Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/12

Category:Bandia Reserve in 2023

Does Bandia Reserve change enough from year to year to merit a separate category here, rather than just add the two parent categories to the respective images? In fact, at a quick look, all of them redundantly have Category:Bandia Reserve already. Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Loves Folklore 2023/kcg

There is a large amount of text on this page in a language I don't know. It is very hard to imagine that it is appropriate text for a category page, but it needs to be assessed by somone who can read it. Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:User nr-0

Is there really a reason to have a category for people not speaking Southern Ndebele when we don't even have a Category:Nr for people who speak Southern Ndebele at all? Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: If you check out User:PorazonyCreeper there seems to be a bunch of categories for languages they don't speak. Probably most, if not, of them are completely pointless. I'd support just deleting them all regardless. There shouldn't be categories for things people don't know period. But it's not even clear what the categories are for anyway. The whole thing is just needlessly cryptic and unnecessary. BTW, I could be wrong but I assume you'd have to delete the accompanying templates along with the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a use for Category:User en-0, and for a few other major world languages, especially if someone is doing photography in (or curating materials from) a part of the world where they don't speak the language, and where that would be rather unusual (e.g. someone with no German photographing in Germany; Category:User de-0 is fairly well-populated). I'm pretty comfortable, though, in saying that over 99% of Commons participants don't speak any Southern Ndebele, and there is no reason to note that on their profiles. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. So I guess the ones for like say English, German, Russian, French and a couple of others I can't think of right now are worth keeping but the rest can be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:People in Hannover

I added parent cats to this previously parentless (but not empty) category, but I'm not at all sure it is useful. Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: the parent categories had been previously removed, which may have been in good faith but is akin to vandalism. There's a pretty consistent hierarchy of People by city of location/People by country of location/People in Germany by city/People in Germany by state/People by setting, so I'm not sure that Hannover should be singled out for discussion. My understanding is that categories of People of... or People from... are for people that have a strong connection with a place, such as being born there or having lived there long enough to be considered a local. I guess that the nature of Commons is that there will be plenty of content depicting people at a location where you can't really imply that there are from that place, or in some cases you know that they're not (such as John F. Kennedy in Germany).

I'm not a stubborn supporter of the category, and I think that removing it from some media files was correct ([1] [2] [3]). However I think it is justified to have categories for people in a location. I created it because I had found a red link to it, so it is likely that it will be needed again.

@Bernd Schwabe in Hannover: who populated the category and @Nortix08: who purged and blanked it. Place Clichy 02:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If it showed notable people who were (for example) giving lecture tours, or making state visits, etc. and were photographed while in Hannover then, yes, I could see how it could be useful. But it's hard to imagine who would be looking for the sort of images currently in the category (e.g. File:1921 circa Georg Dieckmann farbige Radierung belebte Rossmühle in der Altstadt von Hannover mit Blick auf den Turm der Neustädter Hof- und Stadtkirche St. Johannis, ganzes Blatt.jpg) and would navigate to a category like this to find them. People barely figure in that photo, or any others currently in the category. - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The current images in the Category:People in Hanover show people from behind or as a blurred drawing, so in my opinion the real motif is not in the people but in the places shown with the people. In the picture 2014-10-07 Hans Georg Bulla reads in the market church of Hanover, (1).JPG no background is recognizable and a connection to the sorting in Category:People in Marktkirche (Hanover) is not recognizable.

For a large city like Hanover, however, it makes more sense to insert it into a category People in Hanover by location than to use a general category containing four images, which can also be precisely localized. Nortix08 (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Old women sitting

Other similar categories (eg. Category:Sitting women, Category:Sitting male humans, Category:Sitting young women) use "sitting" as a prefix. Regularization will simplify connecting by templates. Darellur (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've also had thoughts about this, and I've been confused by the inconsistent methods in several similar cases.

It may be easier to connect categories if their names all begin with "Sitting", but more importantly, it's easier to navigate categories where the names of the subcategories all begin with the headwords that differentiate them, and not the search term that they all have in common. In e.g. the sitting categories, everyone already knows that everthing is going to be all about sitting, so noone is going to be looking for "Sitting x," but rather "x sitting."

It also seems to me that the category system in general is based on the principle that what's in the image is described first, and then e.g. what's happening in the image. So in this case the question is: are these images of people who are sitting, or are they images of the action of sitting that is being done by people? I think the former makes more sense, and that the postmodifier sitting is more in line with that.

But this wording obviously doesn't make sense everywhere. In e.g. an "x by color" category, you're going to be looking for colors, so "Red x" generally makes more sense. I also assume that it's not linguistically feasible or even possible to be 100% consistent, nor is it strictly necessary when there are few subcategories.

Sinigh (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Women smiling. Sinigh (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Hangout

This was parentless. I've made a strong guess at Category:Wikimedia movement in Nigeria. It should also have parent categories for date & location (I think it's a single event), and should probably be renamed more specifically because I'm sure other events have been called "Wiki Hangout". Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Calvinist churches

Redundant category, we already have category trees for Reformed churches Pasztilla (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A little bit more elaborated, I already flagged the problem to the creator of the category on User talk:DenghiùComm#Calvinist churches and tried to convince him that the category is redundant, and is already covered by Category:Reformed churches. I was citing definitions of Protentastism, and the denominations of it, but he has different opinion, namely that Protestant, Reformed, Evangelic churches are synonymous, and Calvinist church is a branch of Reformed churches. Clearly, we two cannot agree so others' opinions are welcome. Pasztilla (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The User Pasztilla considers Calvinist Church = Reformed Church. If it is true that the Calvinist Church is a Reformed Church, this does not mean that the Reformed Churches are Calvinist. Calvinism has theological peculiarities that are not accepted by other Reformed Churches. In fact, Calvinist churches exist only in the Geneva region where Calvin lived and worked. The use in Eastern European countries of calling every reformed church Calvinist is an incorrect use that we find only in Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, etc. Not in the rest of the world. In Italy, Switzerland, Germany "Protestant", "Reformed", "Evangelic" are synonymous. "Reformed" = "Calvinist" NO! Reformed Churches are not only Calvinist, but also Lutheranian, Waldensian, Baptist, Reformed Church of Zurich (Zwinglian), Presbiterian, etc. DenghiùComm (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

en:Calvinism at enwiki, introduction: „Calvinism, also called Reformed Christianity, is a major branch of Protestantism […]. The movement was first called "Calvinism" in the early 1550s by Lutherans who opposed it, however many in the tradition find it either a nondescript or inappropriate term and prefer the term Reformed.” Then it:Calvinismo at itwiki, also the introduction: „Le chiese che seguono la dottrina calvinista sono spesso definite come Chiese riformate”. Neither English, nor Italian is widely spoken in Hungary or Romania. Pasztilla (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian national government

