Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02

This page is for open CFD discussions started in February 2021.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/02.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2021-02.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache

Summary of open discussions

Current requests

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Ireland

There should be a parallel scheme for Ireland that always has two sub-categories: Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland categories will similarly usually have two parents: Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Republic will have only one parent: Ireland. --Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was opened in a strange way, then closed, but I've re-opened it to get further discussion. After a discussion in 2018 (Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Ireland) there was a decision to use Category:Ireland as the category for the island (encompassing the country Category:Republic of Ireland and the sudvision of the United Kingdom Category:Northern Ireland, rather than in place of the Republic of Ireland. It has been a great deal of work separating media between the two, and "X in Ireland" categories still often retain images from both (yet are subcategories of "x by country"). I've been working to separate them, but it has taken time.

In many cases, it makes sense to keep a category "in Ireland" - if we are talking about landforms, nature, culture, and other elements that ignore borders. But in places where an object is clearly fixed in either the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland, I don't see the need to have an "X in Ireland" parent category.

For example, once we had Category:Playing fields in Northern Ireland and Category:Playing fields in the Republic of Ireland, I deleted Category:Playing fields in Ireland. Laurel Lodged took offence to this deletion and recreated Category:Playing fields in Ireland with its two subcategories. The parent category, Category:Sports venues in Ireland also has just other two subcategories (by location). By Laurel Lodged's logic, it's important that we also create Category:Athletics venues in Ireland‎, Category:Basketball venues in Ireland‎, Category:Cricket grounds in Ireland‎, and so forth, so that each one can contain two subcategories (1 for NI and 1 for RoF). I think that's unhelpful and overly complicated.

A useful equivalent for comparison is Category:Great Britain which doesn't contain Category:Playing fields in Great Britain, despite the fact that such a category could contain Category:Playing fields in England, Category:Playing fields in Wales, and Category:Playing fields in Scotland.

Sorry for the long wall of text. I hope this clears things up. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Crouch, Swale who opened the previous discussion on this topic. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per w:WP:IRE-CATS there should be "X in Ireland", "X in the Republic of Ireland" and "X in Northern Ireland" I started splitting after the 1st CFD though there's probably more to do and I temporarily left the island and state with "Ireland" categories until such splitting had been completed. We don't generally appear to use "X in Great Britain" though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: To clarify, you think it's worthwhile to have Category:Basketball venues in Ireland‎ with two subcategories Category:Basketball venues in the Republic of Ireland‎ and Category:Basketball venues in Northern Ireland‎? And so forth for absolutely every category, divided by colour and so forth? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Sorry for the confusion. I was a bit rushed that day. Yes - it's worthwhile to have Category:Basketball venues in Ireland‎ with two subcategories Category:Basketball venues in the Republic of Ireland‎ and Category:Basketball venues in Northern Ireland‎. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify, what will be the parent for Category:Basketball venues in Ireland? Surely not Category:Basketball venues by country which will house Category:Basketball venues in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Basketball venues in the United Kingom. We have no Category:Basketball venues in Europe or Category:Basketball venues by region, so it will need to go in Category:Basketball venues. And so forth for a great variety of other "in Ireland" categories that will have similarly broad parent categories and only two child categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the logic of Laurel Lodge. Ireland is either the island or the Republic, and therefore needs both "x in Ireland" and "x in the Republic of Ireland". However, we don't need to create "x in Great Britain" since people often use the term "Great Britain" to refer to the UK instead of the island. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also take note that not everything can be separated between the two nations. Notably in sports where there are unified teams (but still for sports locations like stadiums and playfields we should be able to separate them, even though there are sport teams and cofederations which will remain in "Ireland"). This makes a mix where we sometimes need the 3 categories that are all relevant, or just 1 for whole Ireland (rarely), or 2 for each nation but not with a parent (most frequent case, except for very frequent major topics like Geography, History, Culture, that still need the 3). verdy_p (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd just like to know where you folks intend to put all these "in Ireland" categories. "X by country" doesn't work since we're talking about the Island not the country. If you're really going to use "in Ireland" for every single category, you'll eventually need a way to link Category:Spoons in Ireland to Category:Spoons. I'm not sure Category:Spoons by island will be well received. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spoons from Ireland; Category:Spoons from the Republic of Ireland; Category:Spoons from Northern Ireland and finally Category:Spoons from the United Kingdom. I don't see a problem here @Themightyquill: . Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've listed child categories, whereas my point is: What are the parent categories for Category:Spoons from Ireland? Category:Spoons from Europe? Category:Spoons by island? -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subsuming Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Ireland into this one as it appears to essentially cover the same issue. Josh (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged, Themightyquill, Crouch, Swale, Soumya-8974, and Verdy p: I have linked the prior discussions on this above for reference, as ongoing discussion about Ireland categorization continues here. Josh (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 eurocents:
- Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland: category for anything that falls into the administrative boundaries of the two said countries. I.e: politics of the Republic of Ireland; sports venues in Northern Ireland, politics from the Republic of Ireland, sportspeople from Northern Ireland.
- Ireland: anything cultural or regarding the whole island, i.e.: nature of Ireland, poets from Ireland, writers from Ireland, rugby union in Ireland (not the same for association football because each country of Ireland has their separate national team). Under this respect, it's perfectly normal that a person can be classified under both rugby union players from Ireland and, for example, sportspeople from Northern Ireland because they can be a rugby union player for Ireland coming from Northern Ireland. -- Blackcat 19:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
w:w:WP:IRE-CATS gives guidance on this namely its normal to have "X in Ireland", "X in the Republic of Ireland" and "X in Northern Ireland" except in cases like sports teams which are all island scope, small categories where its better to be mixed andthe likes of Category:Gaeltacht places in County Galway which aren't all island scope. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Laurel Lodged, Themightyquill, Blackcat, and Crouch, Swale: Forgive me if I am missing something, but it seems like there is a general consensus to maintain Ireland with items common to the island/region as a whole with Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland representing the political entities (countries) with contents that are specific to one or the other. Can we close this on that basis or is there something further to hammer out here that I missed? Josh (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: as long as when I write "Rugby union in Ireland" is clear that we are talking about the whole island of Ireland, I agree with you. -- Blackcat 21:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: Naturally, this would be consistent with your previously stated 2 eurocents. Josh (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per w:WP:IRE-CATS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

