Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/09

This page is for open CFD discussions started in September 2022.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/09.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2022-09.
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:Architecture of Oita, Oita

Along with

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested moves:
Nominator's (user:Yasu) rational: this category to be moved to "Category:Stuctures of Foo" because: "according to what the category contains". Date: mostly June-July Estopedist1 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:Architecture of Japan by city. Wouldn't it be easy to create Category:Structures of Foo as subcategories? -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just did some recategorizing on these. They were under structures categories, so I moved them up to architecture categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

along with

--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Estopedist1, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: Is this essentially resolved with the recatorization already effected? Can we close this one now? Josh (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Do you mean the recategorizing I did? I'm fine with that. If we're still talking about renaming these from architecture to structures, the only issues I have with that are 1) we'd lose the architecture parent categories and 2) a couple of the subcategories (Kobe and Nagoya) have subcats for underground cities, which I don't think fit under structures (they may not even fit under architecture, either). -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Yes, I was referring to your work so far. I guess I was not sure if that restructure obviated the need for a rename. If renaming is still on the table, I'm happy to leave the discussion open. Josh (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RENFE Class 140-2053 to 2067

Along with

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Iain Bell) rational: this category to be moved to category:Andaluces 3301 to 3310 → RENFE 231-2001 to 231-2010, because: "Show history of the class of locomotives". Date: 5 February 2022 Estopedist1 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave my opinion for the generic problem with the RENFE categories. For this case, my [contrary] opinion is the same. In general, the argument for the transfer seems vague to me. "Show history of the class of locomotives". For this RENFE Class, the locomotives were under three differents owners: «Andaluces», «Oeste» and «RENFE». If you want to be historically accurate, you have to mention the three companies. At the end you would have a kilometric category. After all, most of its time service was under RENFE. CFA1877 (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Showing the history of something is not the purpose of a category name. The name should succinctly reflect the contents of the category. In cases where the contents have gone by different names for whatever reason (language, customs, name changes over time, etc.) one should be used that best covers the contents as opposed to trying to include multiple different names in the category name. Josh (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former junior high schools in Japan

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Yasu) rational: this category to be moved to category:Defunct junior high schools in Japan, because: "as per what this category contains". Date: 2022-01-16

I know there is mess with "former" vs "defunct" categories. E.g. Category:Defunct schools by country is poorly developed, compared to Category:Former schools by country Estopedist1 (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Former schools are defined as buildings which have once served as schools, but now have another function. Contents of Category:Former junior high schools in Japan don't fall on this line; they are defunct schools by definition. Yasu (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 and Yasu: We have Category:Former schools but not Category:Defunct schools. The placement of Category:Defunct schools by country under Category:Former schools by country would intimate that "defunct" is a subclass of "former" in this context. Category:Defunct schools by country is problematic in that it is a meta/index category with no actual parent topical category. If it does reflect a real difference, then there should be a Category:Defunct schools created as a sub of Category:Former schools to be its parent. Any sub-categories should be either 'former' and under the Category:Former schools tree, or 'defunct' and under the Category:Defunct schools tree.

For this category, it should be recategorized from Category:Defunct schools in Japan to Category:Former schools in Japan and its description changed to say 'former' vs. 'defunct'. If some of the contents conform with the definition on 'defunct', then they should be moved to a new Category:Defunct junior high schools in Japan, which should be under Category:Defunct schools in Japan. Josh (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, I created Category:Defunct schools. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also created Category:Defunct junior high schools in Japan, which should go alongside the former junior high schools category. I think we can now close this discussion if there is no objection. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kolonia (Micronesia)

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Geo Swan) rational: this category to be moved to category:Kolonia, Pohnpei, because: "Two separate states, in the Federated States of Micronesia, have towns named Colonia or Kolonia. Up until today Category:Colonia, Yap redirected here, to point to Category:Kolonia (Micronesia). Well, Category:Colonia, Yap, should be its own category, obviously. And since this category is not the only category for a town named Colonia or Kolonia, in Micronesia, I suggest this category should be renamed, Category:Kolonia, Pohnpei". Date: 2022-03-07 Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Estopedist1, you said the rationale I provided was "problematic". I'd find it very useful if you could return here and explain why you found the rationale problematic.

Are you disputing that Category:Colonia, Yap, should be its own category?
Are you disputing that "Colonia" and "Kolonia" are two different transliterations of the same name? Germany acquired Pohnpei, that is why the town uses a German transliteration. Colonia, Yap was founded by the Spanish, and so uses a Spanish transliteration.
Are you disputing whether it would be best if the disambiguator for the names of the two separate categories should be the name of the state within Micronesia, where they are located?
Could you please look at the disambiguation page for Springfield on en.wiki? Would anyone agree to having the first article on a Springfield in the USA to be at Springfield (USA), with each later one being disambiguated by State? I suggest no one would ever agree to that.
But, it seems to me, that this is what your challenge to the move I suggested really means. Is this what you really meant to suggest? Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan I don't want to delve into this Micronesia topic, and bold redirecting seems a bit premature action. So just in case I started this CFD. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1, I'm sorry, were you planning to explain why you found my rationale "problematic"?
Did you give any consideration to my Springfield (USA) counter-example? Geo Swan (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up User:Estopedist1. It says you are from Estonia. I took a peak at Geography of Estonia, and saw a mention of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa counties. (1) Suppose each of those counties had a town in it named "Colonia"? (2) Suppose someone created an article on the Colonia in Saaremaa, and called it Colonia, Estonia, not Colonia, Saaremaa, because they were unaware that there was a second Colonia, in Estonia, in Hiiumaa? (3) Would you find it acceptable to have the first article continue to be named Colonia, Estonia, after someone else started Colonia, Hiiumaa?
Do you think you could offer a justification for why those two articles shouldn't be at Colonia, Saaremaa and Colonia, Hiiumaa? Geo Swan (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan OK, I looked the situation. Given that toponym "Kolonia" and "Colonia" is used for both objects in Micronesia (although enwiki two articles don't mention it literally), then solution is easy:
Kolonia (standalone DAB)
Kolonia (Pohnpei) (alternative spelling Colonia), town in Micronesia