To avoid confusion, I would suggest renaming this, possibly capitalizing as "Ukrainian National Government" and definitely adding "(1941)". Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I support. Adding a year will make searching files more easy (because this government existed only in 1941 and only during 1 or 2 weeks). — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:WikiCirque En Piste

Lacks parent categories, but I'm not sure enough of the intention here to add them. I assume this is related to an event held by fr:En Piste, regroupement national des arts du cirque. Why is "WikiCirque" in the category name? Was that actually the name of the event (I can't find any reference to that elsewhere, and it seems unlikely)? Why isn't the category just something like Category:En Piste in Montreal, 2023 or something like that? Am I missing the point? And, if so, can someone explain so that we can get this to be a category that is properly named & properly hooked into the category tree? Jmabel ! talk 06:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Hachimitsu Rocket

明らかな教育的利用方法がない。個人の趣味で Yasobara (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep the video uploaded in order to provide Japanese pop culture info, like other many pop music groups from Japan/other countries. (see also Category:Japanese idols

Category:Girl groups from Japan Category:Pop music groups from Japan, https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/はちみつロケット. it's not just an individual's hobby (個人の趣味).) Puramyun31 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Stained glass windows Franciscan refectory Katowice Panewniki

all images – copyright violation, living artist: Wiktor Ostrzołek Gower (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Agree FOP Poland is only for exteriors, not interors, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland#Freedom of panorama. So if an artist is still alive or not at least 70 years dead, then it is not allowed to publish photos of works of that artist that are inside a building. I think you'd best make a mass request for all the photos via Help:VisualFileChange.js. JopkeB (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Arturo Petrocelli

Unable to attribute any painting to him with any degree of certainty. (See discussion) WQUlrich (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Morrison House Museum

The Londonderry Historical Society is located at the Morrison House Museum, so there is no effective distinction between this category and Category:Londonderry Historical Society, and they should be merged.

I'm unsure what the best title would be — the category could conceivably contain historical society events not at the museum, or historical photos of the house before it was moved to its present location when the museum acquired it, or photos of the other (more minor) buildings at the site beyond the Morrison House itself.. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Greetings Sdkb - I've been enjoying your photographs. You pose a really good question, and I don't have any particular view on how it should be answered. Why don't you proceed as you think best? And thank you again for some very fine photos. Daderot (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• One is a society, one is a museum and building. As we photograph buildings here, redirect Category:Londonderry Historical Society (still appropriately categorised) to Category:Morrison House Museum. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group projects in 2022/en

• Also Category:Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group projects in 2023/en

We don't usually use things like "/en" in category names. The "/" messes with a lot of tools. I suggest changing "/en" to " (English-language content)" Jmabel ! talk 04:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Satyrus circe

Is this distinct from Brintesia circe? I notice that the illustration for the Wikidata item is categorized as Brintesia circe, not Satyrus circe. Jmabel ! talk 06:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No They are the same species.Brintesia is correct.Well spotted Regards Notafly (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Notafly: do you know how we merge synonyms for taxons? Or know who would know? I assume something needs to happen in Wikidata, as well (maybe exact match (P2888) or said to be the same as (P460). I know the people who do taxonomic categories here have a lot of implicit (or maybe even explicit) rules beyond what I'm familiar with. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC):

Not sure but I will ask and let you konw.Usually I am taken to accepted taxon via a redirectNotafly (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ask Jkadvoor Notafly (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:The Burghers of Calais

Its not clear why the London one is a subcategory of the California one when the Wikidata item says the California one is part of the London one. I would perhaps suggest disambiguating this to say Category:The Burghers of Calais (California) or Category:The Burghers of Calais (Stanford University). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Abzeronow (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Belitung Island

I believe this is a duplicate of Category:Belitung and should be merged. Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you! I will add Category:Belitung in my project. I ask you to not delete Category:Belitung Island until last February because it is used for my portofolio for Wikimania. Thank you so much! @Jmabel. Raflinoer32 (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your intention. Can you give me suggest to make category that reflects to my project. For example, can I make Category:Photos by Raflinoer32? I honestly do not know the rule category for Wikimedia Commons. I ask you so much to not delete Category:Belitung Island now because it will be used for portfolio Wikimania Scholarship. You can delete after the scholarship process end in the midst of February. Thank you so much. @Jmabel Raflinoer32 (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want a category for your personal use, please tag it with {{User category}} (and keep it out of the topical category tree). Any user categories within reason are acceptable (for example, I have Category:Videos by Joe Mabel). Category:Photos by Raflinoer32 is fine. Here's the policy. Is it OK with you if we turn Category:Belitung Island into Category:Belitung Island by Raflinoer32 and "userfy" it? If you like, you can also make the more general Category:Photos by Raflinoer32 and use that as a parent category for this.

By the way, if your intent is a portfolio, it might be better to create a sub-page of your user page, like I do at User:Jmabel/People, etc. That lets you organize as you wish, and add captions. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the insight! Now I got the point. I will make category based on your suggestions. However, could you turn Category:Belitung Island in the midst of February 2024? I used this category to apply Wikimania. So this link will be accessed by COT. Regardless of that, I will immediately create category based on your suggestion. Thank you so much. @Jmabel Raflinoer32 (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to confirm also, if the category is turned, it means the former category will still exist or delete? For example, if people want to access Category:Belitung Island, they will be redirected to Category:Belitung by Raflinoer32. If that is how to work, I agree and OK if you turn this category. Once again, thank you so much for suggestions. It is helpful and I learned a lot. @Jmabel Raflinoer32 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Raflinoer32: for now, I'll just tag it as a user category and leave the name where it is. But when you are done with it, could you please remember to hit me up either to delete it or to move it (without redirect) to a more appropriate name? - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wait. One more thing, but I'll do it. Obviously, (1) I have to unhook it from the Wikidata item if its your personal category.