close this on that basis Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with creating "Ireland" categories as parents for every "Republic of Ireland" category. We don't need an "of Ireland" category for every object in each country. We don't do that for Category:Hispaniola or the other Category:International islands either because it creates a standalone category tree with no logical parent. I'm fine to concede "of Ireland" categories for transnational nature and culture, but Laurel Lodged is not willing to make that compromise. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Ireland is a special case in international law. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: How so? What international law? -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, we have en:Category:Association football people in Ireland which breaks down by NI and ROI. I see no reason why Commons should not mirror this categorigal structure.@Themightyquill: 185.114.160.101 10:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't how that responds to my concerns. If we have Category:Association football people in Ireland, the logical parent category for the "Association football people" part of the tree is what? Category:Association football people in Europe? Category:Association football people by island? It either creates a standalone category tree (largely useless) or necessitates a whole bunch of other categories with little other purpose. -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I think the scope of Categories by country should be expanded to include regions that participate as countries in international events. This would include Ireland, NI and ROI categories under the same "by country" category in a non-hierarchical fashion. I think English Wikipedia categorises categories in such fashion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: As I elaborate a bit more on in the CfD on countries, I think this is a road to trouble. At a minimum, it sets up overcat violations and creates unnecessary first-glance confusion. If one wants an index including all sporting countries in international events, an index specific to this such as 'by country of association' or such would be fine, as the user has a better idea that they are seeing the 'countries' listed in the format of their sporting association, and that the index contents are based on their sporting association. This would distinguish it from the normal 'by country' index which would be presumed to use the same scope as Category:Countries, i.e. be a list of sovereign states. Josh (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I'm sorry but Category:Association football people in Ireland seems to be a bit of a red herring, as we don't have any "association football people in country" categories, except a single one for Lithuania. There is no existing real structure for that topic on Commons. But take a more established topic, such as Technology, as a better example. We have Technology in Ireland, under which is Technology in the Republic of Ireland. Technology in Ireland is under the parent structure of Technology by region of location along with other regions such as Latin America, Korea, etc. I agree that "Ireland" categories should not necessarily need to be made as a parent to any existing "Republic of Ireland" categories, especially if the republic is going to be the only contents. I get your concern for parent category structure, but it isn't really an Ireland problem, it's a global problem. The correct structure doesn't always exist, or exist consistently, within any given topic, but again, it is nothing specific to the Ireland question so I'm not sure why it is germane to the question of this CfD. Josh (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a red-herring at all, because we do have Category:Association football people from X. Where do we put Category:Association football people from Ireland, should it be created? We don't do this for other countries on islands. We don't do it at all for Category:Hispaniola. And for former countries like Category:Korea we don't continue using the former country to locate contemporary people/things. We wouldn't have Category:Korea as the main category for South Korea with a sub-category of Category:North Korea]. Why would we do the same for Ireland? -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I guess that we are entering in a minefield.
And, I reckon, categories lack a bit of semantics (or better, they have it but we alas, we - me first - didn't spend time to explain it to the reader).
Categories should reflect the context.
Though Ireland as a island is not technically a country, a category like "Rugby union in Ireland" has sense because Ireland (the island) is rugby union country. Thus it can be effectively included in "rugby union by country" because the semantics of that category is "by rugby union country" (it includes, for example, also England, Scotland and Wales which are not sovereign countries but separate rugby union countries with their own federation each). Of course what I say makes sense if one knows the context (c'est à dire, all-Ireland is a sports country for many sports but not for association football), and this is up to us to explain (that is, warning the reader that "country" in that context must not be intended as administrative or politic entity but a sports country). Hope that what I wrote made sense. -- Blackcat 16:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS If you note the navbox atop of the subcats of the European rugby union country, such as Rugby union in Scotland, it navigates through the member unions of Rugby Europe, not across the countries of Europe, just because the latter wouldn't include England, Scotland, Wales and would consider Ireland only as the Republic. -- Blackcat 16:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "by country of association" makes more sense, as countries of association aren't necessarily sovereign states. While the scope of "by country" categories should be limited to sovereign states in order to adhere with Commons policy, the scope of "by country of association" may include subdivisions or regions participating as countries. Although the term "country" in "rugby union by country" unambiguously refers to the entities participating in rugby union as countries, we should use "rugby union by country of association" instead for this purpose. However, Rugby union by country may still be used to group sovereign states corresponding to the participating entities. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: or maybe we might create a parallel category tree "by sports country" or "by country for sport", yet being aware that, to reprise the abovementioned examples, Scotland, Wales and England are rugby union and rugby league countries, Republic of Ireland is a football and Olympics country, the whole Great Britain is a country at Olympic level, is a country in tennis in Fed Cup and Davis Cup, Northern Ireland is a football country, and so on. -- Blackcat 22:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England, Scotland, Wales, Great Britain, Ireland all can be categorised under "by country of association" or "by sports country", which should be distinct from "by country". However, the UK should never be categorised under "by sports country" as it has never participated in any sports as the full United Kingdom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly disagree with the desire to create a problem where there is none. Ireland is a country that calls itself just Ireland, not Republic of Ireland. That's the way Brits call it to diminish it, with select exceptions where RoI is indeed used, such as FIFA (I can think of no other actually). On the other hand, there is in general no need to create categories for topics at the level of an island when that island is shared between two countries, as for Hispaniola, Saint-Martin (the Dutch + French part), New Guinea, Borneo, Tierra Del Fuego, Timor etc. As mentioned above, there are in general no category for topic in Great Britain for the UK minus Northern Ireland (and if there was, should it include content in the Orkney, Hebrides, the Isle of Wight, the Shetlands etc.?) In a similar but not identical case, we don't have parallel Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus category trees. Therefore, categories for Foo of/in Ireland should almost always be about the country, not the island, with select exceptions when that is absolutely necessary, such as rugby union and everything pre-partition. Place Clichy 11:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone is researching the Category:Broighter Gold, he should look in Pre-History of the United Kingdom, not Pre-History of Ireland? Even though the hoard is stored in Category:Goldware in the National Museum of Ireland, Kildare Street. Because County Londonderry is not in the Republic. Is that right?p

Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments may be right, but the name "Republic of Ireland" is not something the Brits use to diminish the country. It is an official descriptor for the country, adopted by the Republic itself. In addition, the Wikipedia article for the country is titled the "Republic of Ireland" because Ireland also refers to the island shared by the Republic and the Kingdom. My current stand is not to create every single category for the island of Ireland as long as we don't have its corresponding category for Northern Ireland. The new categories for the Republic may be titled "Ireland" instead of the "Republic of Ireland" but would be converted into a region category if the corresponding category for Northern Ireland is created. For example, we have created Category:Foo in Ireland with parents Category:Bar in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Foo by country. If someone creates Category:Foo in Northern Ireland, we will create Category:Foo in the Republic of Ireland with parents Category:Bar in the Republic of Ireland, Category:Foo by country and Category:Foo in Ireland. Then we will recategorise Category:Foo in Ireland under Category:Bar in Ireland and Category:Foo by region. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if Category:Foo in Northern Ireland becomes empty and if Category:Foo in the Republic of Ireland still has images, then we may redirect Category:Foo in Ireland to Category:Foo in the Republic of Ireland. That is, the region categories should exist as long as we have images of at least two highest-order constituents of the given region. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guangming Lights

I believe "Category:Guangming lights" should be more correct and as such better, am I right? E4024 (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to

Agree, because I guess that here is proper noun + common noun. However, I couldn't find Google hits. When I Google-translated Chinese Wikipedia's article, it gives also "Bright lights"--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military Imams at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

Firstly, imam is not capitalized unless it is a person's name or noble title, which is not the case here. Secondly, this cat is under "Muslim military chaplains" (who are imams, naturally) and therefore should be renamed Muslim military chaplains at the..." I am moving it. Clear as the sunny sky. E4024 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been explained to E4024, multiple times, that they should not unilaterally empty categories. I admonish them for ignoring these explanations. Categories are not the ideal means for organizing commons material, because they have no memory. Administrators routinely delete empty categories. It can be misleading to quietly empty a category.

If one thinks a the contents of a category should be in a category of a different name there are two policy compliant ways to do so.

Fill out a {{Move}} tag. There are ways for other contributors to challenge that {{Move}}. If that {{Move}} tag goes unchallenged for a period of time, a robot takes care of the details, (1) creating a redirect, and (2) moving the elements from one category to another.
Initiate a discussion here. But, E4024, in that case you don't ALSO manually move the contents. You wait for the discussion to conclude.

I am reverting your move from the old category to the new category, so we can wait for the discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be transparent to you. There are people with whom I would never discuss anything. (Indeed when I opened the discussion and noticed that my notification went to your talk page I repented having opened this CfD.) How will you keep a name with a wrong capitalization, to begin with, and then discuss it? Who empties anything "silently"? Did "you" open this thread? Look, discuss with people who wish to discuss with you. I will not respond anything else to you. I want to be remembered here as a person who made "good categorization"; not as a wrangler. Do as you wish. Good bye. E4024 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E4024, I recently reviewed our interaction in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sexy_librarian_look_(15022862928).jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Sexy_Librarian_Look_(3902980364).jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sexy_librarian_(481593155).jpg and Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Sexy librarian meme - which I believe are our first interactions.

