Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/06

for active discussions dating from June 2023, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/06.

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Categories for discussion.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive June 2023

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

Category:Antropólogo y Etnohistoriador

Please delete this idiocy. Nonsense Spanish terminology invading and corrupting Commons. 186.172.10.216 13:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antropólogo y Etnohistoriador	Merge into	Category:Anthropologists
These are anthropologists, and if ethno-history is a subfield it can be created with the correct English name and properly sorted contents.
Josh (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Merge Category:Antropólogo y Etnohistoriador into Category:Anthropologists
Participants
Closed by	Josh (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rotonde, Zandvoort

This seems to be a misnoming for the "square" (it is an urban square but with a roundabout) named "Raadhuisplein" in Zandvoort, NH, NL. The square has an appropiately named category [;;Category:Raadhuisplein, Zandvoort]. Furthermore, there are several other roundabouts/rotondes in this village/town. Paulbe (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Move the files of Category:Rotonde, Zandvoort to Category:Raadhuisplein, Zandvoort, since both categories are about the same square; give Category:Rotonde, Zandvoort a redirect. JopkeB (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Merge Category:Rotonde, Zandvoort into Category:Raadhuisplein, Zandvoort and give the first one a redirect; Done by User:ReneeWrites
Participants	Paulbe (talk · contribs) ReneeWrites (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Geography of the province of Granada, Spain

Empty duplicated category of Category:Geography_of_the_province_of_Granada —Ismael Olea (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I made a mistake there. The category can be deleted from my point of view. Sorry and greetings --Tschubby (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as Province of Granada is the main cat name. Josh (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete of Category:Geography of the province of Granada, Spain
Participants	Olea (talk · contribs) Tschubby (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Woman of Japan

i think this should be redirected to women of japan. RZuo (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Move files and subcategory to Category:Women of Japan (already exists) and make a redirect. JopkeB (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per category naming policy (use plural form). Josh (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Merge Category:Woman of Japan into Category:Women of Japan
Participants	RZuo (talk · contribs) JopkeB (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Retail processes and techniques

What is this category about? What would be a good definition/description? Why should this category exists? Now it looks like a receptacle of subcategories that have already good other parent categories. What is the value of it in Commons? That there is a category with the same name in the EN-WP is not a good reason. JopkeB (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i think many of these contents can go directly into Category:Retail. RZuo (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Not sure that this doesn't warrant a separation. Techniques is distinct from Activities at large, and thus Retail techniques would seem to be a valid sub-cat of the general topic Retail. That said, the current name is flawed, so I would rename the category. I'm sure there is a challenge in sorting this kind of stuff out if one is not expert on the topic, but I don't think just upmerging because we lack that clarity and it obviously needs attention is necessarily the correct remedy. For now, I would:

Keep the two separate,
Rename Category:Retail processes and techniques to Category:Retail techniques
Add a basic definition to each:

Category:Retail - broad economic activity
Category:Retail techniques - specific skills, methods, and processes used to conduct retail.

Examples of things that belong in Retail but not Retail techniques would be salespeople (people involved in retail), stores (locations/structures used for retail), display racks (objects used in retail), brochures (works related to retail), and such. Josh (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Josh for your thoughts. I like your thorough approach, but in this case I would like to:

Look which current subcategories in Category:Retail processes and techniques fit (better) into other, related categories; I think they were gathered from other categories, no matter wether they are indeed about processes or techniques and no matter whether they have other parent categories that are good enough or perhaps even better. Some might fit better in Category:Retail by type, like Category:Showrooms (marketing location)‎ and Category:Self checkout (in Category:Self service‎, which is a subcat of Retail by type). I think there might be some overcategorization as well.
See which subcategories then remain, if any, and decide what (new or existant) parent categories they should have. If we then agree that we should have one or two (new) categories about retail processes and/or retail techniques, we can think of:
1. Category:Retail processes, for instance for purchasing (including assortment management), storage/warehousing, displaying, promoting, selling, delivery and aftersale (like complaint handling and services).
2. Category:Retail methods. For me the word "techniques" is too vague and not appropriate for social sciences (like economics and marketing), though many people use this word in the context of these disciplines (for this reason I would like to rename Category:Selling techniques and Category:Project management techniques as well, but that is for other discussions). I'd rather use "methods", "types" or "tools" (or "tricks", but that is not neutral enough for Commons). I think retail methods are closely related to the retail processes, like Category:Selling techniques. And perhaps therefor we not even need this second one and can bring them all into Retail processes.

JopkeB (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: I like what you put down there, but following it up, I realized something that I didn't look at before my earlier comment either, and which complicates implementation.

Techniques and Processes are recognized topics on Commons, but Methods are just a redirect to Processes. So what, right? Well I have to agree, I don't see an inherent difference between 'method' and 'process'. If I asked two people, 'what are purchasing, warehousing, displaying, promoting, delivering of retail sales?', and one person answered 'retail methods' and the other 'retail processes' and maybe even a third says 'retail techniques', I would probably have to admit that they all answered correctly.

I originally landed on "retail techniques" because 'techniques' are 'skills, methods, and processes applied to an objective'. That is not really vague, but it is broad, I'll give you that. However, if methods = processes, then 'skills' is the only other part of 'techniques', and I'm not sure we have any files specifically depicting retail 'skills' that aren't just depicting the activities those skills apply to, so nothing to worry about there. That leaves the only part of 'techniques' we actually need a category for being 'processes'. So, I am totally fine with going with "retail processes" instead of "retail techniques". I think I see where you were going with the 'methods' category, and I think you can flesh that out with subs of "retail processes". I don't think having 'methods' and 'processes' be two parallel topics would work though, as those really are quite synonymous and any division would have to be a bit artificial in that case. Do you think it would be okay to just do a rename to Category:Retail processes for now? If going forward with the work, we discover there really are some files that 'methods' works for, but really don't belong under 'processes', we can revisit that. I would think if that were discovered, we should also look at Category:Methods and consider if the redirect is appropriate or if it really should be its own topic. Josh (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“retail" itself is a "process". i'd suggest, try not to make additional layers of cats unless necessary. RZuo (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh: My conclusions:

Good research: I did not know that Methods redirects to Processes, so we can not use Category:Retail methods.
I have to accept that "techniques" on Commons is a well accepted concept, even for social sciences.
Category:Retail processes would be an acceptable category name if we need it. When there are files and/or subcategories about retail methods or techniques, we can store them here as well, unless we discover there really are some files that 'methods' works for, but really don't belong under 'processes', then we can revisit that.
I'll wait with renaming to Category:Retail processes untill it is clear that we do need such a category. I agree with RZuo to make only additional layers of cats if necessary.

So I stick to my proposal to first rearrange the subcategories and files in Category:Retail processes and techniques and then decide whether we need such a category at all. Do you both agree? --JopkeB (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that. Renaming is not a big impact and the current name is bad so if I were doing the work I'd rename it to a less offensive name even if there was a chance it will end up deleted at the end of the day, but I am fine with you just holding off until its more clear how you end up structuring that topic and then letting the names be whatever supports your structure. Josh (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, plz go ahead recategorising. RZuo (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	(1) Rearrange the subcategories and files in Category:Retail processes and techniques, move them to better categories if possible/needed. (2) Rename this category for the remaining subcategories to Category:Retail processes (done by Allforrous ‎but with a wrong redirect, so I fix this). Done
Participants	RZuo (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Notes	IMO there are only "process" subcategories now, no "techniques"; if ever there will be techique subcategories, Category:Retail techniques can be used (now a redirect, made by Allforrous)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum

Rename Category:Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum to Category:Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum to match actual name of the museum. See w:en:Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum for reference. Josh (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename Category:Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum to Category:Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum
Participants
Closed by	Josh (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:USS LEXINGTON Museum On The Bay

Rename Category:USS LEXINGTON Museum On The Bay to Category:USS Lexington Museum on the Bay , to use normal capitalization which comports with both its official registration and press releases. Josh (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename Category:USS LEXINGTON Museum On The Bay to Category:USS Lexington Museum on the Bay
Participants
Closed by	Josh (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Manila Bay (Mariveles, Bataan section)

Empty category, also implausible since the downtown parts of Mariveles do not lie on Manila Bay, but on an inlet of South China Sea/West Philippine Sea known as "Mariveles Bay". I suspect another implausible category created by now-blocked Judgefloro (talk · contribs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: speedily deleted as empty category. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ernst Dycke

Empty category. Will never be filled because there are no media about this author at all. Lantus (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete
Participants	Lantus (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment qualifies as speedy as empty. Can be recreated if relevant files are uploaded. Josh (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Buses in Concepcion, Chile

Please correct "Concepcion" to Concepción. Gracias. 186.172.196.27 02:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Renamed per nom. --Achim55 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jose Abad Santos Avenue (Olongapo–Gapan Road & Gapan–San Fernando–Olongapo Road)

Redundant to Category:Jose Abad Santos Avenue (Olongapo–Gapan Road). Empty category. Creation of now-blocked Judgefloro (talk · contribs), notorious for treating Commons as his personal cloud storage. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete
Participants	JWilz12345 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Empty category. Josh (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fish Kebabs

