Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/08

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Green roofs (sustainability) in the Faroe Islands

deletion request...all images were actually sod roofs, with is different than an urban green roof HylgeriaK (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added them to Category:Sod roofs in the Faroe Islands (in case someone wants to look at them). As the category is empty, you could just add {{Speedy}}. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Monuments and memorials in Northern Territory

I created this category by mistake, not realising that "Category:Monuments and memorials in the Northern Territory" already exists. Motacilla (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: as per nom. --Yann (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Chinese templs on Pulau Ketam

Typo category *angys* (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Speedy}} Enhancing999 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Tram line 12 in Frankfurt am Main

wrong category, right name is Category:Trams on line 12 in Frankfurt am Main‎ Urmelbeauftragter (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, category already empty. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Chinese temple on Pulau Ketam

Typo category *angys* (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty category -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Buildings in Macedonia

~~I don't see an explanation as to why this should redirect to Category:Buildings in North Macedonia. Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawing. Macedonia was officially renamed North Macedonia in 2019. Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by the user. -- CptViraj (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Accipe... lector... Suetiae, Gotiae, Norvegiae, Prusiae, Pomeraniae, ducatus Megapolensis, Frisiae, Geldriae, Altae Marchiae, Lusatiae... descriptionem... - btv1b53093871d

A shorter name, please! And preferably not starting 'Accip', as it is a nuisance when sorting files into Category:Accipitridae and Category:Accipiter (@Gzen92Bot: ). MPF (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the title of the document, in Latin. I can shorten the text easily, but not change the title (it's automated and I don't speak Latin!). Gzen92 (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MPF: @Gzen92: , I consider these categories as "scan-folders". They names are not chosen well, because of the automated process, and this can't be helped, really. But two things can be done here:

In the case of the latin-language category name above, with only two maps inside the category, I'd suggest to categorize them individually and remove the original category because that scan-folder will never have more than these two files. (It makes sense to have near-empty categories if you expect more files to eventually come in, but not in a case like this one.) For the individual files, go with "Maps from Gallica" (important!), then for example "Category:Old maps of Friesland|1562", "1560s maps of the Netherlands|1562", "<creator-name>/<Maps-by-creator>" (not applicable where there's the sine nomen comment, like here) and "Latin-language maps". Then afterwards, ditch the empty category. The source-link "btv1b53093871d" is unique and as long as it's not removed which should never happen, it allows potential re-matching the two files (for whatever obscure purpose) even if they land in totally different categories.
Doing that first option is only okay with files that don't form an entire set/brochure/book/atlas/etc.! If such is the case, I'd instead rename the category, and then use the renamed one going forward. I have some examples from Gallica lined up: Category:Report of the under secretary for public lands on the work of the lands department during the year 1881 (Queensland) is still overwhelmingly long, but the original was even longer. And sometimes it's possible to make a short and snappy name like Category:Waarnemingen in den Indischen Oceaan (1889). Or Category:Plantas das cidades, portos, e fortalezas da conquista da India Oriental (~1650) For book titles, it's okay to have non-English category names, and the year is always nice to include, too.Compare the Category:Books from the British Library. The individual image-names are still the originals ("<old Category-name> (x of y)"), though, and I strongly suggest to keep them like that, to show how all these files are connected.

All the best to you both, --Enyavar (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gzen92 and Enyavar: Thanks! Renaming would be fine; what might be best is to put that source link btv1b53093871d at the start of the name, as this means the category won't pop up as a first HotCat suggestion when typing 'Acc'... in the HotCat box (the source of the problem!). How about Category:btv1b53093871d Accipe... lector... (1562 map)? Or even just Category:btv1b53093871d (1562 map)? - MPF (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the maps (the second, "Frisland", is phantom island), I propose "Maps of North Sea and Baltic Sea - btv1b53093871d" quite simply. Gzen92 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gzen92: excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the category and put the files back. It's good ? Gzen92 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks at @Gzen92: for pointing out that Frisland is not Frisia but a phantom island. I had no idea, but now I came to a strong suspicion. Once upon a time, there was an old map of some foreign places, alone in a map folder sitting in the Bibliothèque du Roi. And at some point, back in the day, someone made the same error as me, wanted to file a strange single "Frisland map" into the right spot, and found a folder with a superficially similar-looking map, labeled "something something Frisia". Centuries ago, the two maps were matched by the wrong keyword, but they don't belong together. If you look a bit closer, you can see the differences: They have vastly different scales. The towns are drawn in a different style. The script patterns follow different stencils. The Nordic/Baltic map is an unadorned navigational chart with art of cities and mountains. The Frisia map additionally displays additional art of monsters, ships and forests, but no chart lines. And even the bibliographic notes on the border are different, "Gel 8940" vs. "Bf XIII". Yes, the maps could be from the same era and maybe even the same year. No guarantee. They could be from the same mapmaking office, maybe even the same author. Again no guarantee. But after a closer look at them, I say they're obviously not meant to be read in unison. Errors happen sometimes in all libraries. The Bibliothèque du roi is not the same today as it was in the 1540s. Look at this Pocket-Guide atlas, it got split and scanned into 17 different folders by Gallica, but here on Commons I could bring the content back together. Long message short: I'm clearly in favor of keeping these two unlike maps apart; no special category.

Also, whenever there is a need to keep documents from Gallica together, we must name the new category as close to the original work title as possible. I linked examples above with the "Pocket-Guide" or the "Waarnemingen" map series. In this case, the folder name within Gallica seems to have been "Accipiter <unreadable> lector <unreadable> [all the placenames] <unreadable> descriptionem <unreadable>". Such was the input for Gallica's computer systems. Someone couldn't read the original handwriting, the error was possibly made over several stages of handling library cards and digitalization steps. In extreme cases like this one where all context got lost, I'd be supportive of Category:btv1b53093871d. --Enyavar (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted by Yann--A1Cafel (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Playing children in Japan

All the other countries use the format with «children» before «playing». 217.117.125.83 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Thanks for the good point! I'm sorry I didn't notice. --Benzoyl (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

renamed. Other similar cases at Category:Children playing by country also renamed Estopedist1 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ferrier van Onderwijs

The category name refers to w:nl:Lilian Ferrier, a former minister van Onderwijs. Category:Lilian Ferrier already exists. Joofjoof (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not 100% sure we need this redirect, but Google gives several hits. Redirected Estopedist1 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Saint Nicholas Square in Bielsko-Biała

redundant with Category:Świętego Mikołaja Square in Bielsko-Biała Gaj777 talk 08:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it Enhancing999 (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

redirected Estopedist1 (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:The Notorious B.I.G

Existing page technical errors when creating Category with wrong (title Category:The Notorious B.I.G.) -- Leonaardog (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question. @Leonaardog: There is nothing left the original name from what I can tell. Isn't this just a template:badname situation? I see the wikidata links between the page and the category are there which is minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ricky81682: , It was a technical error of mine instead of analyzing the data first in Wikidata I quickly created the category. I was editing The Notorious BIG article and clicked to category and it didn't show up no category for the author and I thought there were no elements related to him yet. I apologize. Delete since the title is wrong and does not serve to direct for main category. I changed my mind i think it would be nice to redirect to the main category what do you think? -- Leonaardog (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do a category redirect, that's fine but I don't think we need a full discussion about it. The issue is that the BIG category is linked to the current category which is a bit silly, but that's on Wikidata. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Ricky81682: , I don't know how to do it, please do it Redirect. -- Leonaardog (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. Wikidata entry is corrected Estopedist1 (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:East Calhoun, Minneapolis

This neighborhood is now called "East Bde Maka Ska", see wikipedia article for reference thibaultmol (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming of category to East Bde Maka Ska, Minneapolis. Eco84 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed. Solution per enwiki and in line with parent Category:Neighborhoods in Minneapolis Estopedist1 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Reimsbach Ehrenfriedhof

This category duplicates "Category:Kriegsgräberstätte Reimsbach", which was created four years earlier. Motacilla (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected Estopedist1 (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tram line 11 in Frankfurt am Main

wrong category, right name is Category:Trams on line 11 in Frankfurt am Main‎ Urmelbeauftragter (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Samantha Fox Strip Poker

Empty category Dronebogus (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:ETH-BIB Genève-Cornavin

This seems to be a mix of source category (images contributed by ETH BIB, the main one is hidden) and a topical category (images about a specific railway station). I don't think it's a good idea to combine them. Just merge this one back into the main topical and source category. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I upmerged this into Category:Historical images of Genève Cornavin railway station and Category:Media contributed by the ETH-Bibliothek. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Arnold Musao Kalombo

Unclear use case, promotion only Emu (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:ETH-BIB canton de Genève

This category seems to have the same problem as the one discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/08/Category:ETH-BIB Genève-Cornavin. Let's avoid creating more of these. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC) I upmerged the following ones accordingly, to Category:Media contributed by the ETH-Bibliothek and a second categories (when needed).[reply]

Enhancing999 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Ruthven--A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Featured pictures supported by WikiProject Women in Red

Empty category Wilfredor (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:17th-century social condition in painting

This seems to be the only category for "social condition in painting" by century. It's a very vague category and separate categorization to me. It seems like the category could be deleted/merged into Category:17th-century genre paintings which in theory covers everyday life. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Pentatrichomonas humanis

To be deleted (spelling error) : the species is P. hominis (not humanis) A1AA1A (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:JNR 211 (JR West)

Empty category Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Gold nuggets from Pennsylvania

The three files in the category were incorrectly categorized and then this unnecessary subcategory was created by the same User. Please, delete this empty category. Ooligan (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Vienna U-Bahn type X

Empty category *angys* (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Turu

Uncategorized category without any description. Leyo 18:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it from the above and tagged the category for speedy deletion. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Vivekananda Rock Memorial mediation hall

Move Page Riquix (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titel spelling // Meditation instead of mediation. The second is an arranging in a law conflict. "Vivekananda Rock Memorial meditation hall"--Riquix (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

moved it. It will take a few days for the bot to update the files/links. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Woodhenge, Langton Matravers

Needs to be deleted, accidentally wrote Langton instead of Worth Matravers Endim8 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bukkaku (video game)

Empty category for a non-notable video game. Because the video game in question is not freely licensed, this category is likely to remain empty forever, and should be deleted as unnecessary clutter. 2001:14BB:64C:14D4:8C7D:99F5:107A:97F6 08:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Views from the tower of the stronghold of Populonia

Delete please, wrong name created by mistake. DnaX (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Ukraińskie zespoły folkowe

Nominated for deletion.It is not in English and I have created it by mistake Ivonna Nowicka (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:DIAO (DJ)

Underpopulated category of a musician that may not be notable enough. MathXplore (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Heritage Belgium in 2022

Empty category Wilfredor (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree to delete this category. The photo contest is still ongoing till the end of October 2022, so it is normal that it is still empty for the time being. Geert Van Pamel (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:HMSC Arnprior (K494)

I mis-typed "HMSC" instead of "HMCS". Please feel free to delete this category! Motacilla (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Green, yellow ribbon bars

Empty category. Used to contain a few files, which were moved to "Green and yellow ribbon bars" 1000mm (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sandro Salsano

fail WP:GNG Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandro Salsano closed as delete Contribuine34 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Commons categories do not follow the same eligibility criteria as Wikipedia articles. Until there are files which could fit in the category, there is no reason to delete it. I see that most files here were nominated for deletion as self-promotion. When that is done for all files (and not just through manual emptying such as this), and only then, then the category may be deleted. Place Clichy 13:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, even if Commons does have a notability criteria, see Commons:Category inclusion criteria, 20 files is more than enough but if they are deleted this can then be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: per discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Black and white photographs of women holding babies in the USA

category name inconsistent with others "USA" -> "United States"--see parent categories of this category. Remedy is to move to Category:Black and white photographs of women holding babies in the United States. DanielPenfield (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. I would have just done the rename -- seems noncontroversial. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was created and is maintained by a single contributor. Typically this means resistance. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never make assumptions - I have no problem with a name change!! Headlock0225 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed. CommonsDelinker has been instructed to do the move. —howcheng {chat} 21:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Commons' weirdest photographs

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Cursed images was today closed as delete, rather than merely being made hidden, with concerns that the category was too subjective, and that in some cases it was being applied to cultural artifacts and people with unusual physical features.