I think I showed you a lot of patience there. It has been my intention to be patient with you, because you confirmed something I suspected, namely that English is not your first language. Native speakers of English should not belittle contributors to en.wiki for whom English is a second language (ESL). However, ESL people should do their best to keep their contributions within their level of fluency. I didn't review our entire history, but I'd like to think I continued to be patient with you in those interactions, as well.

On commons, which is an International project, English speakers should be even more careful to show respect for ESL people. Some ESL people leave their comments in their own native languages, leaving English speakers to rely on google translate. I believe it is an option for you, too.

However, without regard to our mother tongue, we all have to do our best to comply with the policies, guidelines, and long-standing conventions. Asking you to do so is not an insult or a personal attack.

I wrote, above, that emptying a category, and then calling for its deletion, because it is empty, is a mistake. Well, I offered an explanation here. I think that explanation was civil and it was a mistake for you to ignore it.

I just promoted a user essay to the wikipedia namespace, I think it might be relevant to you w:Wikipedia:Pick one. I encourage you to read it. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, the nominated category is moved to Category:Muslim military chaplains at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Are we satisfied here?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ali Ahmad Shahab

The person both is in a Sunni muslim cat and also Shia cat. I think cat inflation about muslims cause these absurdities. Note: I already removed some overcat, what else have to be done, Sunni/Shia experts? E4024 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rajasthan style

This is a subcat of Category:Rajput painting, while that mother cat is defined as "also known as Rajasthani Painting", which makes me believe there is some unnecessary categorization around here and they may be simplified by RDs and merges. Users from or knowledgeable about the culture of India should discuss.. E4024 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Category:Rajput painting is also a subcat of this one! So I get even more confused. Fit India, can you kindly help with this mess? --E4024 (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
enwiki article is under en:Rajput painting. We should use enwiki solution Estopedist1 (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Titles and occupations in Hinduism

With this approach we can categorize -as an example- also physicians under occupations and titles; of course we can also make two parallel cats for doctors, and other two cats for medical doctors. Maybe I am not aware but is there a prize for users who open more new cats? No prize for opening to discussion some of them? E4024 (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: en:Category:Titles and occupations in Hinduism has existed since 2005. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Election pie charts

Who made this cat for only Turkey, what is the sense? Can we integrate this somewhere? I suppose other countries have similar charts? E4024 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the only two subcats, and also why is there a distinction between "of" and "for"? --E4024 (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator can be found in the History. However, in general a hierarchical categorization system is not appropriate since pie chart classification (created with, file format, language, theme, type) connects unrelated fields. At least if it is stated that a category should not contain too much items. However, the cats of "Turkey" should be melted in one category. --Sigbert (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, election pie charts has more than 50 files which is easily enough to warrant an own category. The number of Turkish pie charts is arguable enough for an own category, but there should be only one. All of them are for Turkish general elections, so here comes my proposal:

Merge all Turkish election categories to Category:Pie charts for Turkish general elections

I'd actually prefer of to for, but I think for isn't strictly wrong and it's not worth the hassle of renaming. --rimshot^talk 20:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we actually also have Category:Pie charts of elections in Turkey. So merging in favor of the proposition "of" per @Rimshot Estopedist1 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Category:Pie charts for elections in Turkey is now a soft redirect to Category:Pie charts of elections in Turkey. Sije (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a significant difference to Category:Election apportionment diagrams of Turkey? --Enyavar (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious leadership roles

Meaningless (IMHO) cat following some absurd cat of EN:WP. What kind of religious leadership is this that even the Pope is not here. IMO overcat, like many other "religion" cats. E4024 (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Category:Religious leaders; what is the difference? "Imams" (who else?) are in both cats; if the poor "mahalle imamı" (sort of parish priest) in my neighbourhood heard this, his walking style could change. In Turkey imams are low-degree civil servants; many of them make a second job like taxi driving to have a decent life. They come nowhere near "religious leadership roles" of some purple-dressed people. This is real ns. EN:WP is not a place to take as role model. IMHO. Merge this to the parent cat.
Support merge into Category:Religious leaders, as there is no practical difference. I'm not sure how you have an image of a 'role' without it being an image of someone in that role. Josh (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enwiki has both en:Category:Religious leadership roles and en:Category:Religious leaders.--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enwiki has both Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naryn Kala castle

the newly created category is actually duplicating Category:Derbent Fortress. If/when we have more photos of other parts of Derbent Fortress (not the castle, if any), it would be reasonable, but not now rubin16 (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubin16: I'm a little unclear here. Isn't Category:Derbent wall separate from the castle? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore the correct name for the category: Derbent Fortress. This is a huge defensive wall which runs through the whole city and the neighbouring region, not a "castle" by any means. Ghirlandajo (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Today Category:Derbent Fortress was removed from all articles by the same user who created Category:Naryn Kala castle. He ignores the discussion, and the whole pattern of behavior looks problematic. They also created the eponymous article in English Wikipedia, which was deleted as "creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Ghirlandajo (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ghirlandajo: First of all, please do not include Wikipedia topics in the discussion! Derbent Fortress is a collection of castles, and walls and so on And all of these should not be in the same category, And I read above that this is not a castle at all, it was really funny So the pyramids of Egypt? No, it is a fortress that has a castle, a wall, and so on! POS78 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the top POS78 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fertilizer spreaders

Need to merge with Category:broadcast spreaders. Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі: are you sure that "fertilizer spreader" and "broadcast spreader" are synonyms? En:broadcast spreader says that synonym is "centrifugal fertilizer spreader"--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let Category:broadcast spreaders will be subcategory to the category:fertilizer spreaders. Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway line (Bratislava-Košice)

it's a duplicate to Category:Railway line 120 (Slovakia) (Bratislava–Žilina) and Category:Railway line 180 (Slovakia) (Žilina–Košice), cats and files from this category should be moved to appropriate category — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, not an officially designated railway line. Content should be moved as suggested before. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

currently the nominated category is pseudo-disambiguation page. I am not sure, do we really need such disambiguation page?--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious titles

The most hierarchical (look at the clothing protocol of different clerics) religion, Christianity is so little and differently- represented in this cat... That is just an observation. Now let me see how this will be used to duplicate or triplicate everything "Islamic". We have "clerics" (sic, I doubt we can talk of clerics in"any" religion), we have "workers" (Islamic religious workers or something like that), we have "religious personalities". For the sake of everything sacred, these are all the same thing: Different/parallel/redundant/unnecessary cats for some religious occupations. Is there anyone who can say "stop" to this wrong expansion and simplify things here? E4024 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Titles and occupations in Hinduism. Thanks for your time. --E4024 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category as simple category for religious titles like en:Category:Religious titles or de:Kategorie:Religiöser Titel. -- Geagea (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot Category:Religious occupations, Category: Religious leaders and Category:Religious leadership roles. Who knows what else I have forgotten or not seen? Would you like me to spend more of my volunteer time to add the links of those cats I refer to at the intro? Within all this mess we may in fact have, say, at most 3 cats. However, at present we have some 10 or more. They all tell the same story and only destroy classification and confuse people who look for something simple. Is an "imam" an Islamic worker, a title, a religious leader, a religious leadership position, an Islamic cleric, what the f is he? --E4024 (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, he is also an "Islamic scholar" (even though some of them have not even seen a school in their lifetime). --E4024 (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the First Latvian Republic

Category title contains discouraged phrase "First Latvian Republic". The republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1918–1940 are generally considered the same as current ones in line with state continuity of the Baltic states. Though "first republic" is seldom used, it's be more appropriate to follow the naming of parent category "History of Latvia (1918–1940)". Hence this category and subcatgories should be renamed to something like "People of Latvia (1918–1940)" or merged back into parent categories.

This is the same issue as in previous CfD. Follwoing this previous discussion I already fixed those a few Latvian categories as well, but then once again for an unknown reason got reverted by User:Tm (e.g. here). Not caring to explain why their solution is superior or not caring to explain their actions at all is kind of a pattern for user Tm. I don't hope that this changes here, the CfD once again is just for documenting the issue.