Also (I think you already know this), all of these photos should also go in "proper" topical categories. And, while I don't expect someone else will start putting their photos in your personal category, please do put them in more appropriate categories if they do. That's a "cost" of using a name like this for a personal category. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I will do you suggestion. Thank you so much! Raflinoer32 (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Raflinoer32: are you done working on Category:Belitung Island? If so, it should be turned into a redirect to Category:Belitung. I don't think it was a good idea to turn this into a user category, because there is nothing to stop other users from categorizing images there (when adding categories, nothing tells you that it is a hidden or user category). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Images from Wikimixtura Carnaval 2023

I'm close to certain based on other categories that this cat name should use "WikiMixtura", not "Wikimixtura", but I wanted to check before editing. I see that the description text here also fails to capitalize the "m".
Estoy casi seguro, basado en los nombres de otras categorías, de que esto nombre debería usar "WikiMixtura", no "Wikimixtura", pero quería comprobarlo antes de editar. Veo que el texto de descripción aquí tampoco escribe la "m" en mayúscula. Jmabel ! talk 08:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Chancels

The term "chancel" has two, possibly three, separate definitions, (1. the portion of the church behind the altar railings or rood screen including the altar and usually the choir; 2. the liturgical East end of a church; 3. a squared-off East end, as opposed to an apsidal one — I'm uncertain whether the last one is valid). The category "Chancels" and its sub-categories could thus refer to multiple things. Additionally, in the case of the third definition, the exterior of the building would be excluded, which has not been the case on the commons thus far, resulting in inconsistent use of categories. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

To be consistent with Chancel categories, use Webster's definition of "chancel". Liturgical east and apses have nothing to do with it.

• (1) For the background to the above question, please see the discussion at User talk:HwætGrimmalkin#File:West Bowling St Stephen (8).JPG. There is nothing wrong with the point 1. above, which says the chancel is: " the portion of the church behind the altar railings or rood screen including the altar and usually the choir".
• (2) My main concern in this matter is the problem that arises when the existing chancel category is removed, and an east-end-of-church category is substituted in its place. As explained by the initiator of this CfD above, there appears to be some misunderstanding of what a chancel is.
• (4) Webster's defines a chancel as the part of a church containing the altar and seats for the clergy and choir. This definition is easy to use on Commons, because if the church is a traditional Roman Catholic or Anglican church, for example, and is currently in use, then we can see those items in the picture. There would be no reason to remove a "chancel" category from such a picture.
• (5) In those countries which consider themselves to be west of Jerusalem, then architecturally, the concept of the east end of a church is always taken literally, i.e. geographically. Traditionally, altars have their back to the east, the priest faces east towards the altar at mass/communion, and has their back to the congregation, so it is convenient to place the altar (and thus the chancel) at the east end of the church. The problem for categorisation in those countries arises where a congregation creates or imagines a "liturgical east" within the church, especially where an awkwardly tiny inner-city site has, for example, forced the chancel into the north end (as happened with File:Mill Hill Chapel Leeds D (27).JPG). In such a case, it is not appropriate to remove the Chancels category and replace it with an East end of church category. We can extend this argument to certain late 20th and early 21st-century churches which were originally designed with a central altar, such as this example, File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral inside.jpg. The site of the altar and positioning of the choir in that case, is not the east end of the church, even if the altar table itself is perceived to face a geographical east.
• (7) Roman Catholic, Anglican and some similar Christian priests and altars have traditionally faced east because their churches were established west of Jerusalem. Today those churches have spread across the world, and their priests in Africa, for example, are not going to be facing geographical east if they want to look to Jerusalem. But they may still have a chancel, which (if fitting Webster's definition) should be categorised in our images as a chancel. We cannot decide for African congregations, though, whether they want to call the north-west end of their church the east end of their church. That is up to them, not us, and each congregation may take a different attitude. If they've got a chancel, it's a chancel. If they have e.g. a central altar, it is not a chancel and is not an east end. Simples.
• (8) The architectural shape of the geographical eastern end of an early church (such as the pre-1900 Christian churches in Europe and UK) does not affect the definition of the chancel for categorisation purposes. Bringing apses into it does not help. An apse by itself can never mean "chancel". Roman baths, used by non-Christians, had apses. In England we have a number of churches on a cross-shaped plan, with up to four apses on the ends of the arms. I daresay you could find an old church or two in Rome like that. Apses and east ends are not interchangeable expressions.
• (8) The fact of the geographical eastern end of a UK/European traditional church being squared off means nothing in respect of categorising chancels. In the very old UK churches, some were originally built with an apse at the east end, where the chancel happened to be. The reason why some of those apses disappeared was that the churches were extended as populations grew; thus the foundations of those early apses are probably still there under the nave floor somewhere, and the new chancel end happens to be squared off, it being easier that way to create a great east window (huge east windows required nice fat donations from rich neighbours, and brought in the pilgrims). So being squared off (and having or not having an apse) have nothing to do with whether or not we can (or should) identify and categorise a chancel as a chancel.
• (9) Regarding the exterior of the building, there is no problem with identifying and categorising the geographical east end of any building, churches included (if their ground plan permits the identification of ends). However, it is never going to be appropriate to identify the exterior geographical north, south, or west end of a church as an east end, just because it contains a chancel which is not placed in the geographical east end (as with the some inner-city churches as mentioned above).
• (10) I have no objection to the use of Apse and East end categories, when used appropriately, i.e. for an apse which you can see in the picture, and for an east end of a building which really is the geographical east end. However I do have an objection to the removal of Chancel categories where a chancel can be seen in the picture, and that Chancel category being replaced with an East end category on the grounds that "East end" means "chancel". As far as I am concerned, that activity is not helpful.
• (11) European and Middle Eastern Christian churches came first, and tend to have a fairly traditional design, including the ancient tradition of altars and priests facing east. Now we have Christian churches around the world, which may have an entirely different attitude to the construction and usage of their churches. If you cannot categorise both the early European and Middle Eastern churches - and the Rest of the World churches - in the same way, then perhaps we should continue to use "chancel" for those churches which conform to Webster's definition above, and use some other method for those which do not. But we cannot stop categorising traditional chancels as chancels.