This older, hidden category has the same issues. Images come and go from it as passing editors disagree on whether something or someone is particularly weird, and it doesn't seem very strenuously moderated: some of the photos added around the time of the category's creation in 2015 were an unremarkable portrait of an elderly Indian man and a large number of pictures of people performing at or just attending LGBT pride events (eg. File:Cardiff Mardi Gras 2010 MMB 20 Ruby White.jpg, File:Nottinghamshire Pride 2011 MMB 04.jpg), all of which remained in place until 2021. I've just now removed File:The Mummified Monk.jpg, a photo of the preserved body of Buddhist monk Luang Pho Daeng, who died in 1973.

I don't think it's a great idea for Commons to have an official yet anonymous and largely unmoderated category for "weird" people and objects. We'd be being a lot more careful if we were running a front page "weird photo of the day". Lord Belbury (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't aware of this category until now and I am surprised to see this. As of now the category includes photographs of many people who are by inclusion associated with weirdness. This does not correspond well with the values of our movement. Besides, I agree that we should restrict ourselves to categories with objective criteria – independently from being hidden or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too subjective, and who knew this existed? --SHB2000 (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective, and potentially insulting/demeaning. Llwyld (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Town hall (Lucca)

Can this category be deleted? It is empty, also the gallery page Municipio (Lucca) is empty. JopkeB (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the gallery as empty to get it deleted. When that's gone, the category should be able to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it. As apparently it gets confused with another one. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Auntof6 and Enhancing999 for joining this discussion. Thanks, Auntof6, for deleting the gallery page. How to go on? Luckily I found two files on Commons for this category, so the category can stay. But I would propose to rename this category to Category:Palazzo Orsetti because both the Wikidata item and the IT-WP page are called Palazzo Orsetti. And if Lucca ever decides to have the town hall moved to another building, then on Commons it is not right anymore, while the building stays the same. --JopkeB (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no answer to my proposal, I renamed the category. --JopkeB (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category cannot be deleted, it has now two files and it had already a meaningful remark not to confuse it with another building.
Since the gallery page was empty, it has been deleted.
This category has been renamed to Category:Palazzo Orsetti because that is the usual name for this building.

--JopkeB (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:March 1970 events in Japan

I'm nominating each of the March through September 1970 events in Japan category (there is no July one oddly) as too specific. These six categories have one event, are one of three events in 1970 events in Japan and are the only events for March 1970 events, and March 1970 in Japan, etc. I think all six categories can be deleted and this one item can be upmerged. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per the nominator. As the current categories are way to granular. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Multichill (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Dix, New York

Can someone please provide some evidence that this place actually exists and isn't just a non-exiting historical town that was located where Watkins Glen is now or a massive troll? Because from what I've been able to find for all intents and purposes Dix seems to just be Watkins Glen. According to http://www.townofdix.com/ it's address is Watkins Glen, the Dix town board members addresses are all in Watkins Glen, even the official Schuler County website for Dix, https://www.schuylercounty.us/497/Town-of-Dix, says that it's located in Watkins Glen. So at least from what I can tell there's zero evidence Dix actually exists and/or isn't just Watkins Glen. If it doesn't and/or turns out to be Watkins Glen, then this category should be deleted and everything in it should be transferred to Category:Watkins Glen, New York. Adamant1 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A ten-second detour to Wikipedia suffices to prove that Dix is a real place. A ten-second look at the URLs provided above by Adamant1 does prove that the Town of Dix's municipal offices are located in the village of Watkins Glen, and the town board members reside there (which is to be expected given that the village is an integral part of the town and its population center, and the ZIP code Watkins Glen, NY 14891 covers most of the town of Dix) but, of course, does not prove the nonexistence of the Town of Dix (why would anyone bother setting up an official website for a fictional town?) See my user talk page for a full accounting of the genesis of this spurious CfD entry. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references in the English Wikipedia support the existence of the place. Some of the refs are even dead links. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6 - The County Maps page of the official Schuyler County website links to a map of the Town of Dix, which clearly shows the Village of Watkins Glen (in pink) being located within, but not coterminous with, the town. I don't know how much more official of a source there is than that. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andre Carrotflower: OK, but I didn't say there weren't any references anywhere. I said that the ones actually in the English Wikipedia article don't support the existence of the town. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Administrator of all people should know that Wikipedia itself isn't an authoritative source of information for anything. It's laughable that your trying to act like it is. I'll ask you the same question here that I asked you on your talk page, if the boundary map for Dix that you linked to is correct then why are most or all of the addresses for places located inside the boundary for Watkins Glen instead of Dix? Do the people who run the race track, kennel, and many other locations in what your claiming is Dix that have Watkins Glen addresses just not know where they are located? Or maybe Schuyler County just doesn't know what it's own boundaries are and gave literally everyone the wrong addresses? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6 - Understood. And just to make sure all my i's are dotted and t's crossed, I'm aware that the pink section of the Town of Dix map is labeled as a "village" but not specifically "Watkins Glen". Here's a PDF of the official zoning map from the official website of the Village of Watkins Glen clearly covering the same boundaries as the pink section on the town map.

Adamant1 My above comment to Auntof6 provided copious non-Wikipedia-based proof of the town's existence as a separate entity from the village. Even going beyond that, though, the mere idea that an official website for a fictional town would be set up, and prominently linked to from the official website of the county that the town is located in, and that there would also exist a separate official website for the village of Watkins Glen, and that all three of those websites would contain maps clearly delineating the town's existence as a separate entity from the village, and that this would all be set up years ahead of time - for what purpose? as part of some bizarre hoax at your expense? - strains credulity past the breaking point and, if sincere, smacks of conspiratorial thinking.

It also explained that Watkins Glen's ZIP code covers most of the town (source: Google Maps, unless you think they're in on the conspiracy too), so most mailing addresses within the town are routed to Watkins Glen as it's the nearest place with a post office. This is common in the United States, especially in rural areas such as Schuyler County.

Debating in good faith requires you not to selectively ignore points that were previously brought up by your opponent that don't jibe with your position. Either engage in this debate in good faith or don't do so at all.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you persist in believing this is some elaborate hoax smacks of conspiratorial thinking. Administrative boundaries change and go away all the time. There's nothing conspiratorial about it either. Acting like that's not the case or that I'm somehow treating this as a massive conspiracy is just bad faithed. Either that, or your just ignorant as to how city planning works. If you are just unware that towns can either disincorporate or be absorbed into neighboring ones then I really wonder why your involved in this discussion in the first place and I'd kindly ask that you find other things that you aren't ignorant about to comment on.

most mailing addresses within the town are routed to Watkins Glen as it's the nearest place with a post office. That's patently false. There's a post office in Beaver Dams which is like a 3 minute drive from the kennel compared to a 12 minute drive from the kennel to Watkins Glen. So that's not the reason the Kennel's address is Watkins Glen. In the meantime, like I said before Van Zandt Hollow is officially located in Watkins Glen, despite it being on the far north western side of what your claiming is Dix. No one is sending a nature preserve/valley mail. They are using the address to find out where it's located on the map though. Otherwise you'd have to argue that the county of Schuyler County is intentionally miss-leading people by saying Van Zandt Hollow is in Watkins Glen when it isn't.

One more point, Dix is supposedly a town that contains the village of Watkins Glen inside of it. But like you said everything outside of Watkins Glen proper is rural areas. Montour Falls is directly south of Watkins Glen and it's not a part of Dix. There's nothing above what your claiming is the boundary of Watkins Glen except a lake. There's a campground to the east of it and a state park to the west. The rest is just farmland. So where exactly is this supposed town of Dix located if it's not Watkins Glen? Even if I grant you that the boundary of Dix is based on something that actually exists or existed at some point, how exactly is a bunch of farmland, a lake, or a state park a town and/or an urban area? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention "how city planning works" as that's what I got my master's degree in. Yes, municipal boundaries change sometimes, but per New York State law, such boundary changes need to be filed with the Department of State's Local Law division (per [1]; see under "Cities and Towns" heading). There's nothing in the NYS Department of State Local Law Filings database that indicates any recent boundary changes for Dix. Meanwhile, this story about an accused child sex offender on mytwintiers.com indicates that the Town of Dix itself still existed at least as of a day ago, and has a functioning government (including at least a town court).

"So where exactly is this supposed town of Dix located if it's not Watkins Glen?" Once again, here's the official town map I linked to earlier: [2]

"Even if I grant you that the boundary of Dix is based on something that actually exists or existed at some point, how exactly is a bunch of farmland, a lake, or a state park a town and/or an urban area?" Because the entire surface area of New York is made up of cities and towns. To repeat, there is literally no patch of land in the state, whether urban, suburban or rural, that is not part of either a city or a town. Here is a vector map of all of them, based on information from the New York State Office of Information Technology Services.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, almost forgot. Here is the part of the United States Postal Service website where, if you type in 14891, it shows that "Watkins Glen, NY" is the only allowable city name for mail addressed to that ZIP code. Then compare the Google Map link I provided above with the vector map I also linked to, and you'll see that ZIP code 14891 (and, therefore, mailing addresses given as "Watkins Glen, NY") covers basically the entire town of Dix. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, municipal boundaries change sometimes ("rarely" per..... I'd be interested to know what "rarely" means in that context. Unfortunately I couldn't find anywhere that lists how many towns in New York have dissolved over a certain period of time, but "rarely" could mean literally anything. That said, my thesis here isn't that Dix necessarily dissolved as an administrative entity, but more that it become/changed it's name to Watkins Glen essentially dissolving Watkins Glen into it. A simple name change isn't necessarily a desolation. Supposedly like 2 villages are dissolved a year in New York. So it's not that far fetched that Watkins Glen was dissolved and Dix just changed it's name at some point. Obviously not everyone or everything automatically catches up at exactly the same time when a place is renamed or changed. Especially if your talking about boundaries in OpenStreetMaps (the one for Watkins Glen was added 13 years ago). In the meantime seems to come up if I search for Dix, New York in Google Maps. Although that could just be me.