Kolonia, urban area in Micronesia. See Colonia (Yap)

...

Colonia (standalone DAB)
Colonia (Yap) (alternative spelling Kolonia), urban area in Micronesia

Colonia, town in Micronesia. See Kolonia (Pohnpei)

...

"Kolonia (Micronesia)" to be redirected to Kolonia (DAB)

"Colonia (Micronesia)" to be redirected to Colonia (DAB)

--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't really understand your suggestion. You seem to be suggesting having two disambiguation pages point to one another. That would be confusing.

However, I don't think it as simple as you suggest. Did you see the en.wiki disambiguation page Colonia? It lists places called Colonia in Germany, Uruguay, New Jersey, California, and Romania.
Yes, I agree Commons should have disambiguation page(s), but one should be the real disambiguation page, with the other merely a redirect to the main page - not two equal disambiguation pages, pointing to one another.

In your suggested layout, above, did you mean to suggest we have Category:Kolonia (disamguation) and Category:Colonia (disamguation)? If so may I suggest you be explicit, as I was here - and spell out the exact wording.

With regard to whether we should use Category:Kolonia, Pohnpei or Category:Kolonia (Pohnpei), I'll tell you a story. 41 years ago I was a young teaching assistant for an introductory computer course, for Arts students. One of the students was an elderly woman, the wife of an elderly Professor, who got to take courses for free. After I had given some lectures that kept returning to the terms "input" and "output", she came up to tell me that she thought I had explained these terms in a very confusing way. She told me she had finally figured out that when I said we "opened a file for input" that meant "we wanted to take something out of it", and when we "opened a file for output" that meant "we wanted to put something into it". She asked why we hadn't simply called output input, and input output.
I explained that it really made more sense to use the terms the way every computer language used them.
She politely heard my explanation with an expression of great skepticism.
Her skepticism was a big lesson for me. Because, as I walked home that afternoon, I tried to marshall the reasons why the longstanding convention made more sense the way all languages used it.
I concluded I had been wrong, that it did not make more sense. I concluded that lost in the early years of computer programming the convention as to what input and output really meant was arbitrary. If the convention had gone the other way, the way that made sense to her, it would have been just as defendible. I concluded the only reason to keep on using those terms the way everyone else did was convention and consistency.
I think it is the same with the choice of Category:Kolonia, Pohnpei over Category:Kolonia (Pohnpei). Almost all names on the English language wikipedia, and the commons, use the first form.
Just so you know.
Is the opposite convention observed on the Estonian wikipedia?

I still think my original suggestion was a good one, and don't understand your objection to it. Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename Category:Kolonia (Micronesia) to Category:Kolonia, Pohnpei , though not sure the DABs are really necessary to cover the spelling mixup possibility...instead, a {{Cat see also}} at the head of each category may serve better in this case. Josh (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portrait of Urban VIII by Caravaggio

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:83.61.237.190) rational: this category to be moved to category:Portrait of Maffeo Barberini by Caravaggio (Galleria Corsini, Florence), because: "According with the Italian article about this portrait, the title is Ritratto di Maffeo Barberini (English: Portrait of Maffeo Barberini). Also, one of the references of the article cites this: "Roberto Longhi, Il vero «Maffeo Barberini» del Caravaggio, in «Il Paragone», XIV (1963), n° 165 (settembre), pp. 3-11.", given the title "[Ritratto di] Maffeo Barberini". Also, the Cini Foundation gives the title "Ritratto di Maffeo Barberini" (English: "Portrait of Maffeo Barberini"). For disambiguate with the another portrait named "Portrait of Maffeo Barberini by Caravaggio", it was added the collection in which this portrait is located.". Date: 2022-06-29 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the problem ? If you are sure, make a redirect ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tootbus Bath

Category:Glam

glam could mean plenty of things. please turn this into DAB and sort the contents out. RZuo (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia has "Glam" as a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This isn't Wikipedia and a lot of times how they do things don't transfer over to Commons well. Especially not down the line. What I'd do instead of turning it into a DAB is delete it. There's already Category:GLAM that redirects to Category:Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM). We don't need fifteen different versions of essentially the same thing. There isn't even really any reason to have this be a DAB in the meantime anyway. Category:Projecto Crono has nothing to do with "glam" (whatever that is). Nor do any of the images in the category that aren't directly related to Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. So turning this into a DAB would be completely pointless. Especially if it's only being turned into one "because Wikipedia" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

one of the artists in Projecto Crono is called glam, afaiu. i think being an anonymous artist without much detail it doesnt need its own cat, though.

there's also Category:Glam (musical group).