Note: my sight is gradually failing now, which means I make typos and cannot spot them, although I have checked and copyedited this post numerous times (sigh). If puzzled about anything above, please alert me. The bolded title above is supposed to be a title and summary of my reply (equivalent to Keep and Delete in other AfD's and CfD's). But if it worries you and looks like shouting, just unbold it. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:10 August 1999 in Paris

I don't think we need a specific date category for Paris, either up-merge to "August 1999 in Paris" or rename to "Paris photographs taken on 1999-08-10" A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I have done the latter and moved all the photographs to it, including the ones under discussion for deletion. Someone Not Awful (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mytella charruana

Per WoRMS (https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1458663), this is a synonym for Category:Mytella strigata. The second category has just one item. The two categories should be merged and moved to strigata. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Nigeria Institute of Journalism fan club

I suspect that Category:Nigeria Institute of Journalism fan club, Category:WIKI FAN CLUB NIJ, and Category:NIJWikiFanClub all refer to the same thing, and that they should be combined into a single category. None of these category names are great. I'd suggest something like Category:Nigeria Institute of Journalism Wiki fan club, but maybe the group has a proper name, in which case that should be used. Anyway, when combining these categories, make sure to pick up all parent categories unless some of them would constitute COM:OVERCAT. Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Cobblers

If, as the hat text indicates, Category:Shoemakers includes people who repair shoes, but do not make them, then how is Category:Cobblers different? (I'd be inclined to separate "cobblers," who repair shoes by hand, from "shoemakers", who make custom shoes either by hand or, nowadays, may actually use some 3D printing techniques on a custom basis as part of the construction process.) Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I would look at the entries in English WP for cobbler (disambiguation) and shoemaker for guidance; please consider. Hmains (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Which is the other way around than Commons as for which term embraces the other, with "cobbler" (per en-wiki) being the broader term, can be someone who can either make or only repair, while "shoemaker" is narrower, and refers only to only someone who can make shoes from scratch, and does not include someone who only repairs them. en-wiki and Commons do agree that these are both artisanal/bespoke, and don't include industrial mass production of shoes. @Hmains, do you read that the same way? You just said where you "would look", not whether you had looked and what conclusion you would draw. - Jmabel ! talk 06:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel I have no strong ideas. I do find the en-wiki articles, incomplete as they do not come up with current terms for those who repair shoes and not make them or for those who both make and repair, leaving shoemaker for those to just make--who must surely make up only a small proportion of the craftsmen who work with shoes in some manner or another. Hmains (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

And also the emphasis in those articles on hand methods leaves out (at least partially) something like Crary in Portland, Oregon, a longstanding family-owned maker of custom shoes who now 3D-print the insoles. Of course, that's quite recent, and probably didn't exist when the articles were started! - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Hmains: , bonjour, I leave the statement about the english articles up to the englishspeakers. Concerning the categories for these distinct artisanal activities/occupations (shoemaker producing hand-/custom-made new shoes # cobbler repairing old ones, I suggest the following

1. Category:People by occupation
   1. Category:Artisans
      1. Category:Bootmakers - 2nd parent : Category:Bootmaking
      2. Category:Clogmakers - 2nd parent : Category:Clogmaking
      3. Category:Shoemakers - 2nd parent : Category:Shoemaking
      4. Category:Cobblers - 2nd parent : Shoe repairing ? see Category:Shoe repair shops (should this category be under workshops?),

We have also Cat:Shoe designers, Regards, --Bohème (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think in general Category:Shoe repair shops has been used for places with an actual storefront, not for "shops" in the older sense of "workshops". Of course, in this business there is a lot of overlap, but in Commons' vocabulary, we use "shops" pretty consistently. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Ingrid Bergman (1915-1982)

A disambiguation template was added to Category:Ingrid Bergman yesterday — and all media within that category was recategorized — when a category for a second Ingrid Bergman was created. I regard the Swedish actress as the primary topic and hope that category can be reverted to simply "Ingrid Bergman". It'd be a tangle to do, though, and beyond my abilities. WFinch (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Sunday @ Legislative Council Building (Hong Kong)

I don't see any specific purpose of creating a category, about Sunday scene of the LegCo building, just up-merge it to "Sunday in Central, Hong Kong" A1Cafel (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Microscopic images relating to animals

lots of other cats/images in Category:Microscopic images relating to biology such as Category:Electron microscopy images of eukaryotic cells‎ or Category:Microscopic images relating to viruses‎ also "relate to" animals. What is the best solution? I thought it would be best to move this cat to "…of animals" but e.g. there currently are many images in it that wouldn't fit there (they could be moved to other cats which could be linked as see also). Another option would be to make new subcats for animal-related XYZ or similar. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:The odd and beautiful of mars

seems like this should be a gallery page rather than a category; there is an issue with making interesting/relevant/high-quality images more findable in category pages (wall of images) where they are often buried deep down in arbitrary subcats Prototyperspective (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Move these to a gallery and delete the category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Images generated by Image Creator by Microsoft Bing

Image Creator by Microsoft Bing just uses DALLE-3, so my understanding is that there is no distinction between images created by it and by DALLE-3 via OpenAI's website. It's just a different interface. Therefore, this category should redirect to Category:Images generated by DALL-E. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference: https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/bing-dalle-3-vs-chatgpt-dalle-3/ It would be better to have it separated. Cepice (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that article doesn't appear to be from a very reliable source — it's based off of a YouTube video that's just two guys without any expertise/reporting trying out prompts in each environment in a "first impressions" video. But the images they're creating do seem to be somewhat different.