Meanwhile, this story about an accused child groper on mytwintiers.com] indicates that... I mean, I could do that and to a much more effective degree. Like, meanwhile if I search Google News for "Dix, New York" nothing comes up but there's 144,000 articles when I search for "Watkins Glen, New York." If Dix was actually a think you'd think those numbers would be reversed. Also, if I search for "Dix, New York newspaper" there's jack squat. Yet "Watkins glen, New York newspaper" comes up with many results, including https://www.observer-review.com/, https://www.newsbreak.com/channels/watkins-glen-ny (zero results for "Dix, New York" on that site BTW), https://www.fingerlakes1.com/category/schuyler-county/watkins-glen/ (That one has a whole page for Watkins Glen articles and apparently only one result for the word "Dix"). I'm sure you get my point. Essentially, Dix is supposedly an exiting town, yet weirdly it doesn't have any local news outlets and barely comes in search results if it even does at all. Except for your one cherry picked article about a child groper. "Shrug." As a side to that, if you do a search for "Dix" on the Watkins Glen chambers of commerce's website nothing comes up either. Which just seems weird. For all intents and purposes Dix literally doesn't exist. Otherwise I'd be interested to know why you think it doesn't seem to come up in searches anywhere.

the entire land area of New York is made up of cities, Indian reservations, and towns, some of the latter of which contain one or more villages. Wow, you mean states are made up of smaller administrative boundaries? Golly gosh, who would have thunk? you really do learn something new every day.

is a vector map of all of them, based on information from the United States Geological Survey. I can't speak specifically to the accuracy of New York's data sources, but the USGS is notoriously inaccurate and out of date. That said, I was actually looking at a random map from some New York county website on ArchGis a few weeks ago and the data was from like 1899. Unless they meant 1999, but that's still not super recent.

Adamant1, what exactly are you even trying to do here? Being ignorant about the United States does not entitle you to make a fuss how things work over there. Thanks to WP, even here in Europe I am able to read up and understand the concept of towns/townships, without ever having left the continent. The whole concept is laid out in en:Civil township where it is stated that in New York, such Civil Townships are called "Towns". You don't need an urban area present to make something a town. The town of en:Red House, New York, has a population of 27 according to this list. Yes, that is the same amount of people like the ones who live in de:Mosebolle which is as rural as it can get. So what if "towns" are not universally defined? There IS a definition for "town" in NY state, and en:Dix, New York fulfills it, apparently since 1835. I see the burden of proving the town's non-existence with you. --Enyavar (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being ignorant about the United States does not entitle you to make a fuss how things work over there. I'm not really sure what's that in reference to since I live in America and actually have a background that's relevant to this subject area. Plus, I know how to do a Google search like everyone else. See my second comment above your message for exactly what I'm trying to do here. To give you a hint find information about Dix to show it actually exists, not a bunch of empty search results or references to Watkins Glen. Honestly I made that pretty clear in my first message, which you apparently didn't read.

There IS a definition for "town" in NY state At the end of the day how NY state defines "town" is a secondary strawman. The reason I opened this RfC had nothing to do with clarifying NY states definitions of it's administrative boundaries. Otherwise your free to point to where I said "this category should be deleted and everything in it should be transferred to Category:Watkins Glen, New York if no one can tell me how NY state defines a town."

I see the burden of proving the town's non-existence with you. I'm sure you know there isn't a way to prove a negative and that's not how this works either. That said, I think I've pretty adequately provided the context for why I think it doesn't exist (again, see my second comment in the message above yours for some examples of it's "non-existence"). Your more then welcome to prove me wrong by showing it does though. I'm more then willing to provide some examples of what type of evidence would show it exists if you want me to. A good starting point would be to answer why you think it doesn't come up in search results, including on Websites that are based in Watkins Glen. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Your [sic] more then [sic] welcome to prove me wrong by showing it does though" - I gave you an official town website and map, an official county website mentioning the town, an official state GIS map showing the town, a news report from two days ago with Dix as the dateline and mentioning the existence of a Dix Town Court, and a searchable New York State Department of State database containing no information on any recent changes in the town's boundaries or dissolution of the town, which would be legally required to be in that database if it existed. If you don't consider all of that information, all derived from official government sources, to be enough to prove the town's existence, then you're simply not willing for it to be proven to you, and what we're doing here isn't really a debate. Now, please, at long last, can some admin come by here and put this discussion out of its misery? -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you an official town website I assume your talking about http://www.townofdix.com/. If so, I'm not saying it isn't official but it's a random .com website hosted on GoDaddy and made with Website Builder. Most websites for towns in New York are .gov, professionally made, and not being hosted on GoDaddy.

I gave you a news report from two days ago with Dix as the dateline and mentioning the existence of a Dix Town Court And I gave you like 8 examples of news websites that specifically mention Watkins Glen and don't have any mention of Dix. Why does your one example prove your right but my 8 examples not prove anything in the other direction? If anything your the one not willing to change your opinion. If Dix exists, cool. I'm actually pretty reasonable about this and am more then willing to change my mind if you can provide actual evidence that it does. Show me a Dix newspaper. Show me a map from a reputable source that has the boundary of Dix on it. Provide an actual reason for why the kennel has a Watkins Glen address. Give me a reasonable answer for why you think Dix doesn't come up in searches, including on local Watkins Glen websites. I'm more then willing to accept any of that if it actually makes sense.

Why would I accept that the kennel's address is Watkins Glen due to it being the nearest place with a post office when there's a post office in Beaver Dams literally two blocks away though? There's a huge difference between being proven wrong versus one side just spouting obvious nonsense and then crying foul when their nonsense isn't immediately taken at face value as the 100%, undeniable truth. Literally all you've done is the later. It's not that I'm being unreasonable though. It's that the "evidence" your providing is nonsensical cherry picking that doesn't prove anything. Sorry, but that's totally on you. Hell, there isn't even any results for "Dix, New York" on Twitter even though they supposedly have a Twitter page. I can guarantee your only response to that fact would be to ignore it cry foul about how I'm just not willing be proven wrong or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your standards of proof are unreasonably high, and it is evident that for any source I come up with, you will come up with a reason why it's not valid. Therefore, this is not a good-faith debate and not a productive use of my time. It is now 3:38 AM where I live, and I have literally wasted my entire day dealing with your quite frankly embarrassing inability to tolerate losing a debate. Further disruptive behavior will have to be dealt with by another admin. I am exhausted and going to bed. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. The existence of a local newspaper is such an unreasonably high standard of evidence to show a town exists. Sure dude, whatever you say. Yet you can't even answer a simple question about why Dix doesn't come up in searches anywhere. If anything your the one being disruptive. Whatever part of your day you've wasted on this is totally on you. I didn't ask for your input. Nor did I want it. You weren't obligated to join this discussion and you added absolutely nothing useful to it either. Literally all you've done since the start of this is attack me and act defensive. Maybe do both of us a favor and skip it next time. It's not like I didn't have better things to do with my day then waste it countering your obviously false, defensive crap. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, given it was you who started this discussion on a category created by Andre, you very much forced this discussion on him even if you two hadn't been discussing Watkins Glen yesterday. But given your conviction of the town's non-existence, please achieve the deletion of Dix in all of Wikipedia's language versions, and when you're finished with that little task, we can continue here. After all, Commons is the media repository for WP, and stuff can't be deleted as long as it is in use in the projects. --Enyavar (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't really gear my edits toward catering to the preferences of whomever created the category originally. Nor was or is there a guaranteed outcome to this either. Nothing about this required his input or participation. Someone else could have commented and made the same points he did without the vitriol. It's not on me that he came into the discussion from the start purely to grind an axe. I can almost guarantee that if he hadn't of participated other people would have and the discussions would probably be over by now. If that meant deleting the category or not. Really, I could ultimately care less either way what the outcome of this is.

Outside of that your assertion that Commons is Wikimedia's media repository and that means I should deal with it on Wikipedia first is nonsense for several reasons. One, they are separate projects and how Wikipedia does things have zero bearing on how things are done on Commons. Two, this CfD has absolutely nothing to do with "media." Let alone have said anything about deleting any "media" related to Dix, Watkins Glen, or anything else for that matter.

Three, sorry, but you don't get to dictate the terms of who participates in this discussion or how. If "you" don't want to continue this, then be my guest and see your way out of it. Everyone else (including me) is free to participate in the discussion or not however they see fit to though. If you have an issue with that, cool. Just stay out of it then. This isn't your or Andre Carrotflower's show though dude. Both of you had your chances to discuss it before I opened the CfD. As far as my side of it goes, it's not like I didn't try to talk to Andre Carrotflower about this whole thing before I opened this. He wasn't willing to discuss things though. So I decided to get feedback about it from people who were. That's just how this works. No one is obligated to sit through other people's defensive, dishonest drama just so they can resolve a disagreement. Now I'd appreciate it if you stopped making this personal and commented on the actual topic of the CfD, if Dix actually exists or not. This isn't about me or the prior dispute with Andre Carrotflower. The repeated attempts to make this personal is getting disruptive. So I'd appreciate it if it stopped now and we got back on topic. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is obligated to sit through other people's defensive, dishonest drama just so they can resolve a disagreement. - Now that is the spirit, let's wrap it up. On the actual topic of this CfD:

Keep because no mention can be found that Dix was dissolved into Watkins Glen in the recent years, and the place definitely existed in the past, if only as the administrative shell-district around Watkins Glen. So until otherwise proven, the place's continued existence seems much less far fetched to me than its sudden and unmentioned dissolution. --Enyavar (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'd appreciate it if you... commented on the actual topic of the CfD, if Dix actually exists or not - But that's the whole crux of the issue here. There is no genuine dispute over the existence of the Town of Dix. I'm willing to accept that this CfD may initially have been made in good faith, but over the course of this discussion, a cornucopia of ironclad evidence for the town's existence has been provided, derived from official government sources that would be readily accepted as reliable by any intellectually honest publication. Now it's important to note that disruptive behavior doesn't always have to take the form of swearing, personal attacks, threats, or the like, and we've now reached the point in this discussion where your persistence in questioning the town's existence and the validity of my sources is itself disruptive. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no genuine dispute over the existence of the Town of Dix. Can you point out where I said there was a "dispute" over the existence of the town of Dix? Because I've been pretty clear from the start of this that I think the town of Dix probably existence, but just recently changed it's boundaries to widen the area of it covered by Watkins Glen. I've never disputed that Dix existed at one point or claimed it's purely a hoax though. I simply asked if people could find references showing it exists and what it's actual boundaries are, because there's clearly some uncertainty about what area is purely Dix and what is Dix/Watkkins Glen. It seems like you and a few other people are boxing ghosts based on your opinions of assertions I haven't actually made anywhere in the meantime.