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/glam it's also a shortform for glamour or glamorous.

plenty more things could be known as glam.

so i think this word invariably attracts files of different topics. if it's deleted, uploaders might mistake GLAM for this purpose and send irrelevant things there. RZuo (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhhmmm. Yeah I agree that the artist for Projecto Crono doesn't need their own category. As far as Category:Glam (musical group) goes, there's no reason it can't just stay how it is. For "Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums" though it's always abbreviated in capitals. So I don't think it would be useful or correct to have it be included in a DAB for the lowercase version. I'm aware there's a general concept of "glam", but from what I can tell the only "Glam" category we have outside of the one for "Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums" is for the musical group. There's a bunch of random categories with "GLAM" in their titles, but again I don't think having them included on a lower case disambiguation page is correct. Plus a lot of them are kind of nonsensical. So, we really only have Category:Glam (musical group). Which on it's own really doesn't warrant a DAB. That's my read of things at least. I guess we could use it to disambiguate the band, Category:Glameyer Stack? Category:Glam Zoo? Uuhh Category:Glamis Castle? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i wouldnt include the last examples you gave, because they're not really known as glam.

the problem is that uploadwizard and hotcat would prompt GLAM if you type glam/Glam if this cat is deleted, then users unaware of how cats should be used would pick that. (you can try fbi to see the effect.)--RZuo (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per @RZuo: . Sorry, it took me a minute to notice that you had replied. Do you want to turn the category into a DAB and close this? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Badly drawn swastikas

"Badly drawn" is an opinion. While I realise that the subject matter is inherently controversial, we should not get into the habit of making categories for "badly drawn" things. Susmuffin (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, no need for subjective adjectives.

Side-notice: Database search shows that there is only one category with "badly" (Category:Women_of_the_Philippines_with_a_badly_united_leg_fracture) Estopedist1 (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to either Category:Erroneous swastikas (per Category:Erroneous geometry and Category:Erroneous royal English heraldry), Category:Inaccurate swastikas (per Category:Inaccurate paleoart) or Category:Incorrect swastikas (per Category:Incorrect maps and Category:Incorrect flags). I believe it is useful to separate incorrectly drawn swastikas into their own category, so that people browsing the main swastika category won't get a wrong idea of what a swastika is supposed to look like. However, I agree that the current name is too subjective. Chiolite (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm agree with all your options. :) MiguelAlanCS (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead discussion but I think this could be changed to “asymmetrical swastikas” (since that’s what most of these are) Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename To "street art of swastikas." I don't think it's worth having a category based on the shapes of the swastikas since most graffiti isn't accurate anyway and that's these images are of. What's next, creating a "asymmetrical monkeys" categories for inaccurate graffiti of monkeys? The first image is the only one that isn't street art, but it's clearly OOS anyway. So it shouldn't be a stopper to anything. Just nominate it for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dust roads

How it differs from Category:Dirt roads and Category:Sand roads? It either should get explanation or be turned into a redirect to that category Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Sand roads, as the majority of the pictures in the category seem to depict sand roads, and there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between these two terms. Chiolite (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Majority of images does NOT appear to be depicting sand roads: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gray_road.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Exterior_view_of_the_Church_of_the_Angels,_Garvanza,_which_is_now_Highland_Park_near_Pasadena,_1898_(CHS-41286).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dusty_road_in_Ouagadougou,_Burkina_Faso,_2010.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dust_road_horsemen.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dust_in_the_track.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chameleon.jpeg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berliet_770_KB_-_Camiva,_FPT_(3).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:'Dust_-_slow_down'_sign,_Healesville.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Route_impraticable_en_campagne_(Bowoy).jpg (and remaining ones are unclear rather than sand roads) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it. Dust isn't anywhere close to sand even if the majority of images in the category depict sand roads. So it wouldn't make sense to redirect it Category:Sand roads. Although that said, it might be worth creating a category for images of dusty roads. As in images of dust on roads regardless of what the roads surface is. I'm not sure what a good name for it would be though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Dust roads as dust isn't really a type of road surface. Any road surface can be dusty, but it is not a classification of road surface in and of itself which would go under Category:Roads by surface as this category is set up. I would not have a problem however with a wholly different category set up as Category:Dusty roads under Category:Roads by condition to illustrate roads of any type which happen to be dusty. Josh (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Live-action films

Is this category needed? According to this category page description, "films" category already covers "live- action" films. So, this appears to be a redundant category and/ or unnecessary sub-category. There appear to be other recent categories that also contain the "live-action" phrase. Ooligan (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, 'films' covers 'live-action films' but it also covers 'animated films' so having sub-categories for both 'live-action' and 'animated' (as well as other types of films) makes perfect sense. Josh (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Allforrous (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universal Pictures live-action films by title

Is this category needed? According to this category page description, "films" category already covers "live- action" films. So, this appears to be a redundant category and/ or unnecessary sub-category. There appear to be other recent categories that also contain the "live-action" phrase. Ooligan (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/09/Category:Live-action films. Josh (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Live-action films based on animated series

Is this category needed? According to this category page description, "films" category already covers "live- action" films. So, this appears to be a redundant category and/ or unnecessary sub-category. There appear to be other recent categories that also contain the "live-action" phrase. Ooligan (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/09/Category:Live-action films. Josh (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Allforrous (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paramount Pictures live-action films

Is this category needed? According to this category page description, "films" category already covers "live- action" films. So, this appears to be a redundant category and/ or unnecessary sub-category. There appear to be other recent categories that also contain the "live-action" phrase. Ooligan (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/09/Category:Live-action films. Josh (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BSicons with questionable white background

Appears to be a tracking category for a problem that doesn't exist. All icons that had been in it had white fills within the image, and did have transparent backgrounds. Useddenim (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blue-bike

Disambiguate?