Es Kebab una palabra alemana? Por qué es capitalizada? 186.174.102.119 21:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Fish Kebabs to Category:Fish kebabs for proper capitalization. Josh (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category and It was a mistake in capitalization. It should be renamed.-- Jazze7 (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename Category:Fish Kebabs to Category:Fish kebabs
Participants	Jazze7 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fish Kebabs in India

Es Kebab una palabra alemana? Por qué es capitalizada? 186.174.102.119 21:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Fish Kebabs in India to Category:Fish kebabs in India for proper capitalization. Josh (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category and It was a mistake in capitalization. It should be renamed.-- Jazze7 (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename Category:Fish Kebabs in India to Category:Fish kebabs in India
Participants	Jazze7 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Vegan Kebabs

Es Kebab una palabra alemana? Por qué es capitalizada? 186.174.102.119 21:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cierto, lo cambié (Good point, I renamed.)- Noé (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	already done by Noé
Participants	Noé (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jeanie A. Welford,

empty cat - delete Svajcr (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete (empty)
Participants	Svajcr (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no image

No longer needed John Alsburg (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has over 800,000 uses, in what way is it 'no longer needed? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This @John Alsburg is a registered account today and this seems like a unproductive account according to its edits. Tm (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-closed as obvious nonsense-nomination. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no image

Can dates of months, like Category:1 April and Category:16 August, also be excluded from this category? I think it is rather nonsensical to have images in Wikidata infoboxes of these categories. JopkeB (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: The place to ask this would be Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike Peel! I did not know. I removed the question. And I'll close this one. JopkeB (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question has been moved to Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox#Category:Uses_of_Wikidata_Infobox_with_no_image_-_please_exclude_dates_of_months. JopkeB (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Visitor attractions in British Columbia

I propose a merge to Category:Tourist attractions in British Columbia, which is older and has links to Wikidata and several Wikipedias. Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merging is appropriate. 20 upper 09:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Maintain consistency with Category:Visitor attractions in Canada by province or territory and the overall "Visitor attractions in..." hierarchy at Category:Visitor attractions by country. However, there should be a merge from Category:Tourist attractions in British Columbia to Category:Visitor attractions in British Columbia. Mind matrix 12:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mindmatrix: and then change Wikidata accordingly? - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Yes, unless there's a reason to keep the two categories separate, which we both seem to agree that there is none. Mind matrix 19:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with going your way on this if it's part of a larger pattern. That would trump being older and having the Wikidata link. @20 upper: is this OK with you as well? - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Yes, I concur. 20 upper 06:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a clear consensus to merge Category:Tourist attractions in British Columbia into Category:Visitor attractions in British Columbia. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:My Little Pony: The Movie (1986 film)

All of the content of this film is under copyright and it has been released for a long time so there are no free pictures so This category should be deleted Q28 (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As empty though CFD sin't normally the right venue for copyright and instead nominating the files (which seems to have been done) is normally better and if emptied like what appears to have happened it can be deleted as empty. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by EugeneZelenko (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Animeplay

There are no images in the category, and unlikely ever to be as it has been created by a spammer looking to spam his spam website 10mmsocket (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Deleted. --Achim55 (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Holocaust deniars

There is a big glaring typo in the name of this category. Please change the name of this category to "Category:Holocaust deniers". For the record, I have no sympathies towards Holocaust denial, I just want this typo fixed. Thanks in advance. --109.76.190.65 16:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Renamed, thanks for notifying!. --Achim55 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Frank Sinatra House

chanteur Grazz Darkiz 23 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grazz Darkiz 23: Well, yes. I don't think anyone would doubt "which Frank Sinatra?" What is your point? - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:Grazz Darkiz 23 has no edits besides this CfD. This may have been an experiment/test. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Jmabel pointed out, it is indeed the 20th century crooner. I'm not sure why I was directed here besides the fact that I created the category. Farragutful (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to presume this CfD was just a test/experiment by a new user. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Amatu'l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khanum

Please merge this category with "Category:Rúhíyyih Khánum" as they are both about the same person. Thanks in advance. --109.76.253.76 19:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Redirected to Category:Rúhíyyih Khánum. --Achim55 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:George Cruikshank

Why is Category:George_Cruikshank full of subcategories each devoted to single works, or series of works? To be consistent with other artists, shouldn't there be fewer, but broader subcategories, like: Category:Works by George_Cruikshank or Category:Drawings by George_Cruikshank or Category:Paintings by George_Cruikshank or Category:Sculptures by George_Cruikshank, each containing the appropriate current subcategories?

I am going to start with Category:Drawings by George_Cruikshank. I am putting some images I uploaded today into this category. Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. I think the category structure should be something like:

George Cruikshank
- Works by George Cruikshank
  - Drawings by George Cruikshank
  - Paintings by George Cruikshank
  - Sculptures by George Cruikshank

And perhaps there should be a Category:Caricatures by George Cruikshank, with subcategories for drawings/paintings/sculptures.

JopkeB (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support structure as laid out by JopkeB. Josh (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JopkeB. I completely agree with the hierarchy you proposed.

Can I call for closure? Geo Swan (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for me: yes. JopkeB (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo Swan: Would you like to close this discussion yourself? If you never did it before: see Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion; instead of step 2 you can use Template:Cfdc if you find that easier. Otherwise I can close this discussion, let me know. JopkeB (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Restructure discussed category and create new categories according to the proposal, including for caricatures Done
Participants	Geo Swan (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Notes	Drawings was already made; I did not see paintings and sculptures; still to do: files in Category:Works by George Cruikshank should be better categorized
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Art works by Nikolay Polissky

Copyright violation. No FOP in Russia for sculptures, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Europe#Russia. I do not see VRT tickets. So all photograps of sculptures by Polissky (not dead yet) should be deleted. JopkeB (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until all files are deleted. Once all files are deleted,

Speedy delete. (ooops, forgot to sign my comment) Josh (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: The files need to deleted first via a COM:DR. Copyvio is generally out of scope for COM:CfD. Of course, once all files are deleted, the category can be speedy deleted, but until then we need to keep the category to hold the files pending resolution of the DR process. Josh (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nikolai Polissky calls his works as "land art", and Russian law makes an exception for such works ("произведений садово-паркового искусства") on a par with architectural works (article 1276). So where is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture, but for architecture and land art. --Александр Сигачёв (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Александр Сигачёв.

(1) Perhaps this should be added in Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Europe#Russia. Because I did not understand that "works of garden design" also means "land art".

(2) Do you have proof that Nikolai Polissky calls his works as "land art"? Perhaps a link (may be also in Russian)?

If both are OK by judging administrators, then I do not need to make a COM:DR for all files involved. Otherwise I'll do. JopkeB (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the administrator of FoP-Russia:

Is it true that for FoP in Russia "works of garden design" also means "land art"? Is in Russia copyright law, "land art" be treated as "works of garden design"?
1. If "yes": can this be added in Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Europe#Russia?
2. If "yes": would you consider the works of Nikolai Polissky in the discussed category as "land art"?

--JopkeB (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Is there really an administrator of FoP-Russia? I have no idea, but how would we find out who it is? We probably should ping them as it is likely they will not come across this by chance. Josh (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether there is an administrator of FoP-Russia. But there is a Category:FoP-Russia, so I would guess that someone keeps an eye on it. But indeed, there was no reaction in over a week, so I we might ping them. I'll write a message on the Russian Village Pump (Commons:Форум). JopkeB (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see it like this

"Land art" is rather new concept in Russia. There is no established practice, there may be different opinions about its relationship to the "park&garden work of art" as it described in the law.
Nikolai is considered as "father of Russian land-art"[1], but he describes his art in a more complex way: "There is no name for this art as such. It's not completely land art, only part of it, and it's not public art, because it's more urban art. But ours doesn't have any name yet. I call it "arch-standing" for now. Standing for something big. The interaction of art and the natural environment" [2]

Some of Nikolai's works can definitely be considered sculptures, some others as architecture works (like the Arc de Triomphe - so ok for FoP in Russia), some others are like land art. --Александр Сигачёв (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Александр Сигачёв, for your information. This indeed is more complex than I thought. My conclusion is that not all the files in Category:Art works by Nikolay Polissky should be deleted because of copyright violation. And this matter is too complex for me to be able to make a choice which should be deleted and which not. So I withdraw my deletion request and close this discussion. I hope that someone else can make that choice and nominate files that do not meet the criteria for FOP in Russia. JopkeB (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Proposal withdrawn
Actions	perhaps make a remark in the category
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs) Александр Сигачёв (talk · contribs)
Notes	(1) Not all all the files in Category:Art works by Nikolay Polissky should be deleted because of copyright violation; (2) An expert on FOP in Russia should select the files in this category that do not meet the criteria for FOP in Russia and nominate them for deletion.
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JopkeB: FYI, You can use "w" for the consensus parameter when using {{Cfdc}} to indicate a withdrawn proposal. My apologies for the limited documentation on that template. Josh (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Albert Huber (politician)

same subject as Category:Albert Huber (Politiker) GeneraleAutunno (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albert Huber (Politiker)	Merge into	Category:Albert Huber (politician)
same person, use English per category naming policy.
Josh (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support above merge, category names are normally in English even if the topic isn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both. JopkeB (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Move files to Category:Albert Huber (politician), make a redirect in the other, change Wikidata item accordingly Done
Participants	GeneraleAutunno (talk · contribs) Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Stuiver