Also, does there have to be a "dispute" about something for someone to open a CfD? The last time I knew people could open CfD if they wanted feedback/clarity from other people in the community about the topic of the category. What exactly was wrong or disruptive about me doing that? I just thought people clarifying things if they could would help resolve the question of if the category for the state park should go in Category:Watkins Glen, New York or not. Since it makes a huge difference to that if the park is in Watkins Glen or Dix. Again, what exactly is disruptive about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Found mentions on official websites within seconds, as well as advertisements for vacation homes. All part of a widespread hoax? If so, we really want this category! Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's on the county website. Show that the county website isn't real or that it's outdated, or that's just the end of the conversation. The overlap with Watkins Glen is just based on a misunderstanding of how that all works. Historical villages sometimes straddle multiple municipalities. sometimes municipalities share post offices, yada yada. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Show that the county website isn't real or that it's outdated Just an FYI, but the map of Dix on the county website is from 2012. Which isn't super recent. If you do a search on the same website for Dix the second result is a link to a Town of Dix Zoning map from 2015 but it's a dead link. There isn't really anything else meaningful in the search results for Dix besides that. Just a tone of spreadsheets that don't have anything to do with Dix. Which I find rather odd. If I was to guess something changed between 2012 and now about the area. The zoning map being a dead link makes me think it probably relates to zoning. You can chalk it up to me just misunderstanding how boundaries overlap or whatever fine, but it's still suspicious that only thing meaningful the county website has about Dix is in it's search results is a dead link to a zoning map from 7 years ago. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a hunch. That's good enough for you to conduct an investigation, find evidence, and bring that evidence here. It's not enough to justify this sort of time sink without evidence (a deadlink and a map being 10 years old is not evidence of anything). I don't plan on replying further in this thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our job here is to categorize media not to play Sherlock Holmes. Adamant1 is free to request the English article be deleted as fake but I think Adamant1 knows how badly that would go. Evidence indicates that this is a reasonable and useful categorization. Also, don't start with "Can someone please provide some evidence that this place actually exists" and then say "I've been pretty clear from the start of this that I think the town of Dix probably existence" when called out on it. If you think the place exists, then withdraw this nonsense and get into a discussion per image or per category about whether this fits a boundary for it (if it is not the current boundary, who cares? it is a categorization that makes sense either way). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Adamant1 is free to request the English article be deleted" - no, he isn't. Adamant1 is topic-banned from deletion discussions on en.wiki. Of course, that would suggest not performing such backdoor deletion attempts on Commons either... SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real place, and I found this place on the county website. It even has an English Wikipedia article that's well-sourced. If that's not enough info to validify this location, then there's nothing else that can be done. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: It's good you found that it's a real place, but I disagree that the English Wikipedia article is well sourced. The sites used by the references are to places that are reliable sources, but if you actually look at them, none of them support the existence of the town. For example, two of them are dead links (I just tagged them as such in the article) and others link to the general page for a site rather than a page with info about Dix. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As if the US Census Bureau alone wasn't reliable enough... SHB2000 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: The Census Bureau is a reliable source, but my point is that the reference pointing to it doesn't support the existence of a town called Dix. It lists a CDP called Dix Hills, but that isn't the same as far as I can tell. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And as if what Rhododendrites and ACF's arguments also weren't enough for you. Anyway, I don't expect on replying further in this thread unless absolutely necessary. SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the English Wikipedia article is not well sourced, then that is an issue for the English Wikipedia, not for Commons. If the page is a hoax, on the other hand, then this deletion discussion may be warranted. However, there are plenty of sources (such as the county's own website) that indicate that Dix is not merely a hoax, as mentioned by other users above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... this is still open? Street view this. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are CFDs still open from 4 years ago. Nobody is working on closing them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My surprise was just about people still arguing. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guido den Broeder: Hey now, not nobody! I've closed hundreds of them--probably a dozen or more in the last few days alone. It takes time, but if you want a CfD to get to the top of the list for closure, just ping me or one of the other CfD regulars. ...nobody is working on them...sheesh...no love around here... :) Josh (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	No consensus
Actions	Keep
Participants	Adamant1 (talk · contribs) Auntof6 (talk · contribs) SnowFire (talk · contribs) SHB2000 (talk · contribs) Epicgenius (talk · contribs) Andre Carrotflower (talk · contribs) Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:National juice of Pakistan

Unreliable POV pushing redirect. A similar redirect has been discussed at simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/National juice of Pakistan. Sources discovered over there were depending on a popularity vote held at social media, which may not meet en:WP:RS. MathXplore (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Delete Category:National juice of Pakistan
Participants	MathXplore (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Flags with crosses (various categories)

I hope I've done this right - if not, apologies (I've nominated groups of categories for discussion on en.wiki, but never here before).

The following flag-related categories all seem to have peculiarly ungrammatical names. I propose

Category:Flags with black one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one black cross
Category:Flags with blue one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one blue cross
Category:Flags with red one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one red cross
Category:Flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one white cross
Category:Flags with yellow one-cross rename to Category:Flags with one yellow cross
Category:Blue flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Blue flags with one white cross
Category:Red flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Red flags with one white cross
Category:White flags with red one-cross rename to Category:White flags with one red cross

Category:Black flags with one-cross rename to Category:Black flags with one cross
Category:Blue flags with one-cross rename to Category:Blue flags with one cross
Category:Green flags with one-cross rename to Category:Green flags with one cross
Category:Purple flags with one-cross rename to Category:Purple flags with one cross
Category:Red flags with one-cross rename to Category:Red flags with one cross
Category:White flags with one-cross rename to Category:White flags with one cross
Category:Yellow flags with one-cross rename to Category:Yellow flags with one cross

I think that's the lot... Grutness (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support most, but the last three. The incorrect use of parenthesis for non-dab info can be fixed easily:

Other than these three, all good. Josh (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an improvement on my original suggestion. Thanks, Josh. Grutness (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Grutness: I was about to close and implement this but realized I overlooked one issue. Category names should use digital numbers vs. words to represent quantities (e.g. "1" is better than "one")--see Category talk:Groups for some related discussion on this. Thus, would you have any issue with replacing "one" with "1" in the above list? Josh (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever. I'd assumed the same system as used in Wikipedia articles (words up to ten, numerals thereafter) applied here as well. Whichever is in line with Wikimedia MOS is fine by me as long as it's more grammatical than it is currently! Grutness (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted list:

Category:Flags with black one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 black cross
Category:Flags with blue one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 blue cross
Category:Flags with red one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 red cross
Category:Flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 white cross
Category:Flags with yellow one-cross rename to Category:Flags with 1 yellow cross
Category:Blue flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Blue flags with 1 white cross
Category:Red flags with white one-cross rename to Category:Red flags with 1 white cross
Category:White flags with red one-cross rename to Category:White flags with 1 red cross
Category:Black flags with one-cross rename to Category:Black flags with 1 cross
Category:Blue flags with one-cross rename to Category:Blue flags with 1 cross
Category:Green flags with one-cross rename to Category:Green flags with 1 cross
Category:Purple flags with one-cross rename to Category:Purple flags with 1 cross
Category:Red flags with one-cross rename to Category:Red flags with 1 cross
Category:White flags with one-cross rename to Category:White flags with 1 cross
Category:Yellow flags with one-cross rename to Category:Yellow flags with 1 cross
Category:Flags with one outlined-cross (center-parted) rename to Category:Flags with 1 center-parted outlined cross
Category:Flags with one outlined-cross (center-parted, tricolor) rename to Category:Flags with 1 tri-color center-parted outlined cross
Category:Flags with one outlined-cross (center-parted, four-color) rename to Category:Flags with 1 four-color center-parted outlined cross

Above list adjusted to match discussion. Josh (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Rename category (per above list)
Participants	Grutness (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Dutch colonization in Asia

What is the difference with Category:Colonial wars of the Netherlands? Could the latter become a subcategory of this category? I think this construction needs careful reconsideration. JopkeB (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: And when Category:Dutch East Indies has Category:Dutch colonization in Asia as a parent, then subcategories do not need to have it also as a parent (that is overcategorisation, and we do not do that on Commons). --JopkeB (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuz und quer and Humboldt: Could you please give a reaction, since you were the initiators of these categories? --JopkeB (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two categories refer to different aspects of Dutch colonialism (amd both are appropriately classified as subcategories of Category:Colonialism of the Netherlands). While there is overlap in the categories, that's just coincidence -- not all Dutch colonial wars took place in Asia (e.g.,Category:Kieft's War). If you want to create a new category "Colonial wars of the Netherlands in Asia" so that you can categorize it under Category:Dutch colonization in Asia, of course you're welcome to do so.