As "Blue Bike" or close variations on the name are used in other countries, perhaps this should be disambiguated if it is intended as the ones in Belgium only - perhaps renaming the category from "Blue-bike" to "Blue-bike (Belgium)" or something similar? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Estopedist1 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yuen-Ji

This artist does not want to be famous, so no classification of her is allowed. If the page has her work, it must be replaced with an image of the Thai flag. Thyj (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement: The pages and files in this category are also delete together. Thyj (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some files were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Yuen-Ji Enhancing999 (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I want all related pages (including category) and files to be deleted. Because this artist doesn't exist at all. Thyj (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scenery by country

i'm sceptical of the usefulness of this cat tree of "scenery". files about nature should be categorised under cat:nature by country. files about buildings or any kind of artificial structures go to cat:structures by country. there's also Category:Visitor attractions. this tree should be deleted. RZuo (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 19 July 2009 Túrelio talk contribs deleted page Category:Scenery of China (Empty, replaced by Category:Landscapes of China to follow naming conventions) RZuo (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Osaka Marubiru Building

Problematic (?) and old (over three weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Yasu) rational: this category to be moved to category:Osaka Marubiru, because: "per the official naming. "Marubiru Building" is a redundant category since biru means "building" in Japanese". Date: 2022-08-14 Estopedist1 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chronic fatigue syndrome

How should we best organize media related to the medical condition ME/CFS? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In more detail: Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a medical condition with a rather convoluted naming history. The name most frequently used in the literature is the combined term Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). ME/CFS is used in many government sources and academic papers. When used alone, chronic fatigue syndrome is more popular than myalgic encephalomyelitis. There are also debates, sometimes contentious ones, over which name to use--some people say CFS is a trivializing term for a serious organic illness, while others point out that ME implies an unproven cause.

To complicate things even further, ME and CFS were historically used among different groups. Perhaps ME and CFS were considered different clinical entities at some point in time; I'm not an expert on the history of this. But every recent, reliable source I can find treats them as the same entity. I opened a discussion at Category talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome where I explain this in more detail, and @Guido den Broeder: takes a different view. He is of the opinion that ME and CFS are separate conditions so the categories should be separate. As our disagreement is over the facts, we probably won't come to an agreement, so I think the opinion of one or more uninvolved editors would be helpful.

My original proposal was simple, to merge the two categories. However, there are some unusual cases that might deserve their own category. For example, regardless of whether ME and CFS are the same thing, there are some sources that mainly use one term or the other. There may be some historical sources that don't recognize any connection between the two. The advice of others is needed here.

Firstly, everything you're saying above is incorrect; I've already explained that to you and pointed you to the relevant sources.

Secondly, I don't see the need to discuss this in three different places.

Thirdly, you fail to mention that ME and CFS have different parent categories.

Fourthly, you fail to mention that I already proposed a solution, the addition of Category:ME v CFS debate as a subcategory of Category:Medical controversies. You have yet to respond to this proposal.

Fifthly, this is Commons, not Wikipedia.

There is no real problem here. ME files should go into the ME category, CFS files should go into the CFS category, files that pertain to both go into both categories, and any files that belong to the debate would go into the new category. Uploaders will generally know what goes where and if not, like always, they can ask or just leave it to more knowledgeable users. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me better try to understand your position, so we can at least work out an unambiguous scheme for classifying files. Your position is that ME and CFS are different conditions. CFS is a broad syndrome (or "always a misdiagnosis") and ME is a specific disease. Media that deal with CFS or ME/CFS according to definitions like Fukuda or the IOM criteria belong in Category:Chronic fatigue syndrome, while media dealing with patients who meet the Ramsay or International Consensus Criteria belong in Category:Myalgic encephalomyelitis. As the status quo seems likely to stick, and I'll keep uploading media about ME/CFS, it's important that I understand your scheme even if I don't agree with it. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ME = single specific vascular brain disorder as described by Wickman, Ramsay, Hyde and many others, originally (1905) known as superior polio (the descriptions differ in detail, but the target group is the same)
CFS = research diagnosis with various different sets of symptom criteria only, to select patients and study unexplained fatigue and malaise (this excludes ME) (Holmes, Oxford, Fukuda, Reeves, and other variations, all with their own target group)
ME/CFS = fashionable name at odds with medical nomenclature for CFS-like definitions with an emphasis on post-exertional malaise (PEM, not actually an ME symptom) (IOM - they called it SEID, NICE)

To decide which file goes where it may be necessary to read the source, because researchers are not by definition experts on classification and nomenclature, and will generally write what they get paid to write.

Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only remaining question is whether you'd classify International Consensus Criteria (and media about people meeting specifically this definition) as ME or CFS. I'm thinking it would be ME because the ICC authors say it's a definition for ME. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ME-ICC of 2011 target ME, so related files should go into that category. Keep in mind though that ME is a disease so a diagnosis involves examining the patient, not just checking symptoms. Without the inflammation, it is not ME. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, thanks. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Myalgic encephalomyelitis

This is part of the discussion on how to best organize media related to ME/CFS. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/09/Category:Chronic fatigue syndrome The Quirky Kitty (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this category is to organize files related to ME, not 'ME/CFS'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Admiralties by country

This category, Category:Admiralties_by_country, and the hundreds of subcategories under it, are a mess. If the WMF projects were commercial enterprises the boss would authorize a single person to be each project's database manager. He or she would oversee the development of a consistent schema, and try to make sure it was clear what did and didn't belong in each category. They would do their best to make sure the Schema didn't contain ambiguities, or overlap.

However, since no one has that authority it falls to individual contributors to put items in the categories that make sense, to them.

Under this category the subcategories seem to be organized according to at least two incompatible hierarchies.

Some subcategories seem to be organized under the assumption that all that the term admiralty merely refers to all the ranks of officers who are considered admirals.

Alternately, some categories seem to be organized based on the interpretation that an admiralty referred to a bureacracy that broadly oversaw the operation of a nation's Navy, and possibly other related institutions, like its lighthouse service. If I am not mistaken, in the UK, the office of Lord High Admiral was held by a civilian, not a naval officer, who may have had zero nautical experience.

The USA has a Coast Guard, with its own set of admirals, which, while smaller than the US Navy, is more powerful than the navies of 90 percent of our world's maritime nations.

My preference? First, it is essential a hatnote tell people what does and doesn't belong in this category. I think it should only contain subcategories for institutions called admiralties. I don't think it should contain Category:Admirals by country. I think it belongs in something like Category:Naval officers by country. It currently contains Category:Admiralties in China. China does not even consider its Navy a separate institution. It is the People's Liberation Army Navy. Further, Admiralty, Hong Kong is a neighbourhood, part of its business district. The neighbourhood's ties to nautical administration are merely historical. Sheesh. Geo Swan (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Geo Swan: I agree with all of the points in your concluding paragraph. Admiralties are not just any grouping of admirals, but a distinct organization primarily of admirals (not necessarily exclusively so) with a purpose of providing high-level leadership for naval matters in a country. It is not necessarily even equivalent to a naval general staff, though in many cases it may be. It is also more than a sum of admirals, so it should not be under something like Category:Admirals by country. Admirals are people; admiralties are organizations, so {{Cat see also}} may be appropriate, but not cross-categorizing. Of course, lumping anything that happens to have "admiralty" in its name also do not belong here. Josh (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Неофициальная история

Cyrillic category of some research team with no notability and no connections with category tree. Красный ^{wanna talk?} 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should a user category? One could rename it to Category:Files by User:Нео Фициал ? Enhancing999 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'll make sense. Can I do it and close the request as a nominator, or should I wait for an sysop resolution? Красный ^{wanna talk?} 21:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Cyrillic, but if the description supports it, I'd go ahead.

If it's for something else, it would be good to hear from the uploader/creator first. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently uploading over 1000 photos to the "Cultural Heritage of Russia" section (for the competition). Such a large number of photos is due to the fact that our research team has many architectural objects throughout Russia. This is not spam, but rather copyright photos that we want to make public.

In the future, we will write articles on these architectural objects, so I would like to have all the uploaded photos in one place, and not then search all over Wikipedia. That's why I created the section. Calling Нео Фициал will not be entirely correct, since this is my personal pseudonym - one person, but we have a team and the name "Unofficial History" is the name of the whole team and a tribute to each of its members. If possible, please leave such a name - "Неофициальная История" in Cyrillic. Thank you. Нео Фициал (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English: Is your account personal or is it for some organization/group of people? Are pictures uploaded from this account made by person who controls this account or not?

Русский: Давайте разберёмся: Это у вас коллективный аккаунт или личный? Фото, которые вы загрузили, они чьи? Я что-то не понимаю.

Красный ^{wanna talk?} 13:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a research team. We are engaged in historical research, conduct expeditions, excavations, laboratory research, analysis of archival documents, and photograph architectural monuments. Works for over 10 years. Our team is completely voluntary. No one receives any payment for the work and does not count on the author's fee. All research results are the intellectual property of the entire team. We do not have individualism and do not own anything to anyone, except for the equipment that is used for general work.

Therefore, all videos and photos are the property of our "Unofficial History" team. Each member of the team agreed to this condition when he joined it.

I, as a representative of the team, express the common interests of the team. That is why I do not sign with my real name, but with the name of the team.

If the conditions for publishing on Wikimedia Commons are such that a single author must be credited, then what does it mean to credit the author as it is credited - "Unofficial History"?

I am the representative of this team. I upload photos to my account (aka team account). If it’s more convenient for you, then you can consider that I PERSONALLY MADE all these photos (I’m ready to tell you about each photo where, when, and with what camera it was taken). We are a single team, not a bunch of different people. This is a fundamental point.