What is the difference between Category:Stuiver and Category:0.05 Dutch guilder coins? For me (Dutch, used the "Stuiver" before the euro came) they are about the same concept. Can there be clear definitions indicating what the difference are, OR can both categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be Stuiver, what is the right name for five cents (from the Dutch guilder), or multiple (6 s= 30 cent (6 stuivers), not 6 shilling). - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stuiver seems to be a name of a coin minted in Neederland from XVI century. The value was 1/20 of the gulden or Charles V (Carolusgulden). Was no more minted after Napoleonic Wars. The 0.05 Dutch guilder coin was commonly called Stuiver (but was a 0.05 guilder coin) minted after Napoleonic Wars. In the same way in my country a 20 cants coin was commonly called "soldo", but wasn't the same od Category:Soldo. 2 different categories. --Carlomorino (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The common name of the coin with a value of 5 cent / 0,05 guilder was "stuiver" until the introduction of the euro in 1999. There have been coins named stuiver from 1815 ([3]) as well as earlier. So imho the categories can be combined because it is confusing. The category could be splitted in two, Stuiver (before 1815) and Stuiver (from 1815). Because the value of the coins appears different indeed. Ellywa (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category name after the merging should be Category:0.05 Dutch guilder coins, in line with the other Dutch guilder coins. We can split that category into Category:Stuiver (before 1815) and Category:Stuiver (from 1815). JopkeB (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep both categories and make the 0.05 Dutch guilder coins a subcategory of Stuiver. DenghiùComm (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? For me the 0.05 Dutch guilder would be the parent because that is in line with similar categories of other Dutch coins. JopkeB (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would do as DenghiùComm says which is the current situation. We could write something to specify that in the case of Category:0.05 Dutch guilder coins we mean the stuiver of the decimal system.--Facquis (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is not necessarily the correct situation. Please give a better reason. JopkeB (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate articles on the enwiki for Five cent coin (Netherlands) and Stuiver. While very similar, they aren't quite synonymous with one another; the stuiver predates the 5-cent coin by a good bit (cents as a currency not coming into existence in the Netherlands until 1818). Looking at the files in both categories, there are images in the Stuiver category that predate the existence of cents, so classifying them as 5-cent coins would be incorrect. I think keeping the categories as they are would be for the best. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit more, a lot of the confusion is caused (and could be cleared up) by renaming Category:0.05 Dutch guilder coins to Category:Dutch 5-cent coins (same with Category:0.10 Dutch guilder coins to Category:Dutch 10-cent coins etc.). Each of these categories was made by the same user last month, and while the naming convention is consistent with each other, it's not reflective of what these coins were called, and it's not consistent with the naming convention used within the Wikiproject broadly (Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikitionary). ReneeWrites (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a strange state of affairs: we are in the middle of a discussion and even before it has been closed, suddenly someone out of the blue, not participating earlier in the discussion, renames not only the category under discussion, different from the names already mentioned, but also some others. That is not how we do things on Commons. First we give everybody the opportunity to react to a new proposal (wait at least two weeks. see Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion), then we draw conclusions, close the discussion and make the changes, in that order.

About the proposal of ReneeWrites:

Thanks for your opinion and proposal.
"Dutch 5-cents coins" can mean guilder coins, but also perhaps euro coins, that would be confusing. I think there should be "guilder" in the name. And I wonder what this will solve: ordinary people in the Netherlands still think of a stuiver as a "Dutch 5-cents coin" or a "0.05 Dutch guilder coin", because they do not know anymore that the "stuiver" is historic; in everyday speech a "Dutch 5-cents coin" or a "0.05 Dutch guilder coin" was called a stuiver until 2001 (and now we sometimes call the 5 cent euro coin a stuiver).
On Commons we have our own naming conventions, that may or may not be consistent with other Wikiprojects.

JopkeB (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

0. Yeah, I acted hastily, I'm sorry for that. I thought I had figured out an elegant solution that would make everyone happy and jumped the gun a bit.

2. "I think there should be "guilder" in the name." I think I agree. If I created a 5-guilder cent category ("gulden cent" being a phrase that has seen actual use), would you be okay with that?

As for the problem of how ordinary people use the word, I don't think this is that big of a problem. A stuiver is a coin that has a long history that ends right at the start of the 21st century, its main category contains a small subcategory for the modern stuiver that is the 5-cent coin. All of that is accurate and how categorization is meant to be used. People might categorize things too broadly, but categorizing things more broadly than is strictly necessary isn't the same thing as categorizing things incorrectly. If those files can be moved to a more specific subcategory, we move them there. (Similarly to how people often upload pictures of Times Square or Broadway and categorize them as New York City).

ReneeWrites (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes were made in:

--JopkeB (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB and ReneeWrites: what do you think about moving Category:Dutch 5-cent coins to Category:5 cent Dutch guilder coins‎ for consistency with other pages of Category:Dutch guilder coins. I also believe that this convention can be extended to all other modern currencies.--Facquis (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me 🙂 ReneeWrites (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your proposal, Facquis.

First about your belief that your proposal can be extended to all other modern currencies: See for instance Category:French franc coins and Category:Italian lira coins‎, which subcategories are set up like the former Category:0.05 Dutch guilder coins and the like. Some other countries have no subcategorization for small coins, all images of coins are then joined together in one category, like subcategories of Category:Deutsche Mark‎ and Category:Swiss Franc coins‎. For me that would advocate for the old situation, not for adjusting other currencies to the new Dutch one.
Category:Stuiver could become an umbrella category, with Category:Coins of the Netherlands by name as a parent, containing three subcategories:
- Category:Stuiver (±1400-1815)
- Category:0.05 Dutch guilder coins (1815-2001), or Category:5 cent Dutch guilder coins (1815-2001); Category:Dutch guilder coins should stay as a another parent category
- Category:Euro coins of the Netherlands (5 cents), if this one is ever necessary.

I think this category structure would make it clear for everybody what is what and reduce confusion. What do you all think? JopkeB (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the categories of the Italian lira and the French franc in order to create a direct correspondence between the articles on Wikipedia and the categories of Wikicommons. This is the categorization used by any modern numismatic catalog and allows you to unequivocally assign the correct category to the image of the corresponding coin. Honestly I do not understand what is wrong with the current structure of the category Stuiver, as I do not understand why specify the date for the cents, since they have never been coined before.--Facquis (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are to make it clear to people who have no knowledge of numismatics and do not know that the cent was only introduced in the Netherlands after the French period. JopkeB (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB and ReneeWrites: If you agree I would move the category from Category:Dutch 5-cent coins to Category:5 cent Dutch guilder coins (1815-2001), and in the same way for the other coins.--Facquis (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Category:0.05 Dutch guilder coins (1815-2001) because subcategories of other countries are similar (see above). And please User:Facquis, be patient, it will take at least another two weeks before this discussion will be closed. When this discussion is being closed, I'll ask you to do the honors of moving content, if you like to. JopkeB (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this seems to be how other countries' currencies are categorized as well. I agree with JopkeB on both counts; splitting the Stuiver categories this way, and going back to the previous category names of 0.05 guilder coins instead of 5-cent coins. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions and actions

Category:Stuiver will be the main category, with Category:Coins of the Netherlands by name as a parent. New subcategories:
1. Category:Stuiver (±1400-1815)
2. Category:0.05 Dutch guilder coins (1815-2001); Category:Dutch guilder coins stays as (another) parent category
3. Category:Euro coins of the Netherlands (5 cents) (if this one is ever necessary)
The new categories about the 5 cents coins that User:ReneeWrites made earlier, will get redirects to these new subcategories or will be deleted.
User:ReneeWrites also will adjust the other changes she made (about other coins, see "Changes were made in:") according to the conclusions here, or will be reversed.