As far as Category:Dutch East Indies, that name is used for that geographical area beyond its time as a Dutch colony. So my intention is for historical events during the period of Dutch colonization to be clearly set apart from events that took place in the non-Dutch era. (A comparable situation would be Category:United States being listed under Category:British colonization of the Americas; Category:American Revolution, despite being a majorly significant aspect of Britihs colonization, would be hidden many subcategories deep.) However, if you would like to create new category(ies) that better reflect that relationship, I have zero problem with that. -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kreuz und quer, this clarifies the differences to me. I'll wait another two weeks to see whether there are more opinions and then I'll close this discussion. I agree with you to seperate events that took place in different eras. And no, on this moment I have no intention to create new subcategories for this subject. --JopkeB (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	None: both categories should stay, colonial wars of the Netherlands were not only in Asia
Participants	Kreuz und quer (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Recipients of the Joint Service Commendation Medal (United States)

I incorrectly named the category when making it and it didn't match the category specified in wikidata. My mistake. Would've been easier to fix it on the wikidata end but I wasn't sure if I'd get it correct. --Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, user renamed the category by themselves. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Plastik Mutter und Kind

Refers to one of many “mother and child” sculptiures. Category name ought to contain location, e.g. “Plastik Mutter und Kind (Ottakring)” Zenwort (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. It will take a few days till the bots update the files/links. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: redirecting specific Category:Plastik Mutter und Kind to general Category:Sculptures of mothers with children and creating a replacement for the specific category with Category:Plastik Mutter und Kind (Ottakring) causes all occurrences of Category:Plastik Mutter und Kind to point to the wrong target and no occurrence to the right one. See [3], [4], [5] best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

situation is resolved. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Isabella Offenbach Maas Residence

Contains one image, and subject is not notable, so unlikely to contain more Jadine (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's recorded in a list of notable subjects .. so how do you get to the opposite conclusion? Enhancing999 (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Enhancing999 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

kept.--RZuo (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Crater Lake Geology

Category:Geology of Crater Lake redirects here, but that redirect is of more conventional form and should be the actual category name here. A look at the subcategories here shows that, for example, "Volcanism of Crater Lake" is better than "Crater Lake Volcanism." Jsayre64 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to be renamed. Solution per @Jsayre64 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect reversed. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:2016 Fototour Kunsthistorisches Museum

no entries Mateus2019 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Mateus2019, dass Du mich darauf aufmerksam gemacht hast. Ein Teil der Bilder von der FotoTour ist jetzt hochgeladen, noch etwas pauschal, eine bessere Beschreibung und korrekte Kategorisierung hole ich nach. Grüße --Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 05:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No further action required Category is filled in the meantime. GeorgHH • talk 13:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Estación de Canfranc (west entrance)

Renaming to “… (historical entrance)”: The entrance via the subway under the Western (Spanish) tracks _was_ the _only_ public access to the station. Now, as the building is being converted into a hotel and all tracks around it are gone, this new term fits the situation best. Hamlet 570 de (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a compromise: "west historical entrance". -angerdan (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category deleted, after the files have been moved to Category:Estación de Canfranc (historical entrance) GeorgHH • talk 13:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Kataloge und Poster des Münchner Stadtmuseums

Die Kategorie kann gelöscht werden, sie wurde von mir umbenannt Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 14:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirect to Category:Publikationen des Münchner Stadtmuseums. GeorgHH • talk 17:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tony Blinken

Request moving to "Antony Blinken" as the DOS website, his social media account and many news articles are using Antony rather than Tony A1Cafel (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, according to the CommonName policy. Compare the Category:Bill Clinton tree, which is not the William Clinton category, as well as his (Clinton's) article in Wikipedia – and countless other examples.

Blinken unsurprisingly uses his formal name at the Department of State website but Clinton, too, sometimes uses his formal name such as in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum, but that is not his commonly used name.

Blinken is commonly known in Washington DC as Tony, and appears in a variety of major American media as such. Examples: Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC – as well as commonly in broadcasts.

The standard procedure of providing a redirect from Category:Antony Blinken has already cleared up this issue. O'Dea (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with O'Dea for reasons given above. Earlier in his career, he was referred to as "Tony" as well as at school. --Ooligan (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and other US politicians. "Antony" is more commonly referred to Mr. Blinken rather than "Tony", with google trend (globally) as reference. Even for the United States, google trend still indicated that Antony is more common than Tony. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info User:SecretName101 moved the category to "Anthony Blinken" on 6 December 2022. I have told him that this category is under Cfd and should not be moved until the discussion finished. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may move back. Apologies. Error in the spelling of name (careless) and unaware of a CFD. SecretName101 (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving the article for the record. It is both his formal and common name. Both are well-used, but he has come to use Antony since becoming SOS. SecretName101 (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to him as "Antony Blinken." [6], [7], [8], [9]. A Google News search for "Antony Blinken" in English yields "about 1,690,000 results" while one for "Tony Blinken" yields "about 15,000 results". --R'n'B (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support His name is Antony. It should match his the name of his own Wikipedia article. Tony is just a nickname. And the page was moved to the title of Antony. So is a discussion really necessary anymore three months after the December move? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page was moved to the misspelled title Category:Anthony Blinken. —R'n'B (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. But regardless, the page should be Antony Blinken. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the misspelling. The page can always be moved back to Category:Tony Blinken if it's the outcome of the CfD. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support If we look at file descriptions, "Antony Blinken" is overwhelmingly used over "Tony Blinken". Searching for "Antony Blinken" returns 10k results when searching for "Tony Blinken" only returns 224 results. Note that the searches ignore category names. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

discussion mentioned at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=829772980#Is_there_a_standard_way_to_ask_for_the_closing_of_a_discussion,_or_to_publicize_a_discussion? (permalink) by Cryptic-waveform. - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My own experience is that "Antony" is more used than "Tony", and Cryptic-waveform's Google results tend to fit that. His official page goes for the over-formal "Antony J. Blinken", which I've never heard any news source use. Googling "blinken site:npr.org" (no quotes) shows they are consistent with "Antony" when they use his first name. New York Times apparently credits him as "Antony J. Blinken" when he writes for them and variously as "Blinken", "Tony Blinken", "Antony Blinken" and "Antony J. Blinken" in other contexts. The BBC's topic page on him is "Antony Blinken"; Googling on "blinken site:bbc.co.uk" (no quotes) shows mainly "Antony Blinken", occasionally just "Blinken". ""tony blinken" site:bbc.co.uk" shows 50 results, so they do occasionally use that, but it's 50 vs. 3600 for ""antony blinken" site:bbc.co.uk". So, while he may in the past have been better known as "Tony", I think at this point I'd lean toward "Antony". - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spideog and Ooligan: your opinions to the contrary are from quite a while back (indeed, long enough that Spideog is a new account name since then). Do you still stand by those as being appropriate, given what seems to me to be a trend? - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the opinions so far:

Support A1Cafel, SecretName101, R'n'B, WikiCleanerMan, Cryptic-waveform (myself), Jmabel (weak support?)
Oppose Spideog, Ooligan

I've added the CfD banner to around ~200 more categories with "Tony Blinken" in the title. I suggest waiting another week for new opinions and request closure of the discussion on December 19. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wider CfD notice @Cryptic-waveform.

Google "Ngram" shows "Tony" as far more common usage. "Antony" and "Anthony" spellings are far lower in usage versus "Tony."

Here: [10] --Ooligan (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: but that appears to be through 2019. What I said above is that it appears that there was a strong shift around the time he became Secretary of State (2021). - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, I

Support the consensus. His high profile status on the world stage has popularized his formal name. Thank you for reviving this discussion and the helping facilitate the resolution. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic-waveform just moved the category out of process to Category:Antony Blinken. While I agree that is where it should end up, I absolutely do not endorse an out-of-process move like this during a CfD, especially one that has had quite a bit of activity in recent days. This is how edit wars start. - Jmabel ! talk 06:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the misspelling Anthony to Antony. Please see my comment above where I announce the change and specifically say that the category can still be moved to Tony Blinken. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support In my experience, this man's name is Anthony Blinken. Krok6kola (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Consensus to use "Antony Blinken" and keep current categoryy names using "Tony Blinken" as redirects. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Murugan

suggest moving the parent and child categories from Category:Murugan to Category:Kartikeya in line with English wikipedia Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see Category talk:Murugan for discussion. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to rename the category to Kartikeya. Venkat TL in the linked talk page shows a strong argument for the current name. Kartikeya can still be mentioned as an alternative name used in North India. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Order(100px).gif stroke order images

I think this is a redirection category, if that is the case I nominate it for deletion. FanNihongo (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	?
Actions	The category was nominated for deletion.
Participants	FanNihongo (talk · contribs)
Notes	I nominated the category for deletion. Either it will be deleted or it won't. There's no point in keeping this open either way though.

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:National animal of East Turkestan

A similar redirect was deleted due to simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/National animal of East Turkestan. At that previous discussion, only one book was shown as reference to support it (see page 44). The book just says it is an unofficial national symbol. If we keep this redirect, users may misunderstand as an officially declared symbol. Should we keep this possibly misleading redirect ? If possible, I would like to include Category:National flower of East Turkestan, Category:National tree of East Turkestan, Category:National bird of East Turkestan in this discussion. Please note that the initial creator is locked, and cannot request deletion by himself/herself. MathXplore (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete official or not, these are not suitable redirects. redirects should only be created for alternative names. for example, we dont create a "most abundant mammal in new zealand" redirect to sheep. RZuo (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	There's a clear consensus that the redirects should be deleted.
Actions	The redirects were nominated for speedy deletion.
Participants	MathXplore (talk · contribs) RZuo (talk · contribs)
Closed by	--Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Simon

not useful because of the lack of definition Mateus2019 (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support completely ambiguous, perhaps Category:Simon (French company) as there seems to be several other companies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

solution per en:Simon (disambiguation page)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	?
Actions	The category was nominated for speedy deletion due to being empty, making this totally pointless.
Participants	Mateus2019 (talk · contribs) Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) Estopedist1 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	--Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:When you see it

I don’t see the point of this category other than inserting random images that the person who adds the category finds strange, also the category is a joke category with no point, and was also recently created, making it just a new creation rather than a long-standing joke that has existed without major issues such as Commons’ weirdest photographs Cutlass ^Ciera 20:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s a joke category then why does it matter? In fact it’s a sub category of CWP Dronebogus (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason to delete it, "joke" categories shouldn't exist outside WP:APRIL. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I just don't see it. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a parent category (not for images) per comments below. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is some information in this categorization worth retaining, but it should probably be much more explicit, potentially spoiling it for the user of the category.

Possibly some "non-spoiling" category could be kept as well. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjective. One person's slowly dawning realisation that Glasgow's Duke of Wellington statue has a traffic cone on its head is another's statement of the mundanely obvious. If this is essentially a single user's collection of funny things that they didn't notice immediately (it was created and mostly or entirely populated by User:Dronebogus?), it should be a gallery userpage, or some Reddit posts. Even as a fun page to read, it doesn't really work as a category where the filenames (File:Joos van Winghe (Attr) - An amorous couple in an interior with a tortoise.jpg, File:Bloemen Camp scene with urinating horse.jpg) give away the joke before you've looked at the image. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in a quiz, the image should be displayed without explicit filename or categories. I don't think reddit or userspace are good options. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace is very well suited for a single user's collection of some images that they were amused by, and where the joke is spoiled by seeing the filename in advance. Something like User:Soap/animal gallery or User:Matthias Süßen/London. I don't believe there's any way (short of renaming the files) to avoid the joke being spoiled in the category view. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other people could participate if we are clear about the criteria. Categories can be used for retrieving, without actually using it to display the quiz. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete What is this even supposed to be?? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Huh? Totally pointless category. Just delete it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is this still here? --Mormegil (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know, I thought this was deleted years ago. It was just some nonsense I made up for fun and I really don’t care anymore Dronebogus (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: not useful in its current state. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/08/Category:Commons' weirdest photographs. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Females featuring armpits

This category is a disparagement of women, especially the categorized female athletes. Stepro (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro: So what do you think should be done? Delete the category? Merge it into Category:Female armpits? I would favor merging because I don't see any difference between the two. I do think it would be good to segregate the nude and partially nude images into a subcategory, though, so that people aren't confronted with them unexpectedly. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete both. I don't see any encyclopedic, educational, or documentary use in this nonsense category. Commons isn't here to cater to any fetishes. Stepro (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no problem, just a problem of interpretation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoWings: Please be specific: what interpretation issue do you see? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a "disparagement of women" is a question of interpretation. But we should create Category:Males featuring armpits to prevent such loose reading. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question I described why I don't think that this category should be on Commons. The only "argument" for keeping is my "misinterpretation". So please describe the purpose for this category on Commons. --Stepro (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepro: You speak about "disparagement" so tell us why it's disparagement. Objectively it's not, it just describes what it is. But it may be possible to replace "featuring" by another term if that is the problem.