Given that, I'm leaning toward keeping them separate. But I would be interested to see what higher-quality sources have said about this. AI image-generating tools are proliferating and evolving rapidly, and as that happens we're going to have to figure out what differences are significant enough to warrant separate categorization. Something like the difference between DALL-E 2 and DALL-E 3 clearly does so (incidentally, there weren't separate categories for those, so I just created Category:Images generated by DALL-E 2 and Category:Images generated by DALL-E 3). But something like a difference between a hypothetical DALLE-E 3 and DALL-E 3.1 might not (I could see arguments either way). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to offer my inexperienced opinion. As a practical matter maybe it's best to just leave Bing separate from DALL-E. There's certainly a proprietary difference between the two if not much of a technical difference and that may be reason enough for a distinction. And a UI does count for something, so there is an obvious technical difference, albeit a small one. And there's really no classification benefits in redirecting Bing to DALL-E regarding the files themselves, you'll still have a parallel set of categories that will have to be searched separately. So it's pointless hairsplitting with no tangible benefit. I'd much rather clean up what we have in Bing by creating more diffusion categories. Your contributions, Sdkb, are weighty as a variation on a theme and worthy of a category all their own. And I don't mean that negatively either, they're appealing. But this page is getting overly crowded and I've been no help with my numerous contributions that need diffusing, too. Again, I'm very inexperienced with Wiki, so my opinion should be taken with a large grain of salt. I'm just killing time while my tea heats up.:) Thanks. 2601:444:47D:DC60:D0F9:FC7D:9B2E:E2ED 14:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe a note in the category description that Bing is powered by DALL-E would suffice.

2601:444:47D:DC60:D0F9:FC7D:9B2E:E2ED 15:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sylvester Sound, the Somnambulist

We have Category:Sylvester Sound, the Somnambulist linked from Wikidata item Sylvester Sound the Somnambulist (Q110207866), a specific 1844 edition of the work in question, and Category:Sylvester Sound the Somnambulist (1844) with no parent categories or linked Wikidata item. The latter appears to be a different edition from the same year, probably from the same publisher (though the title page in the DJVU in the latter category spells the publisher as "W.M. Clarke" and the former indicates publisher William Mark Clark (Q109501939), no "e"). [Proposal will follow]] Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose (this is not complete):

• Category:Sylvester Sound, the Somnambulist should become a generic category for the literary work as such (Wikidata item Sylvester Sound the Somnambulist (Q110207680)); the parent categories would be Category:1844 works in the United Kingdom, Category:1844 novels, Category:Henry Cockton and possibly others. Does Category:Penny dreadfuls belong at this level?
• The current content of Category:Sylvester Sound, the Somnambulist would go to a new category, tentatively Category:Sylvester Sound, the Somnambulist (penny dreadful edition, 1844) (but if that equally describes the other, then we need something different) linked to Sylvester Sound the Somnambulist (Q110207866) (This assumes that the current Wikidata link is correct.). It would have parent categories Category:Sylvester Sound, the Somnambulist, Category:Penny dreadfuls (if not used for the parent) and Category:1844 books from London.
• For Category:Sylvester Sound the Somnambulist (1844), we have to work out which edition it is and either link it to the appropriate Wikidata item or generate a new item and move to a category name that somehow distinguishes it, rather than just naming a year that equally describes the other category. It would also have parent categories Category:Sylvester Sound, the Somnambulist and Category:1844 books from London; also possibly Category:Penny dreadfuls (I don't know if that applies, might have been a better-printed edition). - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Just from the illustrations (drawn by T. Onwhyn), we can see that this is actually the same penny-dreadful-novel by the same author (H. Cockton). This is the same image as this, and even the title pages are identical. In my opinion, we see here two scans of two books from the same edition; we don't need two categories to differentiate between them. If these are indeed two editions from the same year, they are so similar that the second one is just a reprint of the first.

Oh wait... wow. The PDF of the one category and the DJVU from the other category are not even different scans, they are the same scan in just a different file format. Check page 6 of both of them, these are scans of the same physical paper-book, with the only difference being the digital watermark in the DJVU.

I hope you don't mind that I directly went to work and placed everything in the same category. --Enyavar (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

And created redirects from both of the original categories. I think this can be closed already. --Enyavar (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

However, I found the 1887 edition which looks indeed a bit different. But since it is just a single file, I don't think we need a separate category for that, either. --Enyavar (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

.@Enyavar: any objection if I change Category:Sylvester Sound, the Somnambulist from a redirect to a parent category, tied to Wikidata item Sylvester Sound the Somnambulist (Q110207680)? And the the one file for the 1887 edition can go directly in that category. - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that seems totally fine. --Enyavar (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel@Enyavar I uploaded the set of images which are black and white and are from the 1844 book form edition of 'Sylvester Sound, the Somnabulist' by Henry Cockton, which I uploaded to Wikisource and am slowly transcribing. There were already a set of the illustrations on Commons from scans of pages produced by the British Museum, although they seem to be from a serialised version of the work, also published in 1844. Although the BM scans are good quality and relatively high resolution, for use on Wikisource they would need to be cropped and the yellow background removed. As they were someone else's upload, I didn't feel I was at liberty to edit them in this way. The BM ones are .jpg, the ones I did are .png. The Commons policy allows the same content in different file formats. I therefore suggest that both sets are kept. Chrisguise (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, we were just debating in which category we're going to keep them. Thanks for the good work, Chrisguise. --Enyavar (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Taken in a Cesena 176 RG

I'm guessing "Cesena" in the category name is supposed to be "Cessna", but I have no idea what a Cessna 176 RG would be. This needs appropriate parent categories. Please: when creating categories, add appropriate parent categories! It is much easier for you to add parent categories about a subject you know than for some random person to work it out later. Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Missed the typo's yes please change it and list as 177, not 176 and add parent if you like. I do not see any cessna 177's on the site so perhaps just cessna as parent cat? --Don (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be all set Don (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@WPPilot: OK, so this is a "Cessna 177". Currently Category:Cessna 177 is a redirect to Category:Cessna 177 Cardinal. Is that correct (two names for the same thing?) Or should Category:Cessna 177 Cardinal be a subcat of Category:Cessna 177 and the "RG" is at the same level as "Cardinal"? Also, how does this relate to Category:Reims F177RG, which is a subcat of Category:Cessna 177 Cardinal? Is this the same thing as that, or is this something different? - Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Reims Aviation Industries was a French aircraft manufacturer located in the city of Reims, France. The company was most recently producing the F406 Caravan II1. In 1960, a cooperative agreement was signed with Cessna to produce light aircraft for the European market. The company was officially born as Reims Aviation in 1962, mainly producing the FR172 Reims Rocket, a more powerful version of the Cessna 1721. In 1989, Reims Aviation bought back all the shares held by Cessna and became a private French aircraft manufacturer. Production of the single-engined airplanes was halted, and only the F406 remained in production1. The company entered receivership on September 10, 2013. Don (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The real name is Cessna 177 Cardinal, many pilots call it a 177 RG (for retractable gear). Don (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Meanwhile, you moved the images from this category to Category:Taken in a Cessna Cardinal, still without adding parent categories! No strong objection to the category name (though why leave out "177" if it's how we otherwise are referring to this plane?), and I presume Category:Taken in a Cesena 176 RG should now just be deleted, but please use appropriate parent categories when you make a category. (I've now done that for you.) That's what got me here in the first place. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Pokémon related deletion requests