This also concerns the following categories and their subcategories:

--2001:7D0:81F7:B580:280C:C3A8:873A:3712 09:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to be pedantic, but there a few sources out there that refer to it as the first Latvian Republic. Including in Academic sources. If some technically use the specific phrase "First Latvian Republic" or not though, there is clearly a difference between the republics that is worth having separate categories for. Although, maybe it would be better to do it by way of dates instead a phrase. I'm not really sure, but I see nothing wrong with a phrase for a category if it's used in academia. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, phrase "first Latvian Republic" is seldom used, as already admitted above, but for the reason outlined above it's considerably less common than "Interwar Latvia" and and other similar wordings. I assume you found this JSTOR entry via Google Scholor. The latter currenty gives thrice as much results for "Interwar Latvia". Even if usage counts aren't considered, I think we shouldn't use current title simply because compared to other variants it is disputable, or at best questionable. Yes, separate category in itself is fine (above I suggested a new title). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:C806:202B:A15F:6F5 15:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "Interwar Latvia" is that there have been multiple wars in Lativa and therefore multiple Interwar periods. For instance, is it the interwar period after the Latvian War of Independence or after the Soviet occupation of Latvia ended? So it's not really helpful as a category name. Whereas, "First Latvian Republic" tells people the exist period that the category relates to. Since there isn't multiple First Latvian Republics. I'm fine with start and end dates, but they can be kind of fuzzy when it comes to when wars begin, end, and republics are formed. Plus most people don't think of groups of people as distinct categories in terms of when treaties are formed or wars ended. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "interwar" should be taken literally. "Interwar period" usually stands for this particular period between the wars (see en:Interwar period). Moreover, since the inception of Latvian country there haven't been other periods between the wars. But I'm not saying that title needs to be "Interwar Latvia". My suggestion was "History of Latvia (1918–1940)". This is the time range that is generally associated to interwar Lativa, regardless how its called. People may not know "when treaties are formed or wars ended", but to those not not familiar with the subject, both "interwar" and the time range are probably still more helpful compared to "first republic" as the latter is the least descriptive variant.

Why people (often foreign authors) sometimes say "first republic", and why it may be tempting to say so, is probably because this phrase is familiar to them in context of histories of some other countries, most notably France. But in context Latvia and other Baltic countries this nonetheless is misleading, historiography of these countries actually doesn't divide their histories between successive republics, and it is usually considered to contradict the principle of state continuity (see link above) which is supported by most western countries. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:51D6:831C:C69F:50A6 07:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used the term "first republic" is because that's what academic sources refer to it as. I didn't check to see if they were a "western authors or whatever", but my usage of the term had nothing to do with my background as someone from the west. I could ultimately care less what the category is called, but it's helpful when there is a disagreement about how to name categories if we refer to what people who are more authoritative on the topic call something. Otherwise its just a "he said, she said" type of thing. Which I rather avoid. Especially when it's topics that can involve strong nationalistic bias like this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No "First Latvian Republic" in world history, excepting Soviet/Russian distorted concept of "voluntary" loss of independence in 1940. Republic of Latvia restored in 1990, according to all documents about the restoration of independence, is the same state, with the same laws and state structure, as it was before Soviet annexation. Therefore, there is no reason to call the state of 1918-1940 by a different name ("First Republic"). — Olgerts V (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Childbirth in Auckland Museum

Is this category named correctly? I don't see how a razor can have anything to do with childbirth. Till (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they used that razor for male circumcision at birth? --E4024 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the description in each filepage "'cut throat' razor in box The handle decoration possibly commemorates the death of Princess Charlotte, daughter of King George IV in 1817 - see description below handle decoration- on one side are profile busts of 'CHARLOTTE' and 'LEOPOLD' (married 2 May 1816); on the other, running horizontally is a mourning scene with a leafless tree on the lhs and five figures approaching a tomb with an urn upon it - Princess Charlotte died in childbirth on 6 November 1817, and her infant son was still born.".

In this case the death of Princess Charlotte of Wales and her still born son, so it seems that this category is appropriate, not by the function of the razor itself but the depicted subjects in it. Tm (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
suspicious category name. But if this is official collection name of Aucland Museum, then it may be acceptable Estopedist1 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Built in Leeds by year categories

There is no actual category but I'm listing the individual category pages here. It seems entirely excessive and unnecessary to keep track of what was built in this city by year. The biggest category is probably going to be at most 2-3 items, especially since it's highly unlikely the actual Leeds by year categories will be anything else. I'm ignoring the fact that these are all in the West Yorkshire (which didn't exist until 1974) parent category when they should be in either West Riding of Yorkshire (pre-1889) or directly in England (Leeds was a county borough from 1889-1973). Suggest deletion and upmerger into the parent architecture by decade in Leeds category, the built in West Yorkshire (for now) category and the Leeds by that year category. --Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each built in Leeds by year category

All the categories involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Ricky81682: If I understand correctly, that objection seems to assume that only subcategories, not individual photos, will be put in these categories, and that there isn't all that much notable in Leeds or that it's not that well documented. While Seattle, the area I know best, doesn't have a separate "built in..." hierarchy, look at (for example) Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1890 (mostly Seattle) and Category:1890 in Seattle. (1) There can be a lot built in a year in a city. (2) When you say, "highly unlikely the actual Leeds by year categories will be anything else," why do you think that? Leeds then was almost as big as Seattle now! Are there no decent photos of 1890s Leeds? - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jmabel: Maybe I spoke to too soon but given that I'm creating the categories (most of them are early 20th-century), it's largely empty as of now. The objection is more these separately built in categories just make the built in county category a holder category with one item. I'm also not certain if it's going to be in Leeds or in the City of Leeds separately). Sweden has creation by municipality but I still see each one as maybe 2-3 categories at most. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By decade is the usual level of granularity for this sort of category. Support upmerging. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support solution per @Rodhullandemu Estopedist1 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catherine Alice Freehill

Should be deleted. No content other than a Wikidata infobox and an ill-advised subfolder of a relative. Commons is not a genealogy database where every person who ever lived gets their own profile page under the guise of "category" with no media whatsoever. --Animalparty (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added her portrait to the category. Although, I'm going to leave it up to other people to decide if a category with one file should be kept or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in Wikidata it is kept because "structural need". I guess that we haven't strong arguments to delete this one-member category in Commons as well Estopedist1 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there's more stuff in the category now. I'm not sure if what was added should be there, but at least it points to the fact that the category probably shouldn't be deleted at this point. Even if it was just her picture I'd say it's probably fine to say we keep the category since it has a Wikidata item and whatnot. Sometimes it's good to leave things as is when that's the case. Even if there's a small amount of files in the category at present. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of religion in the Arabian Kingdom

"Arabian Kingdom", "Saudi Arabia"... Concepts are being mixed and messed up to create an eternal kingdom that did not really exist. E4024 (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To understand my concerns better, you must look at the corrections I made to the categorization of Category:Islamic history of Saudi Arabia. --E4024 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we have 33 categories with the name <History of religion in Foo location>. In most cases these are 1-2 member categories. Usually <Religion in Foo location> is sufficient. By the way Category:Arabian Kingdom is also missing Estopedist1 (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign countries' pavilions

Category:Foreign countries' pavilions	Move to/Rename as	Category:Exposition pavilions by country of origin by exposition
Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 (countries)	Move to/Rename as	Category:Pavilions of Expo 1967 by country of origin
better fits standard metacat structure, fits into existing Category:Exposition pavilions by country of origin. As covered in Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Foreign countries, 'foreign' is not usually an appropriate adjective (all countries are foreign to all other countries). This proposal covers all subs of Category:Foreign countries' pavilions.
Josh (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nilssonia nigricans