The purpose is to separate close-up photographs of armpits and photos where we see a woman with visible armpits (e.g. with hands up in the air). What's the problem with that?

But I see you've got a problem with Category:Female armpits too and you talk about fetishes! Apparently you have two problems: 1) You see that as fetishes while it's just a way to categorize pictures about body parts ; 2) Even if it's fetishes, there's no problem with that, Commons isn't censored and can propose many subjects, includint fetishes. Apparently you don't seem to understand Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it exists, there's porn of it, is a well known phrase. One could expand it to, there's a fetish about it. There's nothing wrong with fetishes. But Commons is a pool of media with enzyclopedic value, that's the scope. Enzyclopedic in the sense of Wikipedia, not as an enzyclopedia of/for porn and fertishes. At least that's what I thought as a contributor since the beginning of this project. Fetishes may be the object of description, but we are not here to collect and provide - and categorize - images for fetishists. At least I can see no other purpose of this category. "it just describes what it is" and "it's just a way to categorize pictures about body parts" are just excuses.
Another aspect, and I think that's where Stepro is coming from like myself, is that we, the photographers, have an obligation towards the people we take pictures of. For example we don't upload bad pictures (grimaces, Paparazzi shots etc.). I'd have a hard time explaining to one of the sportspeople or artists I photograph if they'd ask me why my pictures of them are categorized to please fetishists (on the other hand I have already stopped uploading some kinds of pictures to Commons because of the again and again disrespectful treatment of the picures respectively the people depicted).
If we delete it the free knowledge that's at the core of all our Wiki projects won't be harmed. --Tsui (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoWings: You have now written again what you think I'm misinterpreting and that I wouldn't understand Commons - which I btw. consider it quite cheeky. However, you still haven't spelled out the encyclopedic, educational, or documentary purpose of this category. Stepro (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No effort from you. I won't continue to argue with such a person. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro, @TwoWings - There is only one purpose required for a category: That there be files which depict the topic represented by the category for which the category is useful to users who are seeking depictions of the given topic. It is the files which must meet the educational threshold to be hosted on Commons. If they are here, then it is automatically justified to have categories for them. If the files do not meet our guidelines, they should be deleted and the category will then necessarily be deleted as well. Josh (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but what do you answer, to the complaint that it is the category, that takes the image out of the educational context it was intended for? Should the image be deleted, because the category it is beeing misused in should be deleted? Wuselig (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category is just one example of many on Commons in which people, particularly women, but also images of naked men, are categorized at a level of detail and emphasis on some physical aspect that on the one hand is only derogatory to the pictured person (I had to Remove pictures of me from the "Overweight Man" category already, I don't see it and I refuse to be categorized that way!). The emphasis on certain physical features or the incredibly detailed sorting of nudity - both are more reminiscent of fetishes than of factual sorting - contradict our own requirement to respect personal rights. In view of how negative the attitude towards pubic hair is in many societies - whether on the genitals or under the arms - such categories can only be understood as negative categories. Or as a gathering point for a fetish. Neither is the point of commons.

As photographers of people, we also have a duty to ensure that these people are not degraded to fetish objects. Just as I will not accept, for example, that pictures of women playing beach sports (beach volleyball, beach handball) that I took pictures of will end up in sexualized categories. It has to do with respect, but also with the fact that we otherwise make ourselves look ridiculous outside of the wiki projects, but also have to reckon with the consequences. After all, which organizers will still want to accredit us when they realize what's going on here in terms of degrading people?Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Tsui and @Marcus Cyron, that's exactly the problem I see. The so categorized sports women are not featuring their armpits, but they do their sports competitions. To put their pictures in this category is in my opinion a) very disrespectful und b) sexism. Stepro (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are photographs that shouldn't be on Commons, the approach should be to list them for deletion rather than attempting to disparage people who categorize them. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, you are in the complete false discussion. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is so nonsensical that I have no words. Stepro (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are images that shouldn't have been uploaded as they show body parts that shouldn't be visible, than one should list them for deletion, that's all. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikimedia Commons is not censored, except as required by law, I don't think there are any body parts that shouldn't be visible in and of themselves, at least from a Commons point of view. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the photos are not the problem, only the categorization. There is a huge difference whether, for example, photos of women are showing also their breasts (of course they do), or whether a category claims that they present them - what they don't.

It is frightening that this apparent difference has yet to be explained at great length. --Stepro (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's like talking to a wall. You don't want to understand (or you only pretend not to understand). The problem are not the images. The proble is the categorization. For example a sportswoman has not to be categorized under "Females featuring armpits", "Females wearing bikinis" or something like that. The main subject and the main focus is sport, is a sportsperson. Not armpits. To reduce or to focus on such a detail is disgracing. It seems, some people here really want a shitstorm here. Or a Commons #metoo, where sexualized sportwomen tell the public, how Wikimedians on Commons treat them. Or men, as I told yesterday, also in the men's cat system there's a lot wrong and there's much sexualisation. Beginning with the standard image for Category:Nude males. Nude males are symbolized by a male torso with a full errect penis? What the hell is wring with this project? Some people here really should check their priorities.

To accuse censorship, even though nobody wants to delete such pictures, also speaks for itself. Apart from the fact that many have not understood what censorship is (Commons cannot censor, we are not an authority), we restrict various things anyway. Advertising, private pictures, ironically human nudity in photography, inflammatory propaganda, violations of rights at least in democracies, and a few other things. Not allowing every crap is a must, internal project hygiene. And that also applies to disparaging or off-topic categorizations. Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The obcenity is not in the image, but in the labeling of the image in a context that has nothing to do with the person depicted. We are violating personal rights by putting these images into unfitting categories. In my opinion we should create some kind of mechanism on Commons that allows uploaders and users to block certain categories for specific images even in retrospect. I know there are people who will want to find certain images with certain features and as as tolerant person I am not going to judge their intentions. But in my opinion their right to find such images to please their pleasure should not outweigh the right of the depicted persons to become the target of such pleasures. As long as we do not have such a mechanism we should delete Categories like this one, that pretend something the depicted persons didn't do. In this case "feature" something! Wuselig (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an educational category, not useful --Kritzolina (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just found files in the uncreated category Category:Males featuring armpits, so I created the category. Whatever is done with the female category under discussion should probably be done with the male one as well. --

Delete Useless duplicate of Category:Female armpits. Furthermore, I believe that the criteria for inclusion for Category:Female armpits should be made stricter. Only pictures where the armpit is clearly the main focus of the image, and its inclusion is not incidental, should be allowed in that category. I believe that illustrations of female armpits might be educationally useful, for example, for people studying anatomy, but only if the illustration was intentionally created for the express purpose of illustrating female anatomy. All female humans have armpits, and because of this, female armpits are likely to incidentally end up even in photographs that weren't originally intented for the purpose of illustrating the concept of armpits. Such pictures are poorly suited for the task of illustrating the concept of female armpits, and do not belong to Category:Female armpits or any of its possible subcategories. Chiolite (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for Category:Males featuring armpits and its parent category Category:Male armpits, I believe this exactly same argument applies.

Delete Category:Males featuring armpits as an unnecessary duplicate, and remove all of the "incidental" pictures from Category:Male armpits for not being actually useful for illustrating male anatomy. Chiolite (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For contrast, also check out Category:Female hands and Category:Male hands. Neither of these two categories have a "featuring hands" subcategory, and both of them mostly include pictures where the hands are the main subject and which clearly were intentionally created for the purpose of illustrating the concept of hands. I see no reason why armpits should be treated differently on Commons. In fact, it would seem that Category:Females featuring armpits and Category:Males featuring armpits are, at the moment, the only "People featuring body parts" categories in Commons. Chiolite (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for User:Stepro's original claim implied claim that the category contains pornography, a claim they later made explicitly, sorry Stepro, I looked at the images, and I did not see porn. I saw images of hardworking athletes and entertainers doing their jobs. I think there is an old joke that illustrates why the underlying issue here is your subjective interpretation.



highly relevant joke, about a psychiatrist assessing a new patient using the inkblot test



A psychiatrist explains to the new patient that, as part of reaching their initial diagnosis they are going to administer some standard diagnostic tests, starting with showing some inkblots, and then asking the patient what he sees.
The doctor starts showing the patient inkblots, and the patient calmly says: "Well, that first one?  That is a man and woman fucking on a picnic blanket.  That second one, shows a man and woman fucking in a canoe.  This next one shows a man and woman fucking on a porch swing.  The next one shows a man and woman fucking on the kitchen table...
At this point the doctor puts down the inkblots, and says, "Normally, I don't make a diagnosis until all the tests are complete.  But, in your case, I think it is already clear...  You are obsessed with sex."
At this the patient gets mad!  "Jesus Christ Doc!  I didn't come here to be insulted!  I can't believe you said that to me!  After all, they are your pictures!'"

Sorry Stepro, but I think you are seeing a pornography problem others of us don't recognize. Did you consider simply going through the images in the category, picking out those which you think clearly and unambiguously, to use your term, "disparage women"? You could then initiate a request to delete the small fraction of these images that you regard as a genuine problem. But, if you can't do that, or if you try that, and those discussions close with images being kept, then I think it would be clear those images should be categorized.

User:Marcus Cyron seems to claim there is a problem with "sexualized [images of] sportwomen". As per the point made in the joke, isn't this an issue within the perceiver, not with the images themselves?

Over a decade ago I took a dip into the long, ongoing battle, as to how many images related to human sexuality the commons should contain. Some participants in that battle are only prepared to agree to a very limited number. For other participants that limited number is zero.

I spent half an hour trying to figure out how many images there were in the subcategories for flowers - the sexual organs of flowering plants. Because some images of flowers were in multiple categories, I found it hard to give precise guess. But, at that time, there were at the very least tens of thousands of images that showed the sexual organs of plants, vastly outnumbering the number of images we had that showed the sexual organs of people. In my opinion it would be completely appropriate for the commons to have as many images that showed the sexual organs of humans as we had images showing the sexual organs of plants.