Please clarify: WILL PHOTOS BE DELETED? Or should I continue uploading MY photos to make the cultural heritage of Russia public? Нео Фициал (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know how discouraging this can be, but rules of Commons are very strict. And according to these rules, all you've said above is license whitewashing, that is unacceptable. The only way now is to clarify for any of 3600+ pictures who was the author. This can be really hard, so maybe it's easier to delete all of them and then to upload it from personal accounts? Красный ^{wanna talk?} 03:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3600+ is not even half yet. We have been doing research for over 10 years.

About any whitewashing, there is no question. Our photos are exclusive, both in content, quantity and quality. These photos are nowhere else (except for a few article publications, which also say that this is a photo of our group). This is the author's work of our group, all photos are uploaded from our group's account. I don't understand what's the problem?

There are no personal accounts, and there cannot be, for two simple reasons:

1. We have joint work and PUBLIC RESULTS. Each member of the team agreed with this before starting their activities.

2. Scientists will not sit all day and upload photos to the Internet. They have more important things to do.

I do not understand why the signature of the author "Неофициальная История" does not fit? Maybe it's a difference in thinking? In Europe and other Western countries, the individual is the basis of everything. In Russia, it is different: our team is a single organism and the team should be accepted as one person.

Be that as it may, I specifically consulted with a lawyer specializing in international law. I showed him all our correspondence. He said that there was no infringement on my part and all Wikipedia rules (published publicly) were fully implemented by me. The problem is probably a simple misunderstanding.

So I want to understand * why the signature of the author "Неофициальная История" does not fit? * Нео Фициал (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Поскольку юзер Красный на некоторое время в силу внешних обстоятельств лишен возможности пользоваться интернетом, попробую объяснить вам ситуацию как человек, который как минимум следил за всей этой историей. И отвечу по-русски, чтоб не было недопонимания. Никто не против ника "Неофициальная История" - в Ваикипедии подписываться можно как угодно. Все замечания, которые вам были высказаны, касаются не наименования вас или вашей команды, а именно конкретного авторства загружаеимых фотографий, которое в вашем случае не указано. Вам в двух разных дискуссиях было предложено оформить коллективную загрузку по здешним правилам, были даны ссылки на то, как это надо сделать, но вы, к сожалению, за две недели ничего не предприняли, и теперь все загруженные вами фото выставлены на удаление. И если вы в ближайшее же время не сделаете хоть каких-то шагов к исправлению ситуации, все фото так-таки будут удалены, что, конечно же, довольно огорчительно, поскольку многие фото - действительно весьма редкие, пусть и не очень хорошего качества. При этом все ваши жалобы на "бездушный Запад", так сказать, лишены практического смысла, да и с точки зрения российского права звучат довольно нелепо. Чтобы получить в России, например, пенсию за заболевшую бабушку или чтоб воспользоваться машиной брата, россияне оформляют доверенность, а не объясняют в банке или в ГИБДД, что "наша семья - это единый организм, и всех ее членов надо воспринимать как одного и того же человека". Вам, собственно, предложили здесь именно оформить своего рода доверенность (VRT), чтобы загружать фото от имени членов вашей команды. Заявите хотя бы о намерении это сделать на странице удаления - не исключаю, что вам пойдут навстречу и подождут, пока вы разберетесь с VRT. Здесь люди в общем и целом не злобные, просто они не любят, когда нарушаются правила. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Нео Фициал Please start the VRT process. C.Suthorn (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Екатерина, благодарю за разъяснения. Однако позвольте уточнить, что изначально дисскуссия началась именно из-за кирилического названия аккаунта. Ну да ладно проехали. Что касается VRT то я или тупой или слепой, но ни где не видел даже упоминания ни о каком VRT или ссылок чтобы сделать так как требуется. Про VRT впервые читаю от Вас.

Я вовсе не горю желанием тащить свой устав в чужой монастырь и готов сделать всё по правилам. Однако у меня нет ни мальейшего понимания как это делать и что именно я сделал не так.

Ни кто мне ни чего не объяснил, а все толкьо требовали выполнения чего то.

Понятное дело, что объяснять каждому, времени ни у кого из вас не хватит, но можно хотя бы прислать ту же ссылку, где всё по человечески объеснено. Повторюсь, ссылок ни кто не присылал, по крайней мере я их не видел.

Благодарю. Нео Фициал (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Пока Екатерина готовит развёрнутый ответ, возможно стоит посмотреть COM:VRT. Avsolov (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Развернутого ответа я не дам, поскольку не вижу смысла подменять собой страницы правил. Однако замечу, что ссылку на VRТ вам давали в соседней дискуссии. По ссылке есть разъяснения как по-английски, так и по-русски. Если вы ее пропустили - жаль, однако так-таки ссылка вам была дана сразу, как только стало ясно, что вы грузите фото разных авторов. Также хочу заметить, что несмотря на то, что все загруженные вами фото сегодня были удалены, это не значит, что теперь все пропало и уже не надо ничего делать. Вы по-прежнему можете разобраться с авторством фотографий, оформив все по правилам, а потом подать заявку на восстановление фотографий. Это реально. О процедуре восстановления рассказать вам ничего не могу, но вы можете проконсультироваться с юзером C.Suthorn, который писал вам и в этой дискуссии, и на вашей странице обсуждения, и тоже, похоже, огорчен случившимся. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the deleted files are worthwhile. VRT users will start the undelation, as soon as VRT process is completed. It would have been much less work, if it had been done before deletion. As mentioned by @Екатерина Борисова a link to the VRT page (that has a russian version) was provided. After you have sent email to the VRT permission queue a VRT agent will ask you for missing information. I cannot know, if you already started the process, a short notice would be nice. C.Suthorn (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files by uploader

