "Blacks" seem to embrace it, from what I see. I certainly don't hear otherwise. And all shades of "black" don't seem to worry about "how pure" or "shades" of color. Rather, "black" seems to be an identity rather than a literal description. Of course, that may change. But should we not call them what they call themselves? Can we find out from them what they prefer? Krok6kola (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: thanks for the comment. I think the problem is that we do not know what someone call themselves unless we ask them. So if I'm on vacation and take a photo of 3 people then I would not know how to categorize them unless I ask them.
Color may be important for people in the US but that does not mean that it is important for people in Africa. Perhaps people of Africa does not really care much about if they are black or brown or something else. Looking at the history of Africa I doubt that they all identify themselves as one big happy family of black people. There have been a lot of fighting and killing because one group hate another group. I can't know for sure but personally I think that most people in Africa care more about if they are Hutu, Tutsi, Zulu or some other ethnic group.
Anyway why categorize people from Africa by color when we do not categorize people from the rest of the world by color? --MGA73 (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: Thanks for replying! I completely agree with you. It's just so strange that "whites" of European ancestry of varying skin color seem to be considered "white" (only albinos being actually "white") while we worry about defining who is "black", "brown" or something else for Africans and other non-European peoples. US people seem obsessed with this definition; as you suggest, those living in other parts of the world care about ethnicity and not color of skin. Per AP tackles language about race in this year’s style guide from Columbia Journalism Review, I wanted to remove the hyphen from Category:African-American cemeteries and faced backlash and lecturing. I do not know the solution to this. In the US, the word "Black" in the "Black Lives Matter" campaign does not seem to offend any non-whites, but what do I know? Krok6kola (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: I'm not a native English user so I do not know when to use a hyphen. But if I see "African-American cemeteries" I would wonder if it is cemeteries started as a joined cooperation between Africa and America". If I see "African American cemeteries" I would wonder if it is cemeteries in Africa meant for Americans that are buried in Africa. The only way I would be sure if it was named "Cemeteries for people with African-American background". And yes "white" is not actually white. And in Denmark where I'm from only the neo-nazis or those far-right walk around and tell everyone that they are white. The rest probably only care about what color their skin is if they are directly asked. And if asked the answer might as well be pink or pale instead of white. If we are all one race and if it "don't matter if you're black or white" as Michael Jackson sang then why categorize based on color? Anyway I just prefer consistency so either we categorize everyone by color or we don't. And if we categorize then I prefer categories where we can set up some criteria that do not leave too much room for debate. --MGA73 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: You demonstrate how confusing our American thinking is and that it makes no sense to non-Americans! The US has gone from Slaves to Colored to Negro to Afro-American, to Black, to African American, and now it seems back to Black, going by current usage. I am of Danish, Norwegian, Native American, French Canadian extraction, first and second generation. Although my non-American relatives greatly influenced me, I am plain "White" according to the 2020 US Census and can't acknowledge the influence of my mixed heritage as there is still only one category for "White" although there is a huge number of choices for "Asian Pacific Islanders" and other ethnic populations.
Take a look at Category:People by color for perspective! Krok6kola (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: There we have a definition of color to use. But I can't help noticing that Category:Black-colored people is red. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: Yes, sorry. I've gotten mixed up with all these categories and now I can't find the discussion link I meant to put there. My opinion is that Blacks have gone back to "Black" because recent events in the US have reawakened memory of the Black Power movement of the 1960s here and the "Be Black, be proud" of James Brown and the Black Panthers etc. They no longer see "Black" as any kind of stigma. They see it as an identity and not literally as a color. Krok6kola (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: That's okay :-) I guess the question is then if everyone in Africa feel the same way :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: I think the US is a special case because of its long history of institutional racism resulting in vast and cumulative inequalities; this has not accepted by those in power. There has been no "Truth and Reconciliation" process as South Africa went through. There are active White Supremacists groups in the US. As you said above, Africans are concerned with ethnic differences, not color of skin. I think the preoccupation with names for differences in skin color is primarily a US one and perhaps in other European countries that are former colonial powers. I think you were right above when you questioned the whole idea of basing any definition of groups of people on actual skin color because, as you say, there is an infinite continuum of color that should be pretty much meaningless. But at this moment in time, I think the "Black" identity in the US stems from "Black is Beautiful" movements; African Americans are using the term as a political movement to stop violence against them and to obtain equal opportunity. If equality prevailed, I don't think skin color would be relevant in defining groups of people as you say. Krok6kola (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Black" is definitely commonly used in the United States, where it often (but not always) signifies more than skin colour, including a specific culture and society created in part through surviving slavery and segregation. By contrast, I would suggest that "Black African" implies a biological category for some Africans based on skin colour and other physical qualities. I'm not sure why we would prioritize American usage for a discussion about people in Africa. See en:Black people ("For many other individuals, communities and countries, "black" is perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result is neither used nor defined, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation.")