@Carlomorino, Richardkiwi, Wouterhagens, Ellywa, Joshbaumgartner, DenghiùComm, ReneeWrites, and Facquis: Do you agree with these conclusions and actions?
Because of the holiday season I'll wait a month at the most for reactions and then close this discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Wouter (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Fine with me ! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Carlomorino (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ReneeWrites (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--Facquis (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Ellywa (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	See Conclusions and actions Done: Action 1. Still to do: Actions 2 3 will be done by ReneeWrites; Facuis may move the other content
Participants	Carlomorino (talk · contribs) Richardkiwi (talk · contribs) Wouterhagens (talk · contribs) Ellywa (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs) DenghiùComm (talk · contribs) ReneeWrites (talk · contribs) Facquis (talk · contribs) Carlomorino (talk · contribs)
Notes	Please, ReneeWrites and Facuis, let us know when your actions have been completed Done I've performed the actions outlined in the conclusion. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Aircraft carrier landings

We have Aircraft carrier landings and Aircraft take offs from aircraft carriers. Both formats might be okay, but better if they both went with the same format, so:

Personally, I would go with the second set, but I could go either way as long as they are consistant. Josh (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename Category:Aircraft carrier landings to Category:Aircraft landings on aircraft carriers
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Landings in aviation

Category:Landings in aviation	Move to/Rename as	Category:Aircraft landings
match Category:Aircraft take offs per Universality Principle.
Josh (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename Category:Landings in aviation to Category:Aircraft landings
Participants	joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Automated retail machines

What is the difference between Category:Automated retail machines and Category:Vending machines? Can these two categories be merged OR can they both have descriptions that show how they differ? JopkeB (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mostly no difference.

i could imagine that there could be "automated retail machines" that are more complicated than and different from usual vending machines (which are just boxes), but such difference is too trivial.

the initials makes me think of automated teller machine.

i think we can redirect "automated retail machines" to vending machines. RZuo (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Thanks, RZuo for your reaction. Yes, to avoid misunderstandings "vending machines" should stay and the other one should get a redirect. I'll wait another two weeks to see whether there are other reactions and then I'll make the changes. JopkeB (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Category:Vending machines is to stay, files in Category:Automated retail machines will be transferred and this category gets a redirect
Participants	RZuo (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Baranówka train station

The category has been moved as Baranówka is a train stop, not a train station. Mathieu Mars (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	none (there was already a correct category and a redirect to it)
Participants	Mathieu Mars (talk · contribs)
Notes	The redirect was enough, no need to have such a category discussed as well
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:CFR Class 91

Created by mistake, please, remove it. DnaX (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Deleted, as per nom. --rimshot^talk 21:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:London buses in London United Mk4 livery TfL roundel electric cleaner air mark livery

Delete - typo in repeat of 'livery' has since been corrected. Hullian111 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete
Participants	Hullian111 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Niels Anker Landgren

Please nominate for speedy deletion. The category is misspelled. The correct "category:Niels Anker Landberg" has been created. Rsteen (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Done, as per nom. --rimshot^talk 21:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Allahabad

Rename this and its subcategories to Prayagraj, since most of the English Wikimedia projects have switched to Prayagraj and it is the common name nowadays (English Wikipedia discussion, English Wikivoyage discussion). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support More importantly than whatever Enwiki is doing, it seems to be the official self-naming of a place, which should be prioritized. Josh (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Allahabad has been renamed to Prayagraj in most wikis and given there's no possible opposition to this renaming, I have boldly closed the discussion to perform the renaming myself. Besides, the discussion is more than a week old. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion

Too many categories in it that have an acceptable number of subcategories and files, due to templates. JopkeB (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 3.350 subcategories in this category. The majority of them has far less than 200 members (subcategories and files), most of them even less than 100. The standard number in Template:Diffusion by condition is 200, which is OK for me. I think we should be practical and focus on the categories that are really to big. Therefor we need some changes (see below). If ever the number of subcategories in this category is acceptable, we can adjust the changes again.
Problems might be

Templates, like:
1. Template:Year in country - default = 25
2. Template:Cosplay of work - default = 25
3. probably a lot more that I cannot find now or are hidden, like in Template:Topic.
Editors who forget to remove {{CatDiffuse}} from categories which have now an acceptable number of members.
There is no number of members that has been agreed upon that is acceptable.

Proposals

Let's agree upon the number of members that (for now) is acceptable for one category. My proposal is 200. Categories with less members should not be in this list. If we agree upon another number than 200, this should be adjusted in the other proposals below.
Adjust the templates in which there is a reference to this category and set the default on 200.
Allow editors who maintain this category to:
- Remove {{CatDiffuse}} from categories which has less than 200 members.
- Adjust the number mentioned in the {{Diffusion by condition}} when this is directly used in a category, to 200, if this was less than 200.

--JopkeB (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the problem, but let's discuss the solution a bit. I think there is already broad agreement on 200 as a baseline (that's why it's the default). I also think that a broad replacement of {{CatDiffuse}} with {{Diffusion by condition}} makes perfect sense. Given the way they both are written, there would be minimal risk in have a bot simply replace all instances of CD with DbyC. For those few categories where it is desirable to have a ton of pages (200 really is a lot for most categories), these templates are probably not really suitable anyway.

Once the bot has done a bulk replace, I can put some code into both templates that will identify cases where CD is used directly instead of being called by DbyC, and perhaps a gentle encouragement to use DbyC with a size parameter instead of CD directly.

Obviously, there are a lot of categories where 200 is too high a number, but those can be set by users in those topics as needed.

I also look at adding DbyC to category header templates that implement a number suited to the topic of the template. In any case, such as those you mention above, this is a very good solution and avoids the need to remember to add DbyC manually, or to go through after the fact to do so. Josh (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner:

Support This sounds like a good idea!

So we can assume that "200" is generally accepted as the maximum number of members for categories in general. First point solved.
So "Remove {{CatDiffuse}} from categories which has less than 200 members." will be: "Replace {{CatDiffuse}} with {{Diffusion by condition}}" and this will be done by a bot. Another point solved.

Questions about your proposal:

Consequently {{CatDiffuse}} will not be used anymore and can be deleted. Is that right?
Would that solve also the number in Template:Year in country and Template:Cosplay of work, or should we do that manually?
What kind of categories should have less than 200 members? I have seen categories for one country with the number set on 25 or so, while the same category for other countries has a higher number or no CD at all.

As for me: let's do this and see what will be left in this category and then solve the rest. JopkeB (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Quick answers:

No, {{CatDiffuse}} is actually called by {{Diffusion by condition}} so the template itself remains needed. It just should not be added directly to categories anymore. I don't necessarily feel like re-writing {{Diffusion by condition}} to incorporate the code from {{CatDiffuse}}, which there is actually nothing wrong with.
The bot is probably best employed just replacing direct cases of {{CatDiffuse}} on category pages. If there are templates that call for {{CatDiffuse}}, they should probably be fixed manually, as releasing a bot on the code of a template is probably more danger than its worth.
I don't necessarily want to get into deciding what number is right for specific categories or topics. Really, its probably a very small percentage of categories which have a specific number other than 200 that has been set. I'm fine with letting users decide this number freely. As for consistency across a topic, that would be preferable, but I don't think we need to worry about that in this effort.

I totally agree that we should do this without getting bogged down. There will be some corner cases that require more manual attention, but overall, I think it will do a lot of good, and can't really see how it would create any appreciable harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshbaumgartner (talk • contribs) 30 jun 2023 09:08‎ (UTC)

OK, thanks for your answers. I am fine with all this and I also think it will do a lot of good. --JopkeB (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I support this. When replacing uses of {{CatDiffuse}}, please remember to also replace uses of its redirects. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: That is a good point to keep in mind. It is another reason I will build in a check on {{CatDiffuse}} to identify when it is called by anything other than {{Diffusion by condition}}. This will highlight any redirects or template calls that we might miss on the first bulk pass. Thanks! Josh (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Problem: There are far too many subcategories in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion with less than 200 members (subcategories and files).
Analysis: This overflow is caused by templates with low limits and by administrators who forget to remove the template after the number of members in a category has been lowered to an acceptable number.
Statement: "200" is and accepteble limit for members in a category, there is already a broad agreement on 200 as a baseline.
Solution:
1. Replacing {{CatDiffuse}} with {{Diffusion by condition}} (with a standard limit of 200), carried out by a bot, as described above by Josh.
2. Technical follow-up actions as described above by Josh.

After this solution has been implemented:

{{CatDiffuse}} should not be added directly to categories anymore. Administrators should only use {{Diffusion by condition}}, preferably with the standard limit of 200. There should be a hatnote and a reference to {{Diffusion by condition}} in the description of the category and in {{CatDiffuse}} and/or other provisions should be made.
For categories where 200 is too high a number, administrators can set the desirable number in the template themselves.
It might be necessary to adjust manually the templates in which there is a reference to this category (like Template:Year in country) and set the default on 200.