Why is this a subcat of Category:Bayazid Bostami Shrine (Chittagong)? Do these turtles only exist in that place? E4024 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the wikipedia article: "Originally native to the lower Brahmaputra River, the only population ever reliably known consists of a small number of the species in a man-made pond which is part of the Bayazid Bostami shrine at Chittagong, where they are dependent on humans for survival." Can we close discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:La última comunión de Santa Teresa (Museo Lázaro Galdiano)

El título del cuadro es "La comunión de santa Teresa", y no "La última comunión de santa Teresa" Laci3 (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:La comunión de santa Teresa (Museo Lázaro Galdiano), per es:La comunión de santa Teresa Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley@Laci3: seems OK. Can we close this category-for-discussion? Estopedist1 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social history of the Arabian Kingdom

Which "Arabian Kingdom"? Cats of Saudi Arabia are being mixed with an "Arabian Kingdom". Please do not let me and a couple of other people to resist alone "wrong categorization". In the end we become "guilty" for caring for Commons and blocked or desysopsed. E4024 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It links to en:Social history of Saudi Arabia. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St Gabriel's church, Stanton St Gabriel

Name is too similar to Category:St Gabriel's church, Stanton St Gabriel - should it be renamed "Chapel of St Gabriel" or disambiguated with "old church" or something similar? Peter James (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have a problem adding "ruin" to the name, I think you are linking twice to the same thing. Is there another similar category? WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

category:St Gabriel's Church, Stanton St Gabriel - agreed there is a similarity. Renaming the ruined one to chapel might still cause confusion as there are sources that describe it as a church. Adding (ruin) to the end of one or new and old with the existing names being category redirects would perhaps be neater. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Noël Clément-Janin

Gamin: c'est quoi? François Malo-Renault (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about his surname, it is a discussion opened at the wrong place (and unnecessarily). If so, please correct the surname at Wikidata and ask an admin to close this discussion. --E4024 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@François Malo-Renault: frwiki article and Wikidata item are under the name Noël Clément-Janin. I think we can close this discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ortahisar

The cat name was stolen from a town in Cappadocia, by a TR:WP user after I reminded them that they were making wrong categorization. Ortahisar is an internationally known tourist attraction in Cappadocia. The urban district of Trabzon which carries the same name is a recent introduction. The administrative system in Turkey which equals the borders of "metropolitan cities" to the "provincial borders" obliged the lawmaker/executive to invent new names for city centers turned into districts. "Ortahisar" may mean something for part of the people of the city of Trabzon. Trabzon is a big province with districts far away from the city. I cannot imagine anybody in, say, Çaykara, Of or Vakfıkebir leaving home in the morning and telling his wife "I am going to Ortahisar" instead of "I am going to Trabzon". This is real nonsense. I will take the opportunity to complain and whine (yes, I will). As you may see at my unanswered talk at the userpage, linked above, I could have avoided this situation by reverting the wrongly-made categorization. I did not. I am a civilised person who searches consensus; and not a bigot. What did I receive in return? Thank you? No. Correcting their mistakes? No. Responding to my talk? No. Explaining their move to all the community? No. These arrogant attitudes by at most 3 or 4 people in TR:WP made me abandon that place; now I see the same approach here. Whatever, I will still not be arrogant like others: Do not revert anything. Simply make "Ortahisar" a disam page. There are millions of people in all the world who have at their home a souvenir from Ortahisar in Cappadocia; whereas even millions of Turks have never heard of something called "Ortahisar" instead of the historic Trabzon city centre. Please let us put an end to ns and individualism. Also do not come here with arguments like "a district is larger than a belde" etc. Enough is enough. No insult to our brains please. E4024 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as it is. Commons:Categories states that "category names should generally be in English." If you look at the English Wikipedia, you can see how they named en:Ortahisar (district) and en:Ortahisar, Nevşehir (belde). If people disagree, Category:Ortahisar can be made a disambiguation page. I did not - and most probably won't - reply to your message(s) because I'm not happy with your manners. You should inspect the beam in your eye first.--BSRF (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
current situation seems to be acceptable. Are we satisfied here? Estopedist1 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ionuț Silaghi de Oaș

Non-notable person. Part of mass cross-wiki spam. Deleted on enwiki previously via discussion. Also would delete any images of this person as out of project scope. IWI (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to discuss here. 1. Firstly, we may see if they are notable or not if their many WP articles are deleted. 2. The folcloric costumes are in scope within doubt, independently of who may be wearing them. (I added a pic.) 3. You can make deletion requests for files at Commons:Deletion requests. Please close this unnecessary CfD. --E4024 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: This CfD is nothing to do with the files themselves. I am not requesting their deletion here. This is about categorising images of a person who is not notable. IWI (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We make categories for classification, not for notability. BTW Commons scope is different from notability. An old picture depicting a woman ironing a shirt is in scope, although the lady herself is not. E4024 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several Wikipedias have article about this person--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slave cabins and quarters

This category is empty and already covered by [Category:Slave quarters]. Could be deleted. JRennocks (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JRennocks: enwiki has only en:Category:Slave cabins and quarters. Commons has also Category:Slave quarters. Per enwiki, we should redirect "Slave quarters" to "Slave cabins and quarters". Is it acceptable?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's sounds like a good idea to me. JRennocks (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slave cabins and quarters in the United States

This category is empty and already covered by [Category:Slave quarters]. Could be deleted. JRennocks (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Slave quarters in the United States? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian qullah

It looks like similars from all around the world. If these things are called qullah in English, then why "Egyptian" also? Is there a WP article for these vessels? E4024 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's Category:botijos, which has a wp article, for instance. A metacat would seem in order. HLHJ (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rodnovery

Please see Category talk:Slavic neopaganism. E4024 (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•Examples of the terms' synonymy in various languages•

See en:Slavic Native Faith:

The Slavic Native Faith, commonly known as Rodnovery, and rarely as Slavic Neopaganism, is a modern Pagan religion.

Almost the same in French Wikipedia. See fr:Rodnovérie:

La rodnovérie, appelée aussi rodisme (pодянство) ou néopaganisme slave est un mouvement reconstructionniste néopaïen slave.

Almost the same in German Wikipedia. See de:Rodismus:

Als Rodismus oder Slawischen Neopaganismus bezeichnet man zeitgenössische Bestrebungen zur Wiederbelebung der vorchristlichen ethnischen Religion der Slawen unter Berufung auf Kultur und Mythologie.

Almost the same in Italian Wikipedia. See it:Fede nativa slava:

La Fede Nativa Slava o Rodnoveria è un movimento religioso neopagano che si propone come la continuazione contemporanea della religione indigena praticata dai popoli slavi prima che le loro classi dirigenti adottassero il cristianesimo come religione di stato a partire dal X secolo.