I might also add that, just because someone uses a term to describe themselves (including as a term of empowerment) doesn't necessarily mean they want to be categorized as such by an encyclopedia. I'm sure you can think of some examples in American culture, but "Black" (including "Black Lives Matter") is also widely used as self-identification by Indigenous Australians (see en:Black Australians), but it wouldn't be ideal to categorize them together with en:African Australians in Category:Black Australians.
I think it's best we not risk categorizing people by skin colour at all, if we can avoid it, since geography is less ambiguous and more neutral, and avoids any links with racist pseudoscience. I don't think the discussion is tone-deaf at all - quite the opposite. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I completely agree with you on all counts. In the US, Native Americans, Latinos and other disenfranchised groups identify with "Black Lives Matter". I am surprise to see this discussion on "Black Africans"; I've never encounted the term before and do not know the reason the term is needed at all. Krok6kola (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just found this discussion because I was creating the category "Black Asians", surprised it didn't exist, and had filled it up a fair amount before stumbling upon "People of Black African descent in Asia". In prior cases I have decided to go along with the established category even if I began making one while unaware it existed under a different name, but I think "People of Black African descent" is a mess. Black people are, in simple fact, defined by our phenotype—our visual appearance. Information about geographical descent ("African") is either secondary to the fact of our visual appearance (we're treated differently before people have any idea where we're from, regardless of whether or not that idea is correct) or trivial (scientific consensus is that all "human beings" are from Africa & historical time of departure doesn't have any correlation to skin color-based treatment). This is particularly salient for the "Black Asians" category I was making because it's somewhat understood that many Black people in Asia are indigenous to Asia & have been so for thousands of years, meaning before the slave trades of the last 2000 years that have shaped so much of the world today. I haven't agreed with every racial geographical categorization I've seen take precedence on here but "People of Black African descent in Asia" was too convoluted for me to continue on past especially once I saw a relevant conversation. Let's just use Black Asians, please. DoSazunielle (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DoSazunielle: Isn't Black Asians ambiguous? It could easily include someone like Tiger Woods and others categorized as en:Afro-Asians - Themightyquill (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: What's the issue with including someone like Tiger Woods? If it's continent of residence, then "Black people in Asia" should work fine. Otherwise don't understand the problem. DoSazunielle (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DoSazunielle: But Tiger Woods is American. He was born in the US state of California. Krok6kola (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: What does that contradict exactly? "American" isn't a race, continent, or ethnicity. As I said in my last reply, if the point of contention is the belief that "Asian" should refer to where someone resides and not to any racial categorization, then "Black people in Asia" is a category name that addresses that ambiguity. If it's something else, I'm lost. DoSazunielle (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Category:Black people in Asia is that is that we don't have Category:Black people except as a disambiguation page, because it's ambiguous (not to mention other issues). Despite your text above, I don't see a problem with Category:People of Black African descent in Asia‎. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we need the supercat People of color, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2072081#sitelinks-wikipediaOursana (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: How do you feel about Category:Sub-Saharan Africans? -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For which purpose? If it is intended as a euphemistic substitute for Black, then all prior objections still apply. If it is to document the geographic position of people re: the Sahara, then I believe that categories by country, or by African ethnies, are even more precise and should be preferred. Note that the listed categories above include diaspora and descent people. Are people with black skin and of African descent living in Ukraine or the Americas still Sub-Saharan? Are white Afrikaners Sub-Saharan? Place Clichy 15:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: I see your point. We do frequently categorize people by (partially pseudoscientific) ethnic origin or geographic origin, just not by (wholly pseudoscientific) race. I'm not sure where Sub-Saharan African falls on that divide. A larger problem is this, what do we do when we don't know the precise origin of people? What do we do with the contents of Category:Black African eunuchs in the Ottoman court and Category:Black African servants? What about Category:Black History or Category:Black feminism? I don't think it would be appropriate to put a Tunisian immigrant to the United States in Category:African Americans, so what is the parent category for Category:African Americans? I get that these racial categories doesn't exist in science and therefore shouldn't be used to define people, but there remains an idea of "Black African identity" used by (some) people about themselves which does exist in culture and scholarship, so what do we do with that? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiGap

[edit]

There seems to be some confusion in the sub-categories whether "WikiGap" or "Wikigap" is the spelling to be used, and therefore some duplicate categories. This might need some cleaning-up. Zv0486~commonswiki (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zv0486~commonswiki: full list for Wikigap (correct is WikiGap) is here (as of 2021):
  1. Category:Internationale Vrouwendag 2020 - Wikigap / Wikizaterdag WMNL
  2. Category:Wikigap 2018 in Albania
  3. Category:Wikigap 2019 in Kosovo
  4. Category:Wikigap 2020 in Nigeria
  5. Category:Wikigap editathon in The Hague
  6. Category:Wikigap graphic materials
  7. Category:Wikigap in Nigeria
  8. Category:Wikigap kampala 2019
  9. Category:Wikimedia Norge Wikigap 2018
  10. Category:Wikimedia Norge Wikigap 2019

--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of the Vatican City by year

[edit]

Rename cat, and children, to "Vatican City by year". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Commons. Storage of photographs here is mostly implicit, or else unimportant. A hand-drawn map specific to a year would belong here just as strongly.
Also we don't use the "Photographs of <foo> by year" elsewhere, we use the simpler form of "<Foo> by year". See Category:Rotterdam by year et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(conflicted) What? Category:Photographs of the United States by year, Category:Photographs of the United Kingdom by year, Category:Photographs of Italy by year, Category:Photographs of Germany by year, Category:Photographs of everystate (or everynations) by year... --Threecharlie (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I try to explain my POV; a category of a sporting or musical event does not need a category "photo taken on date" because the date is of the event not of the single photo. Some time ago a user started to categorize by year the photographic shot which has its usefulness in understanding the state of a building before a catastrophic event, or its demolition, or even, not negligible, to reconstruct the dating of similar images that contain a missing building or not. In the end, as well as a semantic question, what would be useful to eliminate it (from all and not from this single category)?--Threecharlie (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These aren't sporting or musical events though. These are the very broadest categories for these large topics.
My context here is that I'm working on categorizing the ANEFO collections: hundreds of thousands of images from Dutch photographers, mostly commercial newspaper photographers, photojournalists etc. from the mid-20th century. Apart from the more specific categories, these are largely ending up under "1939 in Ruritania" et al. Because of the volume, I'm also templating much of this. Although I'm not usually an advocate of consistency in category naming just for the sake of it, this would make automatic categorization much easier.
As it is, I'm seeing a mix of "1957 in Rotterdam / Rotterdam by year" and also "1969 photographs of the Vatican City‎ / Photographs of the Vatican City by year". There is no point to having both! One format should be chosen (for whatever reason we decide is most important to us) and then we go with that throughout. I don't much care about the overall parent cats (those are few and only matter to their children), I do care about the per-year cats because they contain all the content. I don't even care much which form we choose (although "Photographs of.." is pointless, see above) but the consistency would have a virtue in itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should change those too then. "Photographs of..." is pointless. Why is it necessary? It's either superfluous, excessively limiting (photographs have a clear date of taking them, but other materials can be year-specific too), or simply incorrect (if we do place a hypothetical and yet important year-specific map drawing in here, it's not a photograph - we shouldn't go out of our way to make our category names dishonest.). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley and Threecharlie: Huge topic :) I guess Category:Photographs by topic is also affected and probably should be deleted/upmerged? Category:Images by subject is practically deleted. However categorisation by some types should be preserved, eg Videos, Audios, Animations--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prebiotic

[edit]

is it correct English name? If really a noun, then category:Prebiotics? Estopedist1 (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ma recherche concerne les origines de la vie. Ce domaine de la recherche essaie de comprendre comment est apparue la vie à partir d'une solution de molécules que nous appelons soupe prébiotique. Que ça soit en français ou en anglais le terme prébiotique est utilisé aussi pour les molécules qui accompagnent un probiotique, ensemble de bactéries, utilisé comme supplément alimentaire.
    - J'ai créé cette catégorie Prebiotic et non Prebiotics pour la recherche sur les origines de la vie. Si cela pose un problème je suis disposé à considérer vos propositions. Merci pour le travail de contrôle que vous faites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekkiwik (talk • contribs) 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Citizen centers

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Citizen centers in Germany.

to be deleted or merged to category:Community halls. Enwiki do not define what is en:Citizen Center? Hint from here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Citizen centers in Germany Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/04&oldid=863460103"