Why would it be useful, "in scope", to have categories that "feature" armpits? I invite people to use their imagination. Earth's population is what now? Something like 8 billion? And how many of those 8 billion are children? If you were a child, just going through puberty, who was growing up in a culture with hangups, so you had never seen an armpit with armpit hair, or the only time you saw armpit hair was when you glimpsed your disgusting older brother or older sister, after they took a shower, you could worry that this armpit hair made you a freak of nature. images featuring armpits, or even a commons category whose title said it featured armpit hair, could be highly useful to you, so you could reassure yourself the hair was normal, and you were not a freak.

There are probably at least 100 million children who find their bodies suddenly sprouted unexpected hair in their armpits, and elsewhere, who benefit from images that showed armpit hair was natural.

So, no, I do not agree at all with Stepro's censorship efforts. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never written anything about pornography, and I have no problem with it.

This is about disrespect for women, especially female athletes.

I will no longer comment on posts at this abysmal level. Stepro (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not to understand, that a sexual reduction of women (and of course of men too) to their body parts has really nothing to do with "There are probably at least 100 million children who find their bodies suddenly sprouted unexpected hair in their armpits, and elsewhere, who benefit from images that showed armpit hair was natural" is not my problem. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople lifting their arms on the finishing line or throwing balls are not featuring their armpits. This is the misinterpretation. --Ailura (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro, Auntof6, Ailura, Geo Swan, TwoWings, and Marcus Cyron:

It has been a couple of years now for this one, and I would like to resolve this CfD. It seems that the discussion of whether or not this category is disparaging to women has derailed us from the simple question of whether we should upmerge this category Category:Females featuring armpits into Category:Armpits of female humans. Perhaps we can resolve this without accusations of other users' intentions, and simply focus on whether or not this category is redundant on objective grounds.

I would support such an upmerge. I presume that Females featuring armpits is meaning files depicting female humans with their armpit(s) visibly depicted in the photo (or other medium). This is no different than the scope of Armpits of female humans which depict the armpit(s) of female humans visibly in the photo (or other medium). Thus with no distinction from the parent category, this category should be deleted and its contents moved to Category:Armpits of female humans. Josh (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also added this CfD tag to cover Category:Males featuring armpits, as I believe whatever is decided should probably apply to both female and male categories. As such I would support upmerging Category:Males featuring armpits into Category:Armpits of male humans. Josh (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, thank you so much for taking on this decision!

Looking back, one question remains unanswered for me: what is this category even good for? Everyone has armpits, and so armpits are depicted in almost every photo of a person. I have asked several times in this now long discussion what encyclopaedic, educational or other purpose such a category could have in the context of our scope. Unfortunately, I have only received insults, but no factual answers. “We categorize it because it can be categorized” is not an argument for keeping it, at least for me. So my initial question is still open to me. I still see no reason for such a category, whatever you want to name it. Stepro (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro, unfortunately I've seen such behavior derail or delay many an earnest discussion. As to your question, I would only say that I think it is well established to categorize images of humanity based on a general educational aspect of learning about the human body and depicting the myriad of different ways the human body can manifest, both in a physical or biological way as well as in cultural and social contexts. I think it is for this reason why further diffusion by age and gender is warranted, as these elements inform those previously mentioned baseline concepts. I of course agree with you that we shouldn't categorize 'just because we can', but an educational basis, even if it is very niche and not realized by a significant number of users, should be sufficient to overcome this bar. I also get that some users may have non-educational uses for the files, but this is outside of our control and should not influence our categorization scheme.

However, just to fully understand your comment, if it is demonstrated these categories do not serve a sufficient purpose, it would sound like you are proposing deletion of all of these categories: Female humans featuring armpits, Males featuring armpits, Armpits of female humans, and Armpits of male humans (not to mention other similarly constituted categories). Is this a correct assessment of your position? Josh (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro, you wrote "I have asked several times in this now long discussion what encyclopaedic, educational or other purpose such a category could have..."
Bzzzt.
Something prevented you from reading and understanding the clear good faith answers of people like myself. You called this comment of mine "abysmal".

Pre-pubescent human females do not have hair in their armpits.
Hundreds of millions of pre-pubescent human females live in regions where they do not receive meaningful sex education, and where every adult woman they know secretly shaves her armpits.
Going through puberty can be very emotionally disruptive, particularly for those children who are unlucky enough to live somewhere where they do not receive meaningful sex education.
As a service for those young readers it is essential we help them find images of female armpits, so they don't fear they are freaky mutants when they unexpectedly start sprouting hair in their armpits when they go through puberty.

Stepro, I think that, although you are an experienced contributor, you made a very common newbie mistake... well, actually, several common newbie mistakes.

You assumed that a notion that seemed obvious to you was so obvious it did not require explanation, and you initiated a discussion that was deeply flawed because you didn't explain your reasoning.
When good faith people asked civil reasonable questions, rather than make a belated attempt to explain yourself more clearly, you chose to interpret their good faith question as insults.

If you are going to continue to participate in discussions I am going to encourage you to make a greater effort to try to read and understand the good faith replies left for you.

I am going to particularly encourage you to be careful, if you ever initiate any more deletion discussions, to make a much better effort to explain your reasoning. This is an international project. Contributors come from all kinds of backgrounds and cultures, and it is mistake for you to expect everyone else to share the values you accepted from your cultural upbringing as too obvious to require explanation as too obvious to require explanation.

I am prepared to live in mystery as to why you believe categories like this disparage women

I am not wedded to any particular category name, so long as their are categories that aid good faith users of the commons to find the images they need that fit within the commons scope. Geo Swan (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro and Joshbaumgartner:

Merge Category:Female humans featuring armpits and Category:Males featuring armpits to Category:Armpits of female humans and Category:Armpits of male humans respectively. I have no problems of categorizing media under Category:Armpits, as long as the subject is clearly visible.

Everyone has armpits, and so armpits are depicted in almost every photo of a person.

In this case, I prefer categorizing media showing either topless people or people wearing sleeveless clothing, as armpits would be more visible in these cases. Also, one or two of the arms should be raised for better visibility of armpits. These are some of the rough guidelines for categorizing media under Category:Armpits. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know why Category:Human armpits redirects to Category:Armpits, since other animals can also have armpits. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I certainly agree that the subject must be depicted for media to be categorized under a topic. In this case, that is a reason why I think the parent category Armpits of female humans is superior to Female humans featuring armpits, in that in the former, the topic is "armpits" with the criteria being that they be of "female humans", while in the later, the topic is "female humans" with the criteria that they are "featuring armpits". As stated, pretty much everyone has armpits, so in ultimate inanity, in the later, one could find someone categorizing Michelle Obama under Female humans featuring armpits on the grounds that she does indeed have them. I don't think any of us want that! In Armpits of female humans, it is more clear that the subject is the armpits themselves, so if one cannot clearly see them in the image, it does not belong. There is certainly a Commons-wide question on just exactly how prominent a subject must be in an image to warrant categorization, but that is a bigger issue than this CfD. I'm certainly not arguing that all current contents of this category really do belong here, I've seen a few questionable ones at least.

As for the question of Human armpits vs. Armpits: The current Armpits is described as a strictly human feature. I'm not sure if this is strictly correct, or if the term armpits is also used in biology to refer to non-human anatomy as well. I don't see any media in Armpits that depicts non-human armpits. If you are correct that other animals have armpits, but we just don't have any identified images of such, perhaps we should reverse the redirect and the main category should become Human armpits. When other species' armpit images are identified, Armpits can become the parent at that point for those images along with Human armpits. However, until we actually identify these, it seems rather an academic question at this point. Josh (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner Thank you for reply. As said before, the minimum criteria for categorizing a file under Category:Armpits should be as follows:

At least one person depicted in the file is either topless or wearing sleeveless clothing, as armpits are visible in this case.
One or two arms of at least one person is raised.

If the armpits are covered by clothing, the file is not eligible for Category:Armpits. I've provided an example of it below. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 So in other words, there must be an armpit depicted for the file to be categorized in Armpits. Isn't that the standard rule for every media category on Commons? Josh (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Anastasiia Hotfrid Rio2016.jpg is categorized under Category:Armpits of female humans, but the armpit is not really visible, since the female in the photo is wearing half-sleeve clothing. On the other hand, 2018-10-11 Snatch (Weightlifting Girls' 58kg) at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics by Sandro Halank–038.jpg is also categorized under Category:Armpits of female humans and the armpit is clearly visible, since the female in the photo is wearing sleeveless clothing. I think the armpit should be clearly visible to merit categorization. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I certainly agree with your example. It is not the only one. However, step one is defining the category, and only after that can we really start policing the contents. Josh (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: After going through the subcats of Category:Clothed people, I found that both clothed and bare armpits can be covered in the Category:Armpits category. Since we have both Category:Bare human buttocks and Category:Clothed human buttocks, we can also have Category:Bare armpits and Category:Clothed armpits. This way, we can keep bare armpits separate from armpits covered by clothing. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRT viewers with fetishes...

Some contributors here seem to be saying something like "People with fetishes embarrass me. When we have categories that are useful to people with fetishes we should delete those categories."

I think that goes way too far. Categories that serve people with fetishes, that are not in scope, should be deleted. However, when a category is in scope the assumption that the category might also be helpful to people with fetishes should be irrelevant. But, since we should always delete categories that are not in scope, the fact that they are useful to people with fetishes is irrelevant.

While I am not an expert on the psychology of fetishes, I think we need to recognize that people can acquire fetishes on items that most of us consider pretty mundane.

Shoes, and bare feet, are good examples. The fact that there are people who have fetishes over images of bare feet would be a terrible reason to delete images of bare feet, or to delete categories of images of bare feet.

For centuries there was a practice, in Imperial China, of binding the feet of female children, so that when they grew up they had very tiny feet. Those tiny feet were deformed, their function was impaired, and they required extra care. This was not a harmless fetish, so I am relieved it seems to have completely died out. However, even if it had not died out, I think images of deformed bound feet would be in scope, even if the viewers of those images included people with that fetish, over and above those viewing them for reasons we would consider in scope.