Self-nomination: Just realised that Pokémon is part of the Nintendo characters, should we just merge it into "Nintendo related deletion requests", or this can be an independent maintenance category, since Pokémon is widely known over the world. A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia Fulfulde Community Thematic Weeks

Where? What country, even? There are Fula speakers in at least half a dozen African countries. Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Jmabel, this event happened in some States of North East region, Nigeria. Thank you. De-Invincible (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Then I'll add Category:Wikimedia movement in Nigeria, at which point I have nothing more to add. Obviously, others can do more to better categorize the category and the images in the category. As far as I'm concerned, we can close this, but let's leave it open at least 7 days in case someone else has more to say. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. De-Invincible (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Collections of books at Ghalib Chamber Law Library, Ilorin Kwara State

I would expect this just to be named something like Category:Ghalib Chamber Law Library, Univerisity of Ilorin. Is there any good reason for the present name? Jmabel ! talk 08:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, the Library is a private library attached to the Ghalib Chamber Law firm in Ilorin Kwara state hence the name used, the new name to be used might be misleading since the library is not anywhere close to the University of Ilorin they are both in different locations.

Kindly reply if you need more clarifications on the locations. Linason Blessing (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Linason Blessing: Edited accordingly. Does this look OK to you? - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I've now made this a subcategory of Category:Collections of books at Ghalib Chamber Law Library, Ilorin Kwara State. Is there any reason this shouldn't simply be merged into that category? - Jmabel ! talk 06:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Swags WikiWomenCamp 2023

Is there a reason for this to be a separate category? Is it likely ever to have more than the one image (which is already in the sole parent category as well)?g Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Paleo-illustrations by Stegotyranno

This and other categories like it have been spread to a lot of images, but the term "Paleo-illustrations" is unwieldy and seemingly an ad-hoc neologism not used elsewhere, and it should simply be the more concise and more widely known term "paleoart". All such categories should be renamed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose – Paleo-illustrations is much more accurate for its contents and contains more information about what the category contains. The images are meant to be realistic illustrations based on paleontology of ancient organisms, aiming to depict how they may have looked like. It is not unwieldy at all. Those are illustrations. It's already in the cat "Paleoart". Edit to clarify: Paleontological/Paleontology illustrations by… would be unwieldy and more imply that all of the contained images are scientifically accurate which they aren't. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

But that's simply not what these are widely called in the literature. Paleoart is the standard term used by practically every modern source, so there is absolutely no reason for editors to make up their own terms that they personally think are more fitting. The fact that the parent cat is already paleoart should make it even more obvious that this and others should simply be "paleoart by". No one has proposed the even longer "Paleontological/Paleontology illustrations by", so that's besides the point. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

These are not visual arts imagination artworks but illustrations, artistic illustrations. Accuracy and information content is more important for category names than having subcats named more closely to the most widely used term which refers to the genre, not the individual images despite that "Paleontological illustrations" for example is also widely used and that would be the better alternative which is why I brought it up; lots of sources use that term. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Support – These categories should be renamed to "Paleoart by ..." to adhere to the term most commonly used in the literature. "Paleo-illustrations" is an unwieldy term which gives no extra information about the contents of the images. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Because the literature doesn't distinguish between illustrations meant to be accurate and art of any kind / visual art for aesthetics. An inaccurate term doesn't need to be adopted. Inaccurate artworks of Jurassic Park dinosaurs can be art as are drawings about aesthetics. Illustrations is the better term. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wikilinlin

Needs parent categories, but I'm not sure what they would be. I think this is a category for audio files in Yoruba language. Is it something more specific than that? And what is "Wikilinlin", I can't readily find any other mention online. Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Аймурзаев Жолмурза

I'd expect to move this to ; we normally use Latin characters for people's names. Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Videos of homosexual cunnilingus

Pornography 103.75.21.254 12:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 Speedy keep Commons:Not censored applies to the category. Admins may wish to consider material within the category as a separate issue. We are not concerned with offending people's sensibilities; we are concerned with creating a media repository of material that is lawful to hold (copyright etc) which is in scope for Commons 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:April 2008 in Faenza

I don't see any other "by month" categories for Faenza, and this one isn't hooked into the category tree at all. Unless someone is actually interested in sorting out a lot of Faenza photographs by month, I suggest we just delete this cat, and if anything here doesn't already have a more specific category that is subordinate to Category:Faenza, use Category:Faenza instead. Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Pān-toh (food) in Taiwan

Category title does not match with the existing title of the English Wikipedia article, which makes them completely unintelligible to anyone. If Pān-toh means a roadside banquet, then why is it called "Pān-toh (food)"? Is it a banquet or food? Or, maybe the category creator want to tell us that a banquet is food? That’s ridiculous. Nominate to move to "Category:Roadside banquet" to match the English Wikipedia article title and common name.--125.230.88.199 07:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Please take a look at the English Wikipedia article "Roadside banquet" and it say: A roadside banquet (literally 'to arrange tables') is a traditional Taiwanese-style banquet.--125.230.88.199 07:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Illustration Floréal (Journal hebdomadaire) du 1er mai 1920.djvu

At the very least, very odd to have ".djvu" in a category name (especially one that doesn't contain any DJVU files!). Also, needs appropriate parent categories. Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Ce nom décrit parfaitement le contenu de la catégorie, soit des illustrations provenant d'un fichier djvu (sous-entendant donc une moindre qualité) et indique clairement de quel fichier elles proviennent. --Viticulum (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Il faut au moins enlever l'extension, et pour se conformer aux règles de Commons, mettre le nom et la date en anglais. A renommer donc en Category:Illustration Floréal (weekly), May 1st, 1920. Yann (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the magazine is Floréal, not Illustration Floréal? And am I right to presume it is a magazine despite the French-language description saying livre? So the category would be Category:Illustrations from Floréal (weekly magazine), May 1, 1920. (Date could also be given as "1 May 1920" or "1920-05-01"; Commons doesn't really use the form "May 1st, 1920".) Also, still needs parent categories.