Almost the same in Russian Wikipedia. See ru:Славянское неоязычество:

Славянское неоязычество, родноверие (родная вера, родоверие) — ряд близких неоязыческих новых религиозных движений в среде современных славянских народов, ставящих своей целью возрождение/реконструкцию славянских дохристианских обрядов, верований и мировоззрения.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•Users' opinions•

Merge cat. "Slavic Neopaganism" into cat. "Rodnovery": The two terms are used synonymously in English language literature, with the second being the preferred one by both academics and adherents. There are many groups and currents all claiming to be the true "Rodnovery" (i.e. "Slavic Native Faith") despite great (often extreme) divergences in beliefs and practices. The problem arises when some of these groups claim to be the "true Rodnovers" and that other groups are not "true Rodnovers" and are rather "Slavic Neopaganism" (a descriptor containing the concepts of "new" and "pagan" which are often regaded as derogatory by the same groups). Wikipedia projects should give space to all these movements without taking the side of one group or another by enforcing disputed distinctions.--Æo (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikipedia should give the opinion of the majority of academics, which uses the terms synonymously. See also. — Nikolay Omonov (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge . --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Given the consensus here, the strong unanimous consensus on the Russian Wikipedia which led to the merger of the articles "Slavic Neopaganism" and "Rodnovery", and the established academic usage which supports these consensuses, I have proceeded with the merger of the categories.--Æo (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statue of comfort women and Monument

Let us find a "good" name to this cat please. E4024 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

move to Category:Monuments and memorials to comfort women, following the structure of Category:Monuments and memorials to people.--RZuo (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support RZuo's proposal, seems like a reasonable naming convention. Chiolite (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statues about comfort women of South Korea

Both the title and categorization are problematic. E4024 (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? See w:en:Comfort Woman Statue. Seudo (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To understand your question better, to which of my "both" did you just reply, please? --E4024 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you create a discussion about something, you should at least give one argument. Nobody will guess what is problematic if you don't explain it. Seudo (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One has to look around. This is a subcat of Category:Statue of comfort women and Monument which in itself is problematic and presented to discussion by this scribe. Of course "organized crime" etc are also problematic and has nothing to do with this if one is not trying to throw mud over a country. Crimes of war (topic of Humanitarian Law) is not like illegal drug trafficking (matter of Criminal Law). When you discuss categorization problems you may decide to change the title also. (Buy a couple of "critical look glasses"; they gave me a pair at a Turkish university. :) --E4024 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Monuments and memorials to comfort women in South Korea or Category:Monuments and memorials to comfort women of South Korea, depending on the intention (location of the statues vs origin of the women). Remove from Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of organized crime and from Category:Statues of peace. Otherwise I think it's fine. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statue of Peace

This cat + Category:Statues of peace only create confusion. As I understand this is not even only about "one statue". These cats must be re-arranged quickly not to let people get lost in labyrinths. E4024 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW many statues in Category:Statues of peace could themselves use the name Category:Statue of Peace but as it is occupied, they cannot. We must rename this cat to something more specific like "Category:Statue of Peace (put a country or city name here)". --E4024 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statue of Peace by Kim Seo-kyung and Kim Eun-sung? Also, merge Category:Statue of Peace (Berlin) unto Category:Friedensstatue (memorial to the comfort women in Berlin-Moabit) - Themightyquill (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting change of heart user:E4024. When I raised the subject you turned me downd and "bold"ly removed the cause: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E4024&oldid=533653354 Now you omit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Friedensstatue_Trostfrauen_Berlin-Moabit&action=history from this CfD and User:Pi.1415926535 who denied my speedy requet and User:Coyote III who created the cat in the first place (when Category:Friedensstatue (memorial to the comfort women in Berlin-Moabit) already existed. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had no change of heart ever. My TP says (in bold letters): "IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS WITH ME ANY OF MY EDITS PLEASE DO IT AT THE TALK OF THE PAGE WHERE MY EDIT HAS TAKEN PLACE; THIS WAY OTHER PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE TOPIC MAY ALSO PARTICIPATE. THIS INCLUDES MY COMMENTS ON YOUR TALK PAGE; PLEASE RESPOND THEM ON YOUR OWN PAGE: DO NOT CLUTTER. THANKS." If you are going to make accusations to me, do not expect me to engage in a civilized discussion with you. I am withdrawing from this discussion which you may also consider withdrawn and close, if you wish. Good-bye. --E4024 (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lutheran nursing home Miechowice

redundant category after redirect Gower (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to remove the redirect. Generally, meaningful redirects should be kept, or even created. --ŠJů (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů and Gower: are you sure, this is a meaningful (read: proper) redirect? Google gives 0 hits--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Both, the old and the new name, are descriptive, and both correspond to the real characteristics of the subject. The whole Lutheran complex is described at pl:Zespół dawnego ewangelickiego ośrodka opiekuńczego „Ostoja Pokoju”. This Commons category seems to be related to the first and main building of the center, "dom opieki" (nursing home) „Ostoja Pokoju”(Friedenshort) and its name was later used for the whole complex. I can't judge whether the new name really is "more precise" than the old one, but I think both names are unambiguous and factually correct (but the local name Miechowice is ambiguous, there are more localities of that name). Maybe, the proper name Ostoja Pokoju makes the title more clear and specific. The Polish name "Ostoja Pokoju – Ewangelicki Dom Opieki" gives some relevant Google hits, and the translation of the common term "dom opieki" as "nursing home" is also acceptable, as well as to keep the proper name "Ostoja Pokoju" untranslated, if its English translation (The Mainstay of Peace? Peaceful Refuge?) is not established nor widespread. Maybe, your Google searching was unsuccessful from the reason that the center is rather mentioned as "ewangelicki" or "of Augsburg Confession", but that means "Lutheran" in this context.

I can see no reason to remove the older page, it should remain a permanent soft redirect. The building is/was really a Lutheran nursing home and is in Miechowice, part of the city of Bytom. --ŠJů (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů:

Great! Just a notice for similar cases: if there is no established English name, then we can use local language (eg Polish) name, no need to do ad hoc-translations--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Yes, but there is some space to consider when it is a proper name strictu sense, which has the nature of a "brand", and when it is a descriptive proper name, which is rather appropriate or acceptable to be translated. These scales are set differently here at Commons for various countries. I agree that "Ostoja Pokoju" can be the first case and "dom opieki" the second one. --ŠJů (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African Afar script

For how long more we will have to accept one-file / redundant cats categorization? Is it free to use Commons for our personal crusades? I propose hereby that all cats created by the same user be reviewed and reduced to a normal size, beginning with eliminating one-file cats like this one. E4024 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with what? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

upmerge the sole file, and Delete. Phrase "African Afar" seems to be suspicious--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian Buri Wolio Jawi Arabic alphabet

Is it this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buri_Wolio ? Why do we use a longer name and why is there no link to WD/WPs? E4024 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've also tagged the parent category Category:Asian Indonesia Jawi Arabic alphabet since I know of no Indonesia outside of Asia, and it may be entirely redundant with Category:Jawi alphabet. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current category names are full of redundancy. I propose the following:

Rename Category:Asian Buri Wolio Jawi Arabic alphabet to Category:Buri Wolio and subcategorise it under Category:Jawi.
Merge+redirect Category:Asian Indonesia Jawi Arabic alphabet to Category:Jawi.
Merge+redirect Category:Asian Malay Jawi Arabic alphabet to Category:Jawi.

When written in Jawi, the already tiny differences between Indonesian and Malay (comparable to American vs British English) become unrecognisable. I thus see no reason to have separate Jawi categories for either language. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposed merger. These categories are redundant and not clearly different from one another. Place Clichy 16:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magazines about sports

I'd say let's rename this to "Category:Sports magazines" as in WP and WD. Simple, precise, easier to find... E4024 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As there can be seen in Category:Magazines by subject, prevalent naming convention of Commons seems to be a bit different from en:Wikipedia. --ŠJů (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Then maybe we should rename Category:Poetry magazines. --E4024 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's about 4/1 in favor of "about." Although, IMO it should still be changed. As the word is completely unnecessary and doesn't fit convention or the other Wikimedia platforms. Let alone the conventions of a lot of other Commons categories that are connected to magazines or similar topics. Generally though, the less words in a category title the better. Otherwise, things can get a little obtuse when you start adding "by" or "in" categories to them. Like "Sports magazines by subject" is just all around easier to deal with and read then "Magazines about sports by subject." More so when you get into country categories. "Magazines about sports of Russia" just doesn't roll of the tongue. Nor is it accurate. Whereas, "Sports magazines of Russia" does and is. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the preposition "about" is prevalent in parent Category:Magazines by subject. We should start CFD at some higher category, if the preposition "about" is not suitable, or if we want to use enwiki solutions Estopedist1 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's better to not go with how Wikipedia does things. Commons doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be a 1/1 recreation of the way Wikipedia names and organizes stuff. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traffic signals and Category:Traffic lights

"Traffic lights (by country)" and "traffic signals (by country)" category trees are duplicates each to other by their prevalent real content. "Traffic signals" categories contain mostly "traffic lights" images and the two terms are understood predominantly as synonymous. Most users do not distinguish the terms as two different meanings and the two category trees will tend to remain or become duplicates of each other over and over again.