Do some of us live in cultures where there is a fetish for high-heeled shoes for women - shoes that hurt women's feet, and impair their ability to walk, while being worn? I think the answer to that is "yes". That is not a reason to delete images of women wearing high-heeled shoes, or the categories for high-heeled shoes. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a tolerant person, and therefore I don't look down on people with fetishes. And if we think we need images that cater these images that is fine with me. But what I do object is if people who have nothing to do with these fetishes, and have no intention of being object of these fetishes are involuntarily made object of such fetishes. That is against their personality rights. And that is the point that Stepro made above. He is a sports photographer who wants to make good sport photography. To do so he also needs the trust of the sports people he photographs. He will loose this trust, if the sportspersons he photographs find themselves displayed in contexts they don't want to be seen in. They are sportspersons and not fetish-models. Wuselig (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation of Stepro's concerns. Perhaps they could return here and confirm or refute if this is what really concerned them.

Often when contributors say something like, "I can't imagine a legitimate use for this image, this article..." all they are revealing is, well, a failure of imagination.

I suggested that aiding girls on the brink of puberty in privately confirming the hair they see growing in their armpits does not make them a freak. I am confident I established the images, and the category, is in scope.

I don't see anyone offering me a serious counter-argument.

People get fetishes about less private things than armpits -- like shoes. I asserted we shouldn't start deleting images or categories about mundane things, based solely on notions people with fetishes are using them -- when those images and categories are in scope. Were you planning on offering a counter-argument to this suggestion?
WRT "Personality rights"...

Yes, I took a brief look at User:Stepro, and saw they uploaded a lot of images of sports figures.

I think you are claiming Stepro can't upload images of sports figures if they worry that a very small number of people won't be using those images for in SCOPE purposes, but will instead fetishize them.

I think you are claiming Stepro would be happy uploading the same images, images that a very small number of people might fetishize, providing those inclined to fetishize them had to work harder to find them. Is that what you meant?

I suggest that having people admire your body, or parts of your body, is an occupational hazard of being a sports figure. I think it would be unreasonable of the sports figures Stepro photographs to expect that Stepro could guarantee no one with a fetish would ever admire their armpits.

About 15 years ago I started a wikipedia article on a Native American polymath, Dawn Dumont. She was a lawyer, actor, writer, stand-up comic. I started to really admire her, as I worked on her article. We had a couple of images of her, and I used one of those to illustrate the article.

Ms Dumont didn't like the freely re-usable images we had of her. She uploaded her favourite selfie, and edited the article to use it, instead. She did not, however, release her favourite selfie under a free license, so it was deleted after seven days, just like every other improperly licensed image.

So, then she went to en.wiki's help page, where she said she wanted the article about her to be deleted, because she thought she was entitled to have sole control of her public image.

My feelings were hurt. I considered, nevertheless, trying to guide her through the process of requesting courtesy deletion of the Dawn Dumont article. I considered trying to explain to her that, since she had performed in public, published books, she was a public figure, and could not expect to control her public image. This is why wealthy public figures hire publicists. However, I realized that, since I was the sole contributor to the article, I could request speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7.

Public figures, like the sports figures Stepro likes to photograph, don't control, can't expect to have sole control, over their public images.

So, Wuselig, are you suggesting that the "personality rights" of these sports figures are more than mere courtesies, that they have available to them some kind of legal recourse through which they can have a court require the deletion of properly licensed images of themselves, if they were concerned those images were being viewed by a small number of people with a fetish?

I personally think the {{Personality rights}} tag should be deprecated.

I personally think the {{Personality rights}} tag should be deprecated.

When I looked at it I found some people think it should be slapped on every image that contains human beings. They don't seem to realize that this would mean slapping it on something half our images. I object to this for several reasons, including, it would require squandering hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer time, that would be better spent on more important tasks. Second, if the tag was on half our images regular users of the wikimedia commons would have learned to just tune it out, and ignore it.

I've also discussed the utility of the personality rights tag with people who use it much more selectively. One guy told me he only applied the tag to sexually charged images where he thought there was some reason to wonder if the models had actually given their consent. Second, he applied the tag to images of children.

The Donald Trump Campaign recently photo-shopped images of very popular singer Taylor Swift, putting a Donald Trump hat on her head, and having her wear other Trump paraphrenalia, implying she supported the Trump campaign. That was deeply unethical, particularly since she has publicly spoken against him. We may find it is illegal too, if she takes him to court.

The tiny grain of value in the personality rights tag seems to warn people not to pull stunts like that pulled by the Trump campaign. But is that a useful warning? Sensible, honest people don't require a warning not to pull stunts like that. Insensible, dishonest people will pull stunts like that, even if they are warned not to. So, the warning is pointless.

Most of our images are free because they were released under a free license, like cc2.0sa. The conditions re-users have to comply by are in the license. We don't redundantly add instructions for people who re-use cc2.0sa images that they have to link to the original source, when they re-use the image. We don't tell them they have to explicitly link to the cc2.0sa license page. Similarly, I don't think we should explicitly warn our re-users not to break the law by stating or implying the person whose image they are re-using endorses a position they don't endorse. Geo Swan (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuselig, I mentioned Taylor Swift, above. I suggest that, in addition to a small number of admirers with fetishes who admire her, she is admired by a very large number of vanilla heterosexual admirers. Agreed?

I suggest it is not only female athletes who can't reasonably expect to control which of their admirers get to admire them. Taylor Swift doesn't get to control what her vanilla heterosexual admirers admire.

Consider an ordinary woman, attending her 20th high school re-union. Is she going to welcome the guys she dated in high school coming up to her, and telling her she is as attractive as she was 20 years previously? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she is only going to appreciate compliments from the guys she now thinks were nice guys. Or consider the woman had been a forgotten wallflower, an ugly duckling, in high school, who blossomed into a Swan, in College? Might she welcome compliments from everyone in her year?

I won't claim to know how often women welcome the admiration of all their admirers.

I will assert that not being able to control the images their admirers admire is not just limited to female sports figures. I will assert that no woman, who is a public figure, can fully control how they are admired.

Wuselig, can you explain how female sports figures merit altering our policies to protect their feelings, in ways we can't offer to other women? Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously a person of many words. I am not going to go into every detail of these. I just want to point out one detail in the name of the category which is "featuring". Featuring means voluntarily exhibiting (in other senses also producing) something. So if you look at the female humans in this category, there are some that are volunarily posing in ways that would permit the use of the term "featuring". And there others that are caught in the act of doing something where they are accidently, or just momentarily caught in the moment of doing something very different. They are clearly not featuring their armpits, they just show in this particular moment.

As regards to the {{Personality rights}} Template, I believe it is one of the most important templates here on Commons in regards of depictions of human beings. It protects individuals in accordance with Articles 1 and 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that their dignity will not be violated. And that means that an image here on Commons will not be allowed to be used out of context either within our Wikimedia Projects, nor outside of them. Wuselig (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 to Wuselig, he got to the heart of the matter. We have to respect personal rights on Wikimedia Commons, whether you like it or not. Stepro (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro, @Wuselig, I think there is a problem here. I am not saying this to be offensive, but, it seems to me that you do not recognize the concern you voiced here is, well, a very fringe concern. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you are asking for extraordinary protections, without making the effort to make extraordinary arguments to justify those extraordinary protections.

@Stepro, clarification, you seem to be saying you are calling for the deletion of any category whose name includes the word "armpit", and also includes the word "woman" or "female", even when that category is clearly in scope and is otherwise policy compliant.

I don't think you can ask the rest of us to agree to that, just to keep you happy.

@Stepro, you approach female sports figures, and explicitly request their permission to take their pictures. When you do so, do you promise them something like "I assure you, when I upload your image to the commons, no creepy fetishist will ever get sexual gratification from that image"? I don't think you can make censorship promises like that.

Your concern triggered me to do some web searches. I can confirm, to everyone else, people do have armpit fetishes, people do talk about armpit fetishes. There is even a specific technical name for this fetish. I saw that fit, beautiful actress Jeffifer Lawrence once commented that she hadn't worn a particular red carpet outfit to excite those interested in "armpit vaginas". Yew.

My web searches also confirmed more mundane body parts for which there were fetishes people talked about... including navels, elbowss, knees, ears.

@Stepro, I want you to think of a sound bite first uttered about 50 years ago, by Pierre Trudeau, before he was Prime Minister of Canada, he was Canada's Minister of Justice. As Minister of Justice he introduced legislation decriminilazing sexual activities that, in 2024, are widely accepted. Fifty years ago, and earlier, all kinds of sexual activity was subject to draconian punishments.

Trudeau said "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

In 2024 sexual assault is a criminal offense. Sexual touching that doesn't measure up to sexual assault is an offense. Depending where one lives, people are protected against being the target of unwanted sexualized comments. Leering at people is not a criminal offense, but is treated as socially unacceptable, in most parts of the world...

I suggest, however, that neither the state, or WMF projects, should try to control how otherwise law-abiding people think about their own personal sexuality. @Stepro, if you want to promise the female sports figures you photograph that no one will ever think about them in a sexual context, isn't that what you are trying to do? Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to deal with endless texts in which words are twisted around my mouth and completely abstruse accusations are made. Everything necessary has been said. Stepro (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stepro, you initiated this discussion, but you never explained your reasoning clearly.

You have gotten angry when people have made reasonable, civil requests for you to explain your reasoning more fully and clearly.

In general, if you are unable to explain yourself, or you are unwilling to fully explain yourself, I suggest you simply refrain from initiating deletion discussions. The first weakness of this deletion discussion is that you believe your reasoning is too obvious to require explanation. The assumptions you seem to think are too obvious to require explanation are, IMO, not only not obvious, they are incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Period. End. Stepro (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he did, and all who voted to delete this category understood him very well! Have you ever considered, that you are walking down the wrong path?--Wuselig (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, you are a person of many words. Also using the plural when stating your arguments, you also try to assert that "you" represent many. You do not win arguments by verbal diarrhea, or as we say in German "totlabern" (jabber to exhaust till extinction). So I will not add any more unnecessary words, but just my descission in this matter, which shouldn't surprise you:

Delete Wuselig (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Merge Category:Female humans featuring armpits to Category:Armpits of female humans. Merge Category:Males featuring armpits to Category:Armpits of male humans. Make the criteria of Category:Armpits stricter.
Participants	Stepro (talk · contribs) Auntof6 (talk · contribs) TwoWings (talk · contribs) Tsui (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs) Marcus Cyron (talk · contribs) Kritzolina (talk · contribs) Wuselig (talk · contribs) Geo Swan (talk · contribs) Enhancing999 (talk · contribs) @Chiolite:
Notes	Although Stepro nominated this category as a "disparagement" for women, especially female athletes, the rationale for many of the delete !votes (excluding mine) is that it is redundant to Category:Armpits of female humans (previously Category:Female armpits). Only two users (TwoWings, Geo Swan) have defended this category (and its male equivalent), but their arguments are not deemed convincing in light of this discussion. There's also a consensus to make the criteria of Category:Armpits and its subcats stricter, which I'll compose soon.
Closed by	Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC) (involved closure)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/08

Flags with crosses (various categories)

Navigation menu

Search