I still have my doubts about the usefulness of a category for illustrations from a single issue of a weekly magazine, but if others think it's useful and it has appropriate parent categories, fine. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lake Baikal 2009

This would usually be called Category:Lake Baikal in 2009, but a large part of the category currently does not even depict the actual lake, so potentially this could be treated like some sort of image set. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 02:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

this was a set on flickr from my trip in 2009, imported to commons by some user. I will move photos from here to more detailed categories Svetlov Artem (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Svetlov Artem: please continue to put these images in suitable categories and let us know when done, so that we can delete this category. Thanks. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Radio cassette recorders

Also category:Boomboxes and their subcategories by brand (I'd rather leave 8-track, microcassette and other less common format, this is only about the Compact Cassette). Retired electrician (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a clean line between boombox and cassette recorder? Personally I'd prefer to do without boomboxes but this may be my own cultural/language quirks (in my better days these were simply magnetophones). Perhaps, if a separate boombox category (different from cassette recorders in general) is warranted, this should be clearly defined. Some questions/suggestions:

• Does it need to be stereo?
• Does in need to have radio? (radio may be considered essential in North America, but elsewhere it was not, and there were many models that looked like a boombox yet had no radio)
• Does it need to have battery power option? again, there were models that looked like portables but had only mains power supply;
• Does it need to be big? just how big? Is this model big enough? or this? etc.

Perhaps someone may draw a streamlined category tree to rearrange it all.
@Clusternote: @Pittigrilli: @Themightyquill: Retired electrician (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

 Speedy keep This appears to be a nomination because the category is not liked. Please correct me if this is wrong and justify your rationale with policy based reasons 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 11:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment category:Boomboxes was not nominated correctly, nor was its creator notified. I have rectified those matters. These are each populated categories. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 11:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

updated the starting entry, the edit box won't allow posting it all at once. Retired electrician (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"These are each populated categories" - indeed! but it is inconsistent. The contents of Category:Philips radio cassette recorders and Category:Philips boomboxes don't overlap, but should it be this way? The contents of Category:Sharp radio cassette recorders and Category:Sharp boomboxes mostly overlap; again, should it be this way? Retired electrician (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Retired electrician Then decide to tidy them, not to delete them. Deletion is not a valid option 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 21:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

These are "categories for discussion", not deletion. The subject matter needs more opinions and some agreement prior to mass changes. Retired electrician (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Thank you for inviting this discussion. In my opinion,
 (1) functional classification (i.e. stereo/monaural, radio/TV/turntable/CD/MP3/MD options, battery ready or not, separating loudspeakers or not, etc) and
 (2) the difference of marketing target based on several cultural backgrounds (i.e. Radio cassette recorders, Boomboxes, Ghetto blasters, etc)
should be clearly distinguished.

Above (1) may be what a convener want to discuss on this page. On the other hand on (2), the Boomboxes seem to be tied with Disco boom circa 1970s, and the Ghetto blasters are tied with Hip-Hop culture in 1980s, however often these are ignored and several tend to want to merge with generic category.

In my opinion, above two classification axis (1), (2) should be clearly distinguished.
 Above (1) may be a classification implemented as a category Radio cassette recorders by function, and
 above (2) may be another classification implemented as a category Radio cassette recorders by marketing target (or better name). --Clusternote (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'd rather not bring the divide of "Disco culture of the 1970s" vs. "Hip-Hop culture of the 1980s" into categorization. This was a regional North American specialty. Elsewhere, disco often remained the backbone of pop music (not the original American style of mid-1970s, but a much broader thing that we called disco), and the first hip-hop wave of the 1980s was often unnoticed. I'd rather not bring regional cultural history into categorization of hardware. Retired electrician (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• To answer Retired electrician about Radio cassette recorders (from my memory, decades ago):
  • No, I think it need not to be stereo, mono was also possible.
  • Yes, it has to have a radio, otherwise it is just a cassette recorder.
  • I think it could have a battery power option (nowadays even an internal rechargeable battery), it could have mains power supply, or both. I think both was/is mainstream, the other two were exceptions, if they ever existed.
  • What is big? They were big enough to contain a cassette, buttons to be able to use a cassette, radio tuning and at least one loudspeaker. But there were also bigger ones, with two loudspeakers and making more noise. I see now that the bigger ones were called boomboxes and/or ghetto blasters. (Ghettoblasers already has a redirect to Boomboxes.)
  •  Agree Do not bring the divide of "Disco culture of the 1970s" vs. "Hip-Hop culture of the 1980s" into categorization. Because in Commons it very much about pictures, make as much as possible categories for the way things look like and avoid their purpose.
  • So my conclusion is: (1) Keep both categories because they are about concepts that are different and (2) Give them both descriptions to show the differences. Description may be (for both: source is Wikidata-item):
    • Radio cassette recorders: Portable, compact home audio device with radio receiver, cassette tape recorder, audio amplifier and one or two integrated loudspeaker boxes.
    • Boomboxes: Portable, large stereo cassette recorder with optional (?) radio; in comparison to a standard (radio) cassette recorder, a boombox has higher audio output power and larger speakers, enabling listening at high volume levels with reasonable quality. [Note: If radio is only optional, then it should not be a subcategory of Category:Radio cassette recorders.]