Anyone know what the difference between this and the various "Files by User:X" categories is? It seems like there's a lot of overlap between them. To the point that this should be transferred and redirected to the other category if there is no reasonable objections. The only reason I see not to do it is that there is no main "Files by User" category yet, but that's an issue to fix. Otherwise, I'd be fine with just moving and redirecting the various "Files by User:X" categories into this one, but there isn't a justification to have both. Except I kind of like the whole "User:X" thing, but whatever. Maybe something like [[:Category:Files uploaded by user:X" would be a good middle ground. There's zero point in having both categories either way though. Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's unclear what problem you are trying to resolve. Uploader isn't creator in case you missed that.

Enhancing999 (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader isn't creator Did you check the child categories for both of them? How exactly are the files in Category:Photos made by User:Kien1980v not created by Kien190v? Same goes for the files in Category:Files uploaded by Kinori being created by Kinori, files in Category:Files uploaded by Mpradeep being created by Mpradeep, files in Category:Files uploaded by Birdman being created by Birdman, Etc. Etc. ad nauseam. To the point that like 99% of the uploaders are the creators. What do you not understand about that and how exactly is it not a problem when the category is being used for literally the same exact thing as the "Files by User:X" categories? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioning "both", but included just one category for discussion. Users are free to create user categories in one way or the other. If you are not sure how to make the difference between the two, please avoid interfering with people's categorizations. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I discuss both this and the "Files by User:X" categories in my first comment. There is no main ""Files by User:X" parent category to include in the CfD though. Which I said. Sure users are free to create user categories in one way or the other, but that doesn't negate anything I've said or make them any less duplicate categories. I'm not "interfering" with anything by having a discussion about it. I'm just trying to figure out what the best category for users would be instead there being multiple categories that serve essentially the same exact purpose. Maybe don't comment next time if your just going to be defensive, resort to ad-hominin attacks, or otherwise ignore what the CfD is about and what the person who opened is saying. Just bemoaning about how people can do whatever they want and that this is "interfering with people's categorizations" or whatever isn't at all constructive. People can do things. No really? Gosh, I didn't know people on here do things. Thanks. You really adding something useful to the discussion there. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files by uploader is ok as it is. please write explicitly what you want to change, otherwise no changes are needed and this can be closed. RZuo (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know what the difference between this and the various "Files by User:X" categories is so there aren't multiple categories that serve the same exact purpose. Otherwise if they have the exact same purpose one of them should be gotten rid of because it's just redundant. Per Commons:Categories, "To create a new category: Do a thorough search, to be sure there isn't an existing category that will serve the purpose." There isn't currently a Category:Files by user but there's a bunch of "Files by User:X" in category Category:Files by uploader. There's also "files by X" categories on top of it. So either everything should be unified to "by uploader", "by user:X, or "by user." Having three different category naming schemes that serve essentially the same purpose is totally pointless though. Otherwise, what exactly is the difference between this category and the various "Files by User:X" or "Files by user X" categories? Really, I thought I was pretty clear about that the multiple times I've said it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)--Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"want to know what the difference between this and the various "Files by User:X" categories"

Category:Files by uploader is the catcat of all "Category:Files uploaded by xx".

Files by User:X is a cat of files somehow related (uploaded, edited, photographed, filmed...) to User:X.

so their purposes are different. the rest of your paragraph relies on the premise that these cats have some identical purposes, so it's moot.

please write succinctly for the convenience of the readers. RZuo (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their purposes are different You can say that but then categories like Category:Files by Bococo, Category:Photos made by User:Kien1980v, and Category:Files by User:Josephjong just to a name a few are in Category:Files by uploader. So it seems to be a distinction without a purpose. As to the request that I write more succinctly next time going by your response to my last comment you probably wouldn't have understood the issue if I was more succinct anyway. Nor does it seem like you took the time to research it before commenting or you would have known "files by user:X" categories are already in Category:Files by uploader without me having to tell you. People should know the basics of what they are commenting about before writting a message. Period. I'm not here to hold people's hands or make up for their lack of wanting to research this before responding to me by writing clearer. Sorry. That said, I'm more said to clarify things if people ask, which I did. So I don't really see what the issue is. At least not on my side. I know people just can't resist making things personal though.