JopkeB (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	(1) Replace {{CatDiffuse}} with {{Diffusion by condition}} (with a standard limit of 200) ~~[action Josh]~~ for the next Community Wishlist. (2) Technical follow-up actions ~~[action Josh]~~. (3) Make provision to prevent {{CatDiffuse}} be added directly to categories. ~~[action Josh]~~ Please inform us when these actions have been carried out. ~~[action Josh]~~ (4) Adjust manually the templates in which there is a reference to this category (like Template:Year in country) and set the default on 200 [action JopkeB].
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs) Auntof6 (talk · contribs)
Notes	(1) User:Auntof6 has made a request on Template talk:Topic of country#c-Auntof6-20230927232000-Protected edit request, per CFD for changing the standard limit of 50 ot 200, change has been implemented by Josh on 28-9-2023. (2) The number in Template:Year in country and Template:Cosplay of work have been changed from 25 to "default diffusion threshold" by User:Auntof6 on 27-9-2023. (3) The discussion about the solutions has been continued on User talk:Joshbaumgartner#About a bot for Categories requiring temporary diffusion. (4) I created a Wish for the Wishlist about a bot to automatically replace Template:CatDiffuse by Template:Diffusion by condition. --JopkeB (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Thep Chotnuchit

empty no photo Rameshe999 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tax-free shopping

What is the difference with Category:Duty-free shops? Can these two categories be merged OR can both get descriptions showing the differences? JopkeB (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all shopping in Oregon is tax-free shopping, but I don't think that's what this category means, so at a minimum it should change to 'duty-free' better indicating it is free of taxes that would otherwise normally be due. In all seriousness, Shopping is a distinct activity separate from Shops which are physical places, so I could get a distinction between duty-free shops and duty-free shopping. What I don't see a distinction for though is between duty-free shopping and general shopping, as that fact is incidental, not depicted in the imagery. In fact, some of the images aren't even of shopping, they are just of Duty-free shops so they should definitely be moved out. The few of shopping would probably be fine being merged up to Shopping and Duty-free shops so we can eliminate this category, I would think. Josh (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Thanks for your explanation and thoughts. So the conclusions and actions are:

Since you can hardly see on pictures the difference between just shopping and shopping in a duty-free shop, Category:Tax-free shopping is redundant.
The files and subcategory in Category:Tax-free shopping should be removed to either Category:Duty-free shops or Category:Shopping, the subcategory should be renamed.
Category:Tax-free shopping is redundant and gets a redirect to Category:Duty-free shops.

JopkeB (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support @JopkeB: I concur. Josh (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Category:Duty-free shops will stay, Category:Tax-free shopping get a redirect, the subcategory should be renamed Done
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Product market

What is this category about? Can a clear discription be added so that we know what should be in it and what not? Otherwise this category can be deleted. To me it looks like this category is redundant, just here because the subject is in the EN-WP. I think files should be moved to proper categories, like subcategories of Category:Markets or Category:Products. JopkeB (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	1) Move files to proper categories (2) Make a deletion request for this category, it is redundant
Participants
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Office supply stores

What is the difference between Category:Office supply stores and Category:Stationery? Can clear definitions be included, showing the differences? OR can both categories be merged? JopkeB (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stationery is for stationery products. Whereas, Category:Office supply stores is for "office supply stores", obviously. They aren't mutually exclusive though. Nor should the categories be merged since they clearly serve different purposes. It would be totally ridiculous to have something like Category:Postal stationery as a subcategory of Category:Office supply stores. Let alone the other way around. Maybe a more reasonable thing to do would be to merge Category:Stationery with Category:Office equipment or visa versa since they are semi-redundant, but that's a different conversation. BTW, just to add one more interesting twist to this whole thing there is also Category:Stationery shops. I'll leave it up to you to figure out what the difference is between an office supply store and a stationery shop, but they are different. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. As for the question at the end, an office supply store/shop could sell stationery, but would also sell other things that are needed in offices. For example, the ones where I shop, including Office Depot and Staples, sell office equipment (computers and peripherals, shredders, etc.), cleaning products, batteries, office furniture, and more. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Even Wikipedia lumps them together in w:en:Office supply retailing. So I am glad Auntof6 enlightened me. As a non native English speaker (like so many on Commons) I am not familiar with these concepts, but I want to learn and hoped to be informed here by colleagues who are familiar with these concepts. JopkeB (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 and Auntof6: Thanks both for your comment. Conclusions:

No, these categories cannot be merged.
Stationery shop = Stationer = shop that sells writing materials, including cut paper, envelopes, writing implements, continuous form paper, and other office supplies.
Office supply store = shop that can sell stationery as well, but would also sell other things that are needed in offices, like office equipment (computers and peripherals, shredders, etc.), cleaning products, batteries, office furniture.

New question: Should/can Category:Stationery shops be a subcategory of Category:Office supply stores? --JopkeB (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Stationery is used outside of offices, so I would say not. For example, I used to go to stationery stores when I was a kid, before I ever worked in an office, to get greeting cards and paper to write letters and notes on; those are not things that are exclusive to office needs. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Thanks, you are right, I did not think of that. So the answer is: No.

I'll wait another week to see whether there are other opnions and then I close this discussion and add the desctiptions. JopkeB (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 and JopkeB: You are right that stationary is used outside of offices (as well as in them), but so are most office supplies. Note that Office supplies is a redirect to Office equipment, and Stationery is a sub of Office equipment. That would lead me to see Stationery shops as a natural intersection of Stationery and Office equipment shops (which is what I think Category:Office supply stores should really be renamed to per the Universality Principle). On the other hand, if Stationery is not categorized under Office equipment, then your point stands and Stationery shops should not be under Office equipment shops (Office supply stores). Josh (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to bring up that there should really be separate categories for office equipment and office supplies since things like paper products aren't really "equipment", at least not in any way that matters. Either way though that might be one possible solution because then there could be a category, Office equipment, for places like Staples that mainly sell furniture and the like versus places that mainly sell actual office supplies but don't sell furniture to any meaningful degree. It's kind of ridiculous to have smaller mom and pop shops that mainly sell stationery in the same category tree as somewhere that sells desks, chairs, and the like though. There isn't really anything they have in common. While I agree that most office supplies are used out of offices, so what? I can go down to my local Dollar Tree, which has like 20% of the store dedicated to selling "office supplies", but no would call it an office supply store or let alone an office equipment retailer. So it's still useful to make a distinction. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the differences between Office supply/equipment (stores) and Stationery (shops) and whether they can be merged. Answers:

We have definitions showing the differences.
No, these categories cannot be merged because they are about different types of products and shops. There is only some overlap in products.
Category:Stationery‎ can stay as a subcategory of Category:Office equipment (= current situation) because office equipment includes stationery. Paper products can also be classified as "(office) equipment" if we use the broad definition of the EN-WP: equipment refers to a set of tools or other objects commonly used to achieve a particular objective.
Category:Stationery shops should be a subcategory of Category:Stationery (= current situation) because stationery shops sell stationery.
Category:Office supply stores should be a subcategory of Category:Office equipment (= current situation) because office supply stores sell office equipment.
Although against the logic of the category structure, Category:Stationery shops cannot be a subcategory of Category:Office supply stores (= current situation) because a stationery shop sells often more than just stationery, like greeting cards and books, while office supply stores do not sell these extras.
It does not matter by who these products are bought and were they are used. My comment: just like household goods are sold in Household goods shops, no matter whether they will be used by consumers, in restaurants, offices, schools or elsewhere.

Out of scope in this discussion:

Office supply and office equipment is not the same. There should be separate categories for office equipment and office supplies. My comment: Commons as well as EN-WP have one category/page for both concepts. Please start another discussion if you want to change this for Commons.

@Adamant1, Auntof6, and Joshbaumgartner: Do you agree? Can the answers be implemented? JopkeB (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Add definitions/descriptions to the discussed categories Done
Participants	Adamant1 (talk · contribs) Auntof6 (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Notes	The category structure stays as it is
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Markets (customer bases)

What is this category about? Why should it exist on Commons? What kind of subcategories and files should be put here? JopkeB|talk]]) 09:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment I say delete both this category and Category:Knowledge markets‎ since they are to ambiguous to be useful. There doesn't need to be a category for every word, or combination of words, in the English language. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Adamant1. I agree with you about deleting this category (and I totally agree with you that there should not be a category for every (combination of) word(s) in the English language). But the other category should have a discussion of its own. JopkeB (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other category should have a discussion of its own. I don't have a problem with that. The other category is at least a little less ambigious then this one, but it would still be worth discussing regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect use of disambiguation in a category name. Perhaps the creator intended the topic to be customer bases, a subset of markets. However, I think even that is not a well defined topic and we have no need for it.

Additionally, the category is set up as an intersection of Markets and Society, but Markets are wholly under Society themselves, so this makes no sense. Removing the overcat, it would only be a subset of Markets and a meaningless one at that, thus:

Merge Category:Markets (customer bases) into Category:Markets, no need to retain a redirect. Josh (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Delete this category. It is an ill defined topic and there is no need for this category.
Perhaps the subcategory Category:Knowledge markets‎ should also be discussed, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

JopkeB (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	(1) Remove the only subcategory. (2) Ask for deletion of this category. Done
Participants	Adamant1 (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:POS terminals

What is the difference between Category:POS terminals and Category:Payment terminals? Can definitions be added showing the differences between the two? OR can the two be merged, or can one be a parent of the other? JopkeB (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: That's a good question. I do see a few terminals that may not be, strictly speaking, payment terminals, as they are more product selection terminals. I'm not sure if the distinction is important, and I don't think Category:POS terminals would be the right name anyway for such a thing. It could likewise be argued that even if a given screen does not directly accept payment, if it is paired with such a device, the overall station could be called a payment terminal. In the end, I think a merge is okay here. If later we find a need to have such a distinction, we can create a properly named and organized category for it. Josh (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Josh, for your reaction. I conclude that we need more than one category:

For payment terminals where you actually can pay, devices which interfaces with payment cards to make electronic funds transfers; with a small screen and keys on the devices to enter the pin code of the payment card.
For product selection terminals, with a bigger screen on which customer can choose the desired product(s), often with a payment terminal attached.
For terminals in use by staff members of shops or other retail companies, modern cash registers, with a big screen. Should be a subcategory of Category:Cash registers.