--JopkeB (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Conclusions and proposal

1. This discussion was about the differences between Category:Radio cassette recorders and category:Boomboxes.
2. Proposal:
   1. Keep both categories.
   2. Give them both descriptions to show the differences:
      1. Radio cassette recorder = Portable, compact home audio device with radio receiver, cassette tape recorder, audio amplifier and one or two integrated loudspeaker boxes.
      2. Boombox = Portable, large stereo cassette recorder with optional radio; in comparison to a standard (radio) cassette recorder, a boombox has higher audio output power and larger speakers, enabling listening at high volume levels with reasonable quality.

@Retired electrician, Timtrent, and Clusternote: Is this correct, do you agree? If there are no objections on 2024-06-15, I'll close this discussion and implement the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO, too vague to separate the two reliably. "Compact", "large", "high volume" etc. remain unquantifiable. "Home" in #1 seems to contradict with "portable", also, "boxes" and "integrated" contradict each other - perhaps you meant "loudspeaker drivers"? Where should one put undeniably large models that could not attain any reasonable quality from tape at any volume (substandard mech and heads)? Retired electrician (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You might be right. Can you please give alternatives? JopkeB (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Retired electrician: Can you please give alternatives? JopkeB (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century men of Estonia by name

"Foo-century men/women of Foo-country by name" to be deleted. Maybe we will need it in (far) future, but currently done as manually is not a good idea. My little notice-explanation here: Category:20th-century men of Estonia Estopedist1 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Per SQL search we have these:

1. Category:18th-century men of Latvia by name
2. Category:17th-century men of Vietnam by name
3. Category:16th-century men of Vietnam by name
4. Category:19th-century men of Vietnam by name
5. Category:18th-century men of Vietnam by name
6. Category:20th-century men of Vietnam by name
7. Category:20th-century men of Estonia by name
8. Category:20th-century men of India by name
9. Category:20th-century men of Iran by name
10. Category:20th-century men of Azerbaijan by name

1. Category:20th-century women of India by name
2. Category:21st-century women of India by name
3. Category:20th-century women of Latvia by name
4. Category:21st-century women of Latvia by name
5. Category:20th-century women of Vietnam by name
6. Category:21st-century women of Vietnam by name

--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Taken with Pentax smc DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL

Virtually all parallel categories refer to "SMC Pentax DA", not "Pentax smc DA"; this should presumably be changed accordingly. Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• gnarf. Didn't read your text properly. No objections to a move for the purpose of standardisation. --Smial (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC) (Strictly speaking, however, "smc" should be written in all lower case letters, which is probably not possible because the first letter in the title is always displayed in upper case...)

Category:Macro photographs

This category is missing subcategories while cats of "Macrophotographs of…" redirect to Close-up photographs subcategories. I think it needs overhaul, file-moves, disentangling of cats that currently redirect, and more:

• Close-up photographs like Close-up photographs of insects are about conventional photographs taken from close-up (hence the name but it could contain macrophotographs as subcats)
• Macrophotographs are photos using extra lenses so that smaller than eye-visible things can be seen (not yet microscopy) (example technique)

What do you think and could you help with that? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:American pornographers

This is a currently parentless category (with exactly one member photo). We do not have a Category:Pornographers. If this is to be kept, it should be Category:Pornographers from the United States. We do have quite a hierarchy under Category:Sex business, and I suspect there might be an area there that deserves fleshing out, so to speak. One isolated, poorly named, near-empty parentless category is really not the solution, though. Jmabel ! talk 21:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Support – Agree, just move the one file in it and then delete the empty cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:أية دحان سفيرة الجمال للشرق الأوسط 2022

Is there a reason this is not simply Category:Aya Dahan Yahya? (and in any case it needs appropriate parent categories) Jmabel ! talk 21:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Organs by Johannes Magnusson

Should this be merged to Category:Organs by Magnusson & Johansson (organ builders)? If not, then they certainly should each have a "see also cat". Jmabel ! talk 02:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Jmabel for the observation. On the basis of file information it is of course impossible to be certain if "Johannes Magnusson" and "Magnusson & Johansson" is the same or different company. Sometimes, also, a person has starten activity which has later evolved into a company. Probably earlier works (prior to the establishment of the comopany or workshop) of the individual should not be categorized under the company. But I am unable to tell regarding Johannes Magnusson. If someone has information, whether Johannes Magnusson worked independently before the establishment of "Magnusson & Johansson" (orgelbyggeri?) and whether organs categorized under Johannes Magnusson correspond to this period, it would be interesting to know and probably it would be good to make decision based on this information. However, I am fairly confident that it would be ok to merge the categories. I have done a fair amount of work categorizing pipe organs in Sweden by builder and obviously there are errors. So, assistance in checking out the categorization is welcome. Periegetes (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Statue of Triton, Lowestoft

There seems to be 2 statues with this name in Lowestoft, one on Royal Plain (listing 1209835) and one on The Esplanade (1207047). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Keep The category is serving a purpose, and is populated 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Yes it should indeed be kept the thing is we appear to need 2 separate categories as this category appears to mix 2 different statues one closer to the sea than the other but otherwise I can't really determine which images are for which otherwise I would just have split myself. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I created this category, however if and when we have images of both statues it would make sense to make this a dab page and create separate cats for the two statues. Currently the category has four images and they look to me to be of the same statue, think the current cat works until we have images of both statues. WereSpielChequers (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Look closely at File:Statue Of Triton 1.jpg and File:Statue Of Triton 2.jpg. You can see that the first[4] (the picture there doesn't show which) is mounted into the sea wall while the 2nd is several metres from it[5] (that picture does show which). I've created Category:Statue of Triton, The Esplanade which has 4 images, the remaining 4 (I added 4 to the original category a few days ago) are in Category:Statue of Triton, Lowestoft. 3 of them I can tell are for the Royal Plain one but I can't determine which File:Triton Neptune Monuments.jpg is for. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Young women of Israel in 2014

Extraneous, had one subcategory which I moved to this one's parent Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Site-specific installation by Dorotej Neshovski

@Liridon: What is this? Please add some info and categories. Why are the images in three separate "Site-specific installation by…" categories instead of only one? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree, there should be only one category for the installation, and each contributor to the installation would have their category and that site-specific would be categorised to each. I suggest "Category:Scene without (scene)price"  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Noting Category:Site-specific installation by Filip Velkovski and Category:Site-specific installation by Goran Ristovski  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)