In July 2007, I proposed to merge the two category trees. Category talk:Traffic lights is empty, Category talk:Traffic signals contains 2007 discussion with two votes for merge (ARTE, Packa) accepted by Thisisbossi, and no disagreement. On the basis of this consensus, Thisisbossi merged the root category Category:Traffic lights to Category:Traffic signals in October 2007, but not performed it thoroughly – the subcategories "by country" remain duplicates for the next 13 years until now.

Jordiferrer mentioned in January 2017 that the term "traffic signal" causes some confusion for non-native English speakers who often understood all types of road signs, not only changeable signalling device. That's why he preffer the name "traffic lights" for the merged category. (IMHO this problem mainly concerns Italian, Spanish and perhaps other Romanic languages.) He also argued that en:Wikipedia titles its article Traffic light from the beginning (December 2002), while Traffic signal was allways a redirect (since February 2003)).

The merging of the root category was questioned by Pedro Felipe in 2015 ("Traffic lights and Traffic signals are not the same think"), but he did not reclassify and distinguish all the content of the two categorization trees so that they would not be duplicated to each other, and his restore attempt was reversed by Torsch. Pedro Felipe didn't explain his opinion in detail, so we're not sure what he meant.

Pere prlpz (at Category talk:Traffic signals in May 2013) objected that the category is now full of signals that aren't traffic lights, and suggested creating a separate category for traffic lights or moving to anywere else all signals that aren't lights. (He didn't specified which type of "signals" he meant but probably Traffic signs which are not "signals" as understood in English, Slavic and other languages.)

In the English, Slavic etc. meaning of the word "signals", there is a negligible minimum of images or other media related to non-light signals (archaic mechanical signals/semaphores, hand gestures etc.).

I agree with Jordiferrer that Commons should follow en:Wikipedia and rename/merge the whole category tree of "traffic signals" to "traffic lights", in order to eliminate persistent duplication, and to reduce the risk of confusion for users of Romanic languages ("traffic signals" should be a dissambiguation to "traffic lights" and "traffic signs"). Of course, Category:Police handling traffic‎, Category:Mechanical road traffic signals and Category:Road traffic information displays need to be removed from this category tree (they are "signals" but generally not "lights") and moved somewhere else (to the parent categories?). Their relationship still needs to be figured out.

Btw., some subcategories use "road traffic signals" instead of "traffic signals", to distinguish from railway traffic signals etc. We should consider whether "traffic lights" is unambiguously perceived as a specific designation for road signals, or whether it is appropriate to specify as "road traffic lights".

Do you have any other comments on this topic? --ŠJů (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is mostly a vocabulary and false friends issue. "Traffic signals" means "traffic lights" (if I'm getting it right) but "traffic signals" is a false friend of expression meaning "traffic signs" in several languages (for example, "senyal de trànsit" for Catalan). Therefore, I don't see the need of a "traffic signals" category unless somebody wants to put there something different from traffic lights or traffic signs.

Interestingly, there is a similar issue with "semaphores", that in several languages would be understood as "traffic lights" (ex. Catalan "semàfor").

However, please don't expect us non native speakers of English to stop putting things in the wrong category now and then.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense to me. Do we leave a direct at Category:Traffic signals? What about each of the subcategories? If people are miscategorizing by accident, this might just continue if we leave redirects for every subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that absorbing the Traffic signals categories into the Traffic lights categories should go ahead as soon as possible, to end the fragmentation. "Traffic signals" categories should redirect to "Traffic lights" categories. --Minoa (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agre with the above. As a French, I understand very well Traffic lights (feux tricolores) but Traffic signals (the French translation, signaux lumineux is just about railways) seems to be about Traffic signs (even if it's not) and every types of traffic signs would be located there by French speaking contributors. This Traffic signals category is condamned to be a perpetual mess. --Birdie (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some sorting work, I noticed this discussion, and figured I might as well jump in. I would tend to prefer "traffic signals" over "traffic lights" for a few reasons. The main reason is that "traffic signals" is technically more correct, as the purpose is to signal the movement of traffic, whereas "traffic lights" is somewhat less concise and may be confused with street lighting of various other forms. Another reason why I would prefer "traffic signals" is that it would be more in line with "railway signals", which I don't believe are ever referred to as "railway lights". The same principle applies to tram and bus signals. However, I do appreciate the point raised by Pere prlpz that "traffic signals" causes a false friend situation in some other languages, as I did notice several traffic signs improperly categorised in the traffic signal categories.

Lastly, if "traffic lights" is selected, I do feel that it would make sense to extend this to "road signs" and change that also to "traffic signs", to create a direct connection between the two. However, without the use of bots, that would be a very extensive and time-consuming effort. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose I'm going to make any friends by suggesting Category:Traffic signal lights as a possible alternative? I expect it's unambiguous across languages and with street lighting... -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman and his cast

This should be merged to Category:Batman, and the disambig on that page turned into subcats. "and his cast" is important in principle, but not for the coverage of this topic. Mike Peel (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What should it be merged to? The phrase "and his cast" is used for dozens of categories of characters that have supporting casts for which there are enough files needing subdivision, as seen here and here. What do you want it merged to? Nightscream (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: Very odd, how did that naming convention come about? I think my initial proposal was quite clear about what I think it should be merged to. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: I created it myself. Since I'm responsible for much of the categorization structure related to comics-related files on the Commons, I did so, IIRC, to address how supporting characters could be organized into groups according to a "parent" character.

I apologize if I was not aware of your proposal. Was this proposal on a different page? Can you link me? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: Sorry, by 'proposal' I meant the 'This should be merged to' sentence at the start of this discussion, which defines what I think should happen. But Themightyquill's proposal of '(franchise)' would also make sense, but there should still then be a category that is just 'Batman' as a character. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count 23 three of these "and his cast" pages, not including Category:Hulk and his cast which has already been redirected to Category:Hulk. This style has also produced the somewhat confusingly titled Category:2 Broke Girls and his cast.Could we rename them Category:Batman (franchise) like Category:Terminator (franchise) or Category:Godzilla (franchise), and like en:Batman (franchise) for that matter ? - Themightyquill (talk)

Regarding the "franchise" idea, how do you feel that is an improvement? Many of these characters are not part of "franchises".

Regaridng "just 'Batman' as a character', what type of files would go into such a category, if not the ones in the current subcats? Nightscream (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my reasons:

There are a great many "franchise" categories that exist, and contain media related to franchises (minor characters, actors, etc) revolving around books, films, etc. Moving to franchise would follow that larger pattern, and give these "and his cast" categories a logical parent category (Category:Media franchises).
It also matches with the wikipedia article at en:Batman (franchise).
It also allows for subcategories that are not specifically for the character batman or his associated characters, which are currently in Category:Batman and his cast.