Payment terminals
Product selection, ordering and payment terminal
Cash register

Questions:

Do you agree?
What should be the names of these categorie? My proposal:

Payment terminals
Ordering terminals
Electronic (or digital?) cash registers

Would these be good names in English? JopkeB (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: I think that sounds good in structure. As for names, I am pretty sure that the retail industry has commonly used terminology for these different classes, but it's not my field, so I do not know off the top of my head. However, I think the structure is feasible to go forward with, so we can start with that, and do some research on names and update them as appropriate. Josh (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Josh, that brings us a step forward.

About the names: I did some research, via Google as well as in EN-WP:

Payment terminals: is OK, Google gave the most hits for this term and it is also a lemma in EN-WP.
Ordering terminals: most mentioned are self-ordering kiosk and self-service kiosk. In Commons there is already Category:Electronic kiosks (as a main category) and in EN-WP w:en:Interactive kiosk.
Electronic (or digital?) cash registers: should be "POS cash registers" (mentioned in EN-WP Point of sale and via Google), but even better would be "POS systems" (most used according to EN-WP); and (my comment:) it really is a system, consisting of a cash register terminal with a touch screen, cash drawer and cash register scale payment terminal scanner printer, and it is connected to retail online software.

Do they sound familiar to you? I would prefer the bold terms because they are most used and/or most clear. JopkeB (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: No particular issue with the first two. I am hesitant though about "POS systems". While no doubt the initialism 'POS' is well understood, in this case I may look to standard non-proper noun naming practice and go with the spelled out "point of sale systems" or "point-of-sale systems", as that initialism does have a different meaning is multiple fields. Other than that, looks great! Josh (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Good point. So the category names will be:

Category:Payment terminals, for devices which interfaces with payment cards to make electronic funds transfers; such a device has a small screen and keys on it to enter the pin code of the payment card.
Category:Self-ordering kiosks, for product selection terminals, with a big screen on which customers can choose the desired product(s), often with a payment terminal attached.
Category:Point-of-sale systems, for terminals in use by staff members of shops, restaurants or other retail buildings; such a system consists of a cash register terminal with a touch screen, cash drawer and cash register scale, payment terminal, scanner and printer and is connected to online retail software.

I'll wait another two weeks to see whether there are other opinions and then I'll make the changes and close this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@3. It turns out there is already Category:Point of sale systems, so Category:Point-of-sale systems is not necessary. --JopkeB (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Josh (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	(1) Add or change descriptions of the categories involved; (2) Make Category:Self-ordering kiosks. Done
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Product marketing

Why do we need this category? How is it -in Commons- different from Category:Advertising by product‎? Commons is not Wikipedia, Commons does not have to have all categories and pages about marketing as in the EN-WP! JopkeB (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: True, we don't need to mimic Enwiki or any other project. But there is a Commons difference here: Category:Product marketing is a standard topical category, so it has various files posted there; Category:Advertising by product is a topical index category, so really should only contain categories, and specifically those in a "Product advertisng" or "Advertising for product" kind of format. So we can't just simply merge the two. However, there is a reason to question this category's continued existence:

Marketing is the activity of offering something for sale on a market
Products are anything that can be offered for sale on a market

It would seem to me that 'products' are an inherent element of 'marketing' and thus the distinction of 'product marketing' from 'marketing' is pointless.

Merge Category:Product marketing into Category:Marketing Josh (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Good point. I agree to merge Category:Product marketing into (subcategories of) Category:Marketing. JopkeB (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	(1) Move files in Category:Product marketing to (subcategories of) Category:Marketing (2) Make a redirect for Category:Product marketing to Category:Marketing (3) Adjust the Wikidata item (Q5961771) Done
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:ENI 080830

Fehler beim Anlegen passiert, bitte wieder löschen. GerritR (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Speedy delete
Participants	GerritR (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Coldplay in 2022

The only photo on it will be deleted. GustavoCza (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The category is eligible for a speedy deletion (empty, created yesterday, deletion request by its creator). ReneeWrites (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Deleted as empty. --rimshot^talk 21:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Office supply retailing

What is the difference between Category:Office supply retailing and Category:Office supply stores? Can both have descriptions showing what the differences are OR can both be merged? It looks like the first one has only be created because the exact same subject exists in the EN-WP. That is not a good enough reason to have it in Commons also! JopkeB (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I say merge this since this it's clearly a pointless duplicate of Category:Office supply stores. Creating categories purely because there's a Wikidata or Wikipedia entry for the concept is a stupid and pointless idea. More so though if there's absolutely no need for the new category like is clearly the case here. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Retailing is an activity, while Stores are physical locations, so theoretically, these are two different things. However, a quick look shows some 6 files in this category, none of which really belong there:

The diagram refers to general retail activities of DLA, which includes office supplies, but they are not mentioned in it nor is it particular to office supplies, so that diagram should move to Retailing
The photographs are all of stores. Since retailing (activity) is inherent to something being a store, anything in Stores can be assumed to be likewise depictions of Retailing. Thus these photos can be moved to Office supply stores.

That leaves this category empty, and while Office supply stores could be placed here, it does not need to remain just to hold 1 category.

Thus I would move the files to where they belong and redirect this category to Office supply stores. Josh (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	(1) move files to where they belong (2) redirect to Category:Office supply stores (3) adjust the Wikidata item (Q111948128) Done
Participants	Adamant1 (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Trade marks

What is the difference between Category:Trade marks and Category:Trademarks? The EN-WP and the Wikidata item say it is the same. Why should Commons have two categories? Can these two be merged? JopkeB (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Trademarks, which is older and matches the enWP name. --rimshot^talk 21:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Trade marks into Category:Trademarks. Perhaps this was an attempt to differentiate between the marks themselves and the concept of trademark in general? However, the content is nigh indistinguishable so a merge is fine for now. Josh (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Merge Category:Trade marks into Category:Trademarks Done
Participants	Rimshot (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Michael Scheuer

Deletion, almost category due to writing errors. Second category:: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Michael_Scheurer Riquix (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Deleted as per nom. --rimshot^talk 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Babies (female)

Category:babies (female)	Move to/Rename as	Category:female babies
Category:babies (male)	Move to/Rename as	Category:male babies
Category:toddlers (female)	Move to/Rename as	Category:female toddlers
Category:toddlers (male)	Move to/Rename as	Category:male toddlers
common English wording, fix non-standard dab style, consistent with parent Female humans / Male humans.

Josh (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is toddlers really a necessary category? Trade (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: The thrust of my proposal is merely that if we have these categories, they should be named correctly. As for the whole concept of sub-categorizing by stage of life, I can see the merit of it. I do not personally want to get in the business of defining who is young or middle-aged or old or any of that, and even the source listed for developmental categories does not provide any sort of clear delineation or classification system. However, I'm not pushing for deletion at this point. My only concern at the moment is that so long as Commons has categorization by this criterion, then the categories must follow relevant COM:CAT guidelines and comply with standard categorization principles laid out there. Josh (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	Rename category per above list
Participants	Trade (talk · contribs)
Notes	Not a verdict on the value of these categories in the first place, just a rename. Categories may be removed in the future if deemed to not be useful.
Closed by	Josh (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize there are still a hundred or so categories with Babies (female) in its name? @Joshbaumgartner: --Trade (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Yes. Such rename projects are not going to happen with a snap of the finger. Josh (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Portraits by Gabriel Dorneles

Empty category with any useful scope. 81.41.175.237 02:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Empty. --Yann (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia edibles

I think that this should be changed to "Wikipedia food", since "edibles" has a particular connotation related to consumption of certain drugs. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedia edibles to Category:Wikipedia food

Rename Category:Wikimedia edibles to Category:Wikimedia food

We do not have Category:Edibles, just Category:Food. As far as I can tell we do not have a category for promotional food or themed food, though surprised we don't have more things like this. Josh (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created the new proposed categories and moved the contents there. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed by ReneeWrites. Deleted the old ones as redirects would be unhelpful as edibles commonly refer to cannabis, also other edible categories don't redirect to food categories. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Breda, Netherlands

Proposing to rename Category:Breda, Netherlands (and all sub-categories named similarly) to Category:Breda. The main userpage on Wikipedia is Breda, with a separate disambiguation page for other uses. On Commons there is no other page listed that shares a name with this one, which contains hundreds of subcategories and hundreds of thousands of files. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are a lot of different topics on Commons named Breda. Commons categories need more disambiguation than Enwiki categories in many cases for a few reasons, not least of which is that we have a lot more categories here. "Breda" covers many topics (multiple geographic locations and an aircraft manufacturer to start). In fact, this category should not even be a redirect to Breda, Netherlands, but instead we should make Category:Breda a disambiguation page. Josh (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Breda (Milan) for one has hundreds of categories and thousands of files, and has nothing to do with Breda, Netherlands. Josh (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate instead as the threshold for primary topics is higher though to be fair most of the Wikipedias do have this one as primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Consensus was against proposal. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Country subdivisions by name

This discussion is for the following categories:

These categories seem to have been created just for provinces of Armenia. We could populate it further, but I don't think a category full of individual country subdivisions would be helpful. Auntof6 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think they could be useful in cases where the subdivision name is known but not its country or maybe in cases where the same name is used in multiple places. However, it is currently only covering a few items and so it can be deleted for now. If it is deemed useful, and can be reasonably populated, then perhaps they can be re-created. For now, I support

Delete. Josh (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When closing this one, ping me as I will need to adjust a template or two. Not a big deal, but will prevent unintentional redlinks from being created once the category is deleted. Thanks! Josh (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted per nom, unhelpful category structure. Ping @Joshbaumgartner: as requested. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Observation hobbies

Category:Spotting and Category:Observation hobbies look like duplicates; merge? 73.223.72.200 21:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Allforrous (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous: Which way? Josh (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge observation hobbies with spotting. 20 upper 13:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: merged with Spotting. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Agassiz Rock

Name of the place photos depict has been changed from Agassiz Rock to The Monoliths. See article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monoliths_(Manchester-by-the-Sea) NewtonCourt (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Cheers! Daderot (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: redirected to Category:The Monoliths (Massachusetts). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cosplay of Scooby-Doo and his cast by country

Is this category strictly speaking necessary Trade (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Not sure what you mean by 'strictly speaking' here, but this index has multiple categories that seem correct for the category name, so I don't know about necessary, but is is certainly warranted and does not appear to be in violation of any Commons category policies, so for now,

Keep. Josh (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted as empty. It was replaced by Category:Cosplay of Scooby-Doo by country. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in Zambia

shouldn't this be all in Category:Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity of Zambia (there is no meta description for the 'in' category)? Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support it does appear that "of" is the standard preposition for this topic by country. Josh (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is preferable that the categories are named uniformly. I have created this category with a naming scheme that I think would have been better than the "of" scheme for the sake of what it communicates. However, changing it would be a big task and require extensive discussions. Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for the sake of saving effort, it would also be possible to merge the Zambia cats the other way. But there should not be both with identical content. At the moment there are not so many cats in this scheme Category:Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in/of..., so renaming (with cat-a-lot) still can be done. Of course, not without discussion. Feel free to up-propagate this discussion. I would also prefer the in-scheme, but for Austria now I followed the crowd and have chosen Category:Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity of Austria. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sport 16 August

this cat title seems unusual. delete? if no objection, i'll move the 2 files to 2008-08-16. RZuo (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

А в чем проблема то? Я вот давеча пустую категорию видел: Category:R'Bonney Gabriel S, AV 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schekinov Alexey Victorovich and RZuo: No problem in creating this category, it just needs a better name, such as Category:16 August in sports. That said, it seems to be the only categorization done to quite this level of date in sports, unless I'm missing something, so not sure that much detail is needed. I think simply moving the files to Category:2008-08-16 and Category:August 2008 in sports would be plenty sufficient, that is unless we really want to start getting down to the actual day of sports images. Also, we do have 'day and month but no year' categories, but I don't think there is a lot there, and since we know the year, we probably should include that in the categorization. Josh (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Займитесь, коли есть время. S, AV 00:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Photographs of Tom Scott (entertainer)

@OmegaFallon moved this a few months ago. Suggest returning to Category:Tom Scott (entertainer). Seems like unneeded wordage – most members of Category:Photographs of men by name are historical or somewhat exceptional. No problem filing Category:Photographs by Tom Scott (entertainer) under the original category name. Hameltion (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should merge this back to the parent category. Categories with names like "Photographs of <foo>" are usually intended to hold subcategories that are grouped by a criterion, such as black and white, aerial, etc. I don't see a reason for this to be an exception. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge up. 'Photographs of' categories are generally media type categories and only be needed if we have multiple media types for a topic (such as some listed above amongst others). Even then, a user should be able to see the files available on a topic without have to select a specific media type (after all, not all users care what the media type is). Certainly, in a case such as this where all of the files are normal photographs, the 'photographs of' category is redundant and only serves to put another decision and click between users and what they are seeking. Josh (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly: enwp has "Tom Scott (presenter)". That or "(YouTuber)" would be preferable to "(entertainer)". Hameltion (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Presenter" might be better than "entertainer", as there are other Tom Scotts that are arguably entertainers as well (eg Tom Scott (musician)), so I would support that rename. Josh (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: upmerged per nom. Rename of parent category will require separate discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Damage 2011 earthquake Washington National Cathedral

Poor grammar in the category name, missing preposition and probably subject verb are inverted A1Cafel (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: What about a rename to Category:2011 Virginia earthquake effects on the Washington National Cathedral? (see existing Category:2011 Virginia earthquake effects on the Washington Monument) Josh (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much better than the current one. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: moved per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Association football supporters of Canada at FIFA World Cup 2022

empty Category أمين (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted as empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Grand Casino de Lyon Le Pharaon

Hay otra. 191.126.38.245 11:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: redirected to Category:Le Pharaon (Lyon). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Le Pharaon (Lyon)

Hay otra. 191.126.38.245 11:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a duplicate of Category:Grand Casino de Lyon Le Pharaon. As for which one to keep - I'd keep this one and merge Category:Grand Casino de Lyon Le Pharaon here. --rimshot^talk 21:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Category:Grand Casino de Lyon Le Pharaon now redirects here. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Konga Temple

The content of this category is the same as Category:Gunga Temple. The former is the official spelling of the building. However the latter was established earlier. It's better to merge all the history into the former and change the latter into a redirected category. 迴廊彼端 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @迴廊彼端: I didn't find any English spelling, official or not, at the link you included. It was all in Chinese, and I wouldn't trust what Google translate provides for something like this. I agree with a merge, but which name should we use? Also, if you have a better link to the official English spelling, that would be bonus points. Josh (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshbaumgartner:The official url is "https://www.konga.com.tw/" and the local government calls this temple Konga(Gunga) Temple. So I think Konga Temple would be better.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@迴廊彼端: That looks right to me, so I support it.

Merge Category:Gunga Temple into Category:Konga Temple Josh (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshbaumgartner:Thank you for supporting!--迴廊彼端 (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: redirected as per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kuan Han-Chʽing (crater)

Category:Kuan Han-Ch'ing (crater) and Category:Kuan Han-Chʽing (crater) are two categories for the same crater. We only need one of them, but I am not sure which one has the correct name. D3rT!m (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IAU page is below, which shows the name as Kuan Han-Ch'ing. So I suggest merging the two categories and keeping the one without the ʽ.

https://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Feature/3131 Jstuby (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: redirected. Wikimedia uses straight apostrophes. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Michael Lane McDonald

This is my info and art. The addition of the name McDonald has created much confusion in my career. I woild like the entire category deleted since “McDonald” remains attached to my name -Michael Lane. 2601:602:8D00:16B0:589D:6CE6:52F:A17D 16:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be okay if this redirect was removed. I don’t mind the entry itself with my drawings and painting. It’s just that the name McDonald should have never been added. 2601:602:8D00:16B0:589D:6CE6:52F:A17D 16:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted, not a meaningful redirect. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Logos of companies by name

Resolved

Why is different from Category:Logos of companies by company? If it’s not, then merge? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it makes more sense due to Category:Logos of companies by company being tautological. There's also no parent category called Category:companies by company probably for the same reason. Anyway I'm with them being merged as long Category:Logos of companies by company is merged into this one. Otherwise the discussion should probably take place with Category:Companies by name but I doubt there would be any support for changing it. Not to mention it follows the naming scheme for literally everything else in the meantime. I'm totally fine with Category:Logos of companies by company being merged into Category:Logos of companies by name though, just not the other way around. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Adamant1 it should merge to Logos of companies by name. Sometimes "name" can be ambiguous as an index criterion, but in this case, it seems pretty obvious that we mean the name of the company, not the name of the logo. If there really are categories out there with the logo name (not company name) and we need more clarity, then logos of companies by name of company at worst. It is not a problem to have a tautological name if it actually is the accurate name (we aren't trying to make poetry here), but at the same time if there is a better option, let's go with the better option.