Can you offer any reasons why "and his cast" is preferable for Batman, not to mention 2 Broke Girls? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people as this discussion has not been resolved. @Themightyquill: , @Mike Peel: , @Nightscream: . Sahaib (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A category dedicated to Batman and a category dedicated to every single character in the Batman universe is two completely different subjects. --Trade (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

surely each character should have its own category page.

cat:batman for batman the character. cat:Alfred Pennyworth for Alfred Pennyworth. and so on.

now, how do we make this connection between the two characters in terms of cat tree?

perhaps, we can use the model from Category:People by association.

then cat:Alfred Pennyworth is put under "characters associated with Batman".

we will put a hatnote in "characters associated with Batman" to make sure only the most relevant characters are put under this, rather than any one having even a brief interaction with batman or other major characters that have encounters with batman (e.g. superman). RZuo (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads in Ireland

As long as it has cats for "Republic of Ireland" and "Roads in Northern Ireland", it cannot be a subcat of Category:Roads by country, as "Ireland" is not a country but an island which has an independent state (Republic of Ireland) and part of another country (Northern Ireland, UK) on it. Only "Roads in the Republic of Ireland" can be a subcat of such "by country" cats. They are not "by island" cats. E4024 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By this moment as I write this sentence, the "Wikidata Infobox" of this cat claims location:United Kingdom. Funny, or ridiculous? --E4024 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is true for a great many "in Ireland" categories. I've been working on fixing this slowly since Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Ireland but Laurel Lodged has recently informed me that the decision in that CFD is totally wrong and I am unjustified in pursuing it as I have been. He has promised to start a new discussion, and I said I'd hold off on any further changes until he starts the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the country categories to the ROI sub category so I think we're done? This category is for the island. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig

What's the best way to categorize Category:Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig and Category:Øresund Region, both transnational regions beloning partly to Denmark, and then partly to Germany or Sweden respectively. They don't belong in Category:Regions of Denmark which is for the administrative regions of Dernmark proper. So where does it go? Category:Geographic regions of Europe? Category:Economic regions? And what are appropriate child categories, if any? Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: enwiki categorisation of en:Region Sønderjylland–Schleswig may give hints Estopedist1 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and villages in the Kingdom of Hungary by county

Rename Category:Populated places of the Kingdom of Hungary by county. Or possibly something further to indicate that neither the Kindom of Hungary nor these counties still exist. Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and split into "Cities" and "Villages" categories if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dumbartonshire

According to en:Dunbartonshire, the name for the county is Dunbartonshire not Dumbartonshire. I figure this may be somewhat controversial. I'm not including all the subcategories here but I think that would be obvious. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just move it with a redirect, but TBH wouldn't trust en:WP. Check first. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, according to the article the county council was "Dumbartonshire County Council" though it seems the "n" is the correct spelling of the county at least now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current situation. All categories consist of the term "Dumbartonshire"

--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church Slavonic alphapet

I think this new cat is redundant to (or should be a subcat of ?) Category:Early Cyrillic alphabet... Experts? E4024 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the redundancy, but it should be alphabet (with a b not a p). - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a phonetical alphabet. You can write it in Cyrilic or Glagolic script. When you read them you hear the same slavonic alphabet in slavonic language. It mean you can know this alphabet without writing. - Sabina_Huk (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant/POV fork of Category:Early Cyrillic alphabet, created by abusive sockpuppet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Craigavon Borough Council

This discussion may qualify for most of the districts in Category:Local government in Northern Ireland but I think this should be renamed to Category:Craigavon Borough ~~or perhaps Category:Craigavon District~~, dropping council. The category is full of images about the borough itself not the particular council (I'd expect maybe an election map or something else). As indicated at en:Local government in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is split into districts which have councils. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, delete in favor or Category:Craigavon (district) or rename that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cityscapes by country

As far as I can see only 3 countries use "of" instead of "in". Shall we move them? E4024 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

at the moment 17 countries use "of" instead of "in". Should be harmonized--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024 and Estopedist1: I think countries should use "in" and cities should use "of". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tiến Quân Ca

No File in this category 2001:EE0:4F86:3290:60AA:8EFB:32EF:6C3B 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this may be one of the exceptional cases, when deleting of the empty category should be avoided--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shanghai style restaurants

Categorised under Category:Restaurants in Hong Kong, Category:Restaurants by style, Category:Restaurants, Category:Cuisine of Shanghai... E4024 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this cat for the first time today, due to recent changes. Only a day ago, and from its first day on, it was only within "Category:Restaurants in Hong Kong". Now, is this instead the name of a restaurant in Hong Kong? Or do Shanghai style restaurants exist only in Hong Kong? As new cats were added today, questions to the user who added them: Category:Restaurants... Those in Shanghai, are they not included in this cat? We also have a Category:Chinese style restaurants, is Shanghai not in China? If it "is", then we should either not use this cat but the Chinese cat, or at least make this one a subcat of that one. Category:Restaurants by style was opened by the same user with only four members; if you dump this one, only three (Chinese, Spanish, Turkish). Therefore I doubt the necessity to make that new cat. Of course if you are intending to complete the scheme with French, Italian, etc styles then... perhaps. How will you manage to differentiate, I wonder, because many "styles" are too intermingled. There are people who like "American pizzas", there are people who speak of "Argentinian Italian cuisine", or the Peruvian-Japanese fusion (Nikkei?). Hard mission. Even more difficult when the basis is not so strong. Hope success to the people who will volunteer to develop this scheme (restaurants by style). Friends from Turkey, Spain, any input? --E4024 (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the English Wikipedia I found "Shanghai cuisine (Chinese: 上海菜; pinyin: Shànghǎi cài), also known as Hu cuisine (simplified Chinese: 沪菜; traditional Chinese: 滬菜; pinyin: Hù cài), is a popular style of Chinese food. In a narrow sense, Shanghai cuisine refers only to what is traditionally called Benbang cuisine (本帮菜; 本幫菜; Běnbāng cài; 'local cuisine') which originated in Shanghai; in a broad sense, it refers to complex and developed styles of cooking under profound influence of those of the surrounding provinces, Jiangsu and Zhejiang." So I'd sub-categorize, if I could find sensible examples, the Chinese restaurant category into the several cuisines I could find. I used to think there were four major ones (in Amsterdam, where I live, we have restaurants for each), but I also found there are probably more than those four, I already came across a categorisation on the web of eight major cuisines. On the other hand, I think a category with only a very few items is doomed. There already being a category "Cuisine of China" with many sub-categories I think starting another for restaurants is asking for a lot of work, and no sensible effect. As for styles being intermingled, Dutch traditional restaurants were recently in the news, because they are disappearing fast. Many have been "Chinese-Indonesian" (due to our colonial past) from the start, some are now adding Tai cuisine to survive, the strangest combinations are appearing. In sum, I think one should not spend time on this category's issue. Apart from the fact that it seems more of an advertising campaign of a Paradise Group Restaurant. By the way, "Friends from Turkey" is not right, I'm Dutch and intend to remain so. Friends of Turkey would be defensible. Though I'm not blind to some drawbacks of that friendship.Dosseman (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Circumcised and uncircumcised human penises in comparison

Are there circumcised animal penises also? Experts of the area? E4024 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Turkey

Turkey does not have coats of arms. The images here are about emblems or logos or belong to other countries (like one of Russia that I detached a minute ago). There is no obligation to have a cat for something that does not exist. Please delete it. E4024 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical national coats of arms of Turkey

This (the content) is about the Ottoman Empire. If you are not adding it to the cats of 30+ countries that were born from the Ottoman Empire, do not add it to Turkey either. This and parent categorization are only intended to "legitimize" the Category:Coats of Turkey. Turkey is a republic and does not have coats of arms like the Ottoman or other Empires. Delete all categorization about Turkey+coats of arms, bevause that is not valid. E4024 (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody objected (or even participated at the discussion) in three months, I am going to ask the deletion of this cat. If you have an opinion please share it, if not please do not tell me later that I did not search consensus. --E4024 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sky blue ensigns

Move Category:Sky blue ensigns to Category:Light blue ensigns. Reason: Light blue is a slightly broader term than sky blue and it properly describes the flags categorized herewith. Greenshed (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenshed: it is already moved. Can we close the discussion?--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. Greenshed (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maria Sano

Empty category. FredWalsh (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FredWalsh: this category is not empty anymore. I am not oppose if someone wants to delete this one-member category--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02

Built in Leeds by year categories

Category:Traffic signals and Category:Traffic lights

Navigation menu

Search