Merge Category:logos of companies by company into Category:logos of companies by name (rename to 'logos of companies by name of companies' only if strictly necessary, definitely drop 'logos of companies by company') - Josh (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both, let’s merge. I think that Category:Logos of companies by company name would be ideal, but it’s true that there’s no danger of mistaking the current cat name to refer to names of logos. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. I'll probably do it myself eventually if no one else does in the meantime. If Logos of companies by name ends up being an issue at some point then I'm fine with Category:Logos of companies by company name as alterative also, but it would get convoluted pretty quickly when adding the type of company location to the name of the category on top of it. So I'd at least like to see how Logos of companies by name works out first and just stick to that if there's ultimately no reason not to. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: resolved already. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Deleted files transferred to Miraheze Commons

The Harvett Vault is upset that many of their uploads have been deleted for being out of scope, and this category seemingly only exists to chronicle that he's moved them to another file repository. This category does not advance Commons' aims. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:Deleted files transferred to Miraheze Commons/pending

For some reason, I had an unfair experience with this site due to the project scope policy that caused a controversy surrounding me and declared myself an era called "The Great Separation." I thought I had a good idea to transfer my uploads there since Slgrandson suggested me on the nomination for deletion; I made those categories named after Category:Deleted files transferred to Wikilivres. - The Harvett Vault | he/him | user | talk - 21:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC); edited: 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Slgrandson; he'll probably explain about it. - The Harvett Vault | he/him | user | talk - 21:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Harvett Vault: I suggested that Miraheze's equivalent would make a good lifesaver last month at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Avis Draws - S'cuse Me (2017).png. Didn't expect a category to show up in light of the circumstances, but then again...

P.S. I also have my fair share of anthro uploads on my own MH site, focusing on my upcoming books' characters--which constitute the vast majority of said wiki's files at this writing (and for MH itself as a whole, pretty much a very rare find).^{Care to team up for my efforts soon?} Slgrandson (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: deleted per nom. Looks like it has served its purpose. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Triple suits

What is the difference between this and Category:Three-piece suits? I'm thinking this category could be redirected there. Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, these are the same for all intents and purposes. Josh (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: redirected per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anima armour

Category:Anime_(armor) (german spelling) should be merged with this (italian spelling) one, or vice versa. 91.225.4.205 20:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anime (armor)	Move to/Rename as	Category:Anime (armour)
Category:Anima armour	Merge into	Category:Anime (armour)
Correct spelling of the name is "anime" in English as well as German. The main category is Category:Armour so we should use that spelling in the dab.
Josh (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:World music

El hecho que esté llena de categorías nada que ver con World Music (?), cómo lo hallais? 186.172.138.253 14:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no discussion, nor any solutions offered by nominator. Just keep up category maintenance. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cleavage in AI art

Commons is not a porn directory. This category doesn't serve any realistic educational purpose. Nosferattus (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same goes for the images in the category IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commons is most definitely not for pornography. It is also not censored. What is educational may also prove provocative of basic emotion (titillation, disgust, etc.) In any case, this category is the correct place to categorize the content within. It should remain so long as those images remain on the project. If they are deleted (outside the scope of CfD), then the category can be speedy deleted once empty. Josh (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we at least come up with a more neutral word for the category then since "cleavage" is kind of derogatory and pornographic? Sure Commons isn't conserved, but at the same time we don't have categories like Category:Round asses in AI art or whatever sexist and overly descriptive nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I didn't suggest censoring anything. If I wanted to censor Commons, I would have nominated the images for deletion, not the category. What I said is that the category doesn't serve any realistic educational purpose. Categorizing images based whether they show cleavage or not is pure gratuity (and overtly sexist, as we don't categorize AI images of men based on their sexual features). Nosferattus (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing images by what they depict is absolutely a fundamental function of Commons categories. You (and probably a sizeable number of people) may feel that this process is somehow degrading when it comes to certain topics such as cleavage, your discomfort is not a valid reason for category deletion. As for us having no categorization of male anatomy, you are just wrong, as there are definitely penis categories as well as about every other part of the male anatomy. Cleavage, or any other anatomical category, is only 'sexual' if a user takes it that way. Do you think we should delete any category of human anatomy that can be interpreted by anyone as sexual? Josh (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: , that is kind of a question for the parent category, Category:Cleavage (breasts). On that note however, this category, if retained, should match that parent category's name. As far as I know, 'cleavage' is the word to describe this particular phenomena, and while I'm sure some might take it as objectifying or reductive, that doesn't mean it isn't the correct term for the topic, or that we should ban it from the project. That said, if you can think of a better term for the topic, I think we should seriously consider it.

Side note, your analogy of "round asses" is a weak one. We wouldn't use the term "round asses" because the Commons term is "buttocks". We definitely have categories such as Category:Female buttocks and Category:Male buttocks, including Category:Female buttocks in art and Category:Male buttocks in art. Josh (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of a question for the parent category Sure, but this the category where discussion is taking place and there's saying the wording of category has to be discussed at the highest possible level in the category structure. So I don't really see what the issue with talking about here is. Someone saying it shouldn't be discussed heree "because parent category" is just dismissive.

'cleavage' is the word to describe this particular phenomena What "phenomena" would that be exactly? Breasts and images of them are pretty unremarkable. Sure, horny men like to create images of big breasted anime characters, but so what? Things are things and people have body parts. Neither one is an argument for how this category is currently named though.

your analogy of "round asses" is a weak one. We wouldn't use the term "round asses" because the Commons term is "buttocks". If anything your analogy is weak because gender neutral and my main argument for why this category is a problem the fact that it's sexist. There's no comparably category for men and Category:Cleavage (breasts) makes it explicitly clear that it's for images of women. So your just making my argument for me by pointing out gender neutral categories like Category:Human buttocks. Maybe I'd agree if we were talking about the actual body parts and the name of the category was based on their academic term though. Like if this was Category:Female human breasts, cool. I wouldn't have an issue with that. It's just sexist and overly sexualizing to have a category that only applies to women and is based on a slang term having to do with how much skin the person is showing though. At the end of the day these images should probably just be up-merged to Category:Female human breasts. Or why not something like Category:Partially nude female breasts since that's what the images are actually of? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea how “cleavage” is derogatory or prurient. What else do you call it, “half-exposed breasts”?! Plus we have tons of silly categories for overly specific things, why single out one? Dronebogus (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nosferattus argues that "categorizing images based whether they show cleavage or not is pure gratuity", so this should not apply to Category:Cleavage in AI art only but Category:Cleavage (breasts) and all subcategories. It seems arbitrary to file a deletion request only for this single subcategory if you're fundamentally opposed to "categorizing images based whether they show cleavage". Adamant1, on the other hand, objects to the term "cleavage" which they feel is "derogatory and pornographic". Again, this would apply to the whole Category:Cleavage (breasts) and not just to this subcategory. I'm a non-native English speaker, so I consulted Merriam-Webster's entry for the term "cleavage", and it lists as meaning no. 5 "the depression between a woman's breasts especially when made visible by a low-cut neckline", without describing the term as derogatory, vulgar, or obscene (which it does for other words, like the well-known four-letter swear words), so I assume that the term is fine. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Another question is whether all images in this category are in scope. Maybe a deletion request for the unused ones should be filed, see also my recent DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated book and magazine covers. The discussion here is not about the images but the category, however. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi: It's not arbitrary. This is literally the only category in Category:AI-generated female humans or Category:AI-generated male humans that is specifically about a body part. Do you believe that it's just a random coincidence that it happens to be a highly sexualized body part? The thing that is offensive isn't the word "cleavage", it's that the only body part of women that deserves categorization is cleavage. That is the definition of sexual objectification and it is demeaning to women. Maybe that means nothing to you, but I wanted to at least explain why I think the category is offensive. It's all about context. Nosferattus (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, you don't consider Category:Cleavage (breasts) offensive, only the AI art subcategory? I still think this is rather inconsistent. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. By way of analogy, imagine if it was 20 years ago and the only category under en:Category:Women by occupation was en:Category:Female prostitutes. Why not start with Category:Hands in AI art and then Category:Torsos in AI art, etc.? Starting with cleavage just makes Commons look like a porn directory. Nosferattus (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your line of thought. But wouldn't that rather be a reason to create more categories such as Category:Torsos in AI art etc.? Now that we have that category, if it's deleted, I suppose the images in it would be sorted one category level higher, into Category:Cleavage in art, or if that were deleted, too, into Category:Cleavage (breasts), but it does make sense to separate AI images from the rest... Gestumblindi (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cleavage" is not a body part for one Trade (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Cleavage is more of a fashion design element or aspect of eroticism since it’s defined by the breasts being covered by something. Dronebogus (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Per the discussion, this appears to be a valid subcategory of Category:Cleavage in art, and there's no reason for this subcategory to be treated any differently than its parent or sibling categories. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Exercise instructors

i think, this concept is now more popularly referred to as "fitness coach". what do you think? RZuo (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in some regions, or in certain context, but not universally. Category:Fitness coaches is its own category. I'm not sure if maybe 'fitness coach' is a subset of 'exercise instructor', but we probably need a bit more info before merging. Josh (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as per User:Joshbaumgartner, but made Fitness coaches a subcategory of this one. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former countries of Europe

Esto se ve entre Finlandia (?) y Francia (?). Hay una categoría Future countries of Europe también? 191.126.38.245 11:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am dubious as to the value of temporal categories such as this, but I know that at least a few users seem commited to them. Unfortunately, they are often poorly maintained and unreliable, especially if their patron has gone on to other pursuits. Josh (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. No discussion on what to do with this category. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/06

Conclusions and actions

Conclusions

Conclusions

Navigation menu

Search