Anyway, there clearly isn't a difference between the "by uploader" and "by user" categories. Otherwise people wouldn't just be using the former as a dump for the later. Apparently there's even some "made by" categories in "by uploader." So there's clearly some redundancy regardless. I guess we can deal with that by creating Category:Files by user and making Category:Files uploader a child of that category, but then there's going to be overlap and people are still probably going to use both at random since they are essentially synonyms. Or conversely we could get rid of the "by user" categories since at least from what I can tell the uploader is usually, if not always, the user anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tldr. dont seem to see any proposed edits to Category:Files by uploader. nothing in the longwinded text seems of any interest or value. RZuo (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason you would see any proposed edits if you didn't read what I wrote. I did make some though. That said, I can draw a picture next time if that's your level of reading comprehension. Although it would probably be better to just not participate in the discussion if you don't think it has anything of interest or value next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"it seems to be a distinction without a purpose", what nonsense is this?

i said

"Category:Files by uploader is the catcat...", i.e. a cat of cats.
"Files by User:X is a cat of files..."

the distinction between a cat of cats and a cat of files is abundantly clear. this user cannot understand this simple fact? then any more longwinded nonsense can just be ignored and wont be replied to. RZuo (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That clarifies things. But the "by uploader" subcats contain files. So sure, "Category:Files by uploader is the catcat..." and "Files by User:X is a cat of files...", but the "by uploader" subcategories are also categories of files. Which is why I asked what the difference between the "by uploader" categories and the "Files by User:X" are. I never said anything about what the purpose of Category:Files by uploader is. I just don't think you get what the problem is since by your own omission you didn't read what I wrote and you clearly didn't research it ahead of time either. So again, what is the difference between the "uploaded by" sub categories (not the catcat!) and the "Files by User:X" categories? It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

did this user remember what s/he wrote? or is s/he even able to comprehend his/her own writing?

1st sentence: "Anyone know what the difference between this and the various "Files by User:X" categories is?"

"this" certainly refers to "Category:Files by uploader", the topic of this cfd.

and now "never said anything about what the purpose of Category:Files by uploader is"? RZuo (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: A year later and there's still zero evidence that these two categories serve different purposes. Do you have any now or is it just condescension and insults all the way down on your side with this one? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polaroid Land Camera

This category was created presumably because of an error. "Land camera" is not a specific model name, but was the name of almost all Polaroid instant cameras until the early 1980s, named after Edwin H. Land, himself the inventor of the "Polaroid Land process" and co-founder of Polaroid Corporation. 86.103.239.238 11:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see the "About 561,000 results" on Google for "Polaroid Land Camera" in quotes (the exact phrase). — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The number of search engine hits is hardly surprising, because "Polaroid Land Camera" is, as I tried to explain above, a synonym for "Polaroid Instant Camera". So what is the use of the category? Therefore, I propose to turn it into a redirect. --86.103.239.238 13:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the four photos in this category depict cameras that actually have the words "POLAROID" and "LAND CAMERA" emblazoned on them. Uploaders will continue placing photos of such cameras in this category, which is already a subcategory of Category:Polaroid instant cameras. Please leave it be, or accept a compromise of pluralizing it to Category:Polaroid Land Cameras. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer but a Category:Polaroid Land Camera (neither in the singular nor in the plural form) as a subcategory of Category:Polaroid instant cameras makes no recognizable logical sense. "Polaroid Land camera" was neither model name nor designation of any class of Polaroid cameras or the like. "Polaroid Land Camera" was the Polaroid company's name for its instant print cameras from the time of their introduction in 1948 until the retirement of Edwin H. Land in 1982[2] and is therefore imprinted on afaik every Polaroid instant camera of that era (early roll film cameras have it on the back, later models on the front side). After that, "Land Camera" was omitted and only the name "Polaroid" remained on the camera housings. So changing the category name to Category:Polaroid instant film cameras with the visible imprint "Land camera" would be one way to eliminate the redundancy - but the better solution would be to make Category:Polaroid Land Camera a redirect to Category:Polaroid instant cameras. --86.103.247.32 17:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a Land Camera is an Instant Camera from before the 90's, that makes it a valid and defining subcategory of Polaroid Instant Cameras, not a synonym. That it's not the name of a specific model isn't relevant - category names don't have to be of specific models, they just need to have certain characteristics in common (e.g. categories such as "Red cameras" or "People with cameras" would still be valid). ReneeWrites (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Griffins in supporters

Shouldn’t this be instead Griffins as supporters (and ditto for all other such cats)? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Groups of the United States Army Air Forces

Moved from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves; I think this is a big change that likely warrants discussion. Cc: Thewolfchild. Original template for COM:CDC: {{move cat|1=Groups of the United States Army Air Forces|2=Groups of the United States Army Air Forces|3=Please move all cats ending in "2d" to "2nd" and "3d" to "3rd", so that all ordinals are correct, uniform and in compliance with mos:1st on wp. (45 cats total) Thanks|user=Thewolfchild}} —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:T-55A tank at the Panzermuseum Munster

Problematic (?) and old (over three weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:93.80.182.181) rationale: this category to be moved to category:T-55AM tank at the Panzermuseum Munster, because: "Hull number 4133, inventory number 4767, has been identified as T-55AM by recent museum label from 2010". Date: 2022-04-17 Estopedist1 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is, both of these categories contain photos that depict the exact same T-55AM tank, hull number 4133 (on the side of the turrett) and inventory number 4767 (on the front right track cover), so the 'T-55AM' category looks more appropriate.

The 'T-55A' category contains one photo from 2005 where it is identified as T-55 on the museum description stand (see File:T-55A at Panzermuseum Munster.jpg), however a photo from 2010 shows new description identifying the tank as T-55AM (see File:Panzermuseum Munster 2010 0676.JPG) and this identification remains on the most recent photo from 2019 (see File:Deutsches_Panzermusem Munster (48892244613).jpg). The photos from 2010 were originally made in a sequence and were assigned to the same Category:T-55 Tanks at the Panzermuseum Munster, until someone split them into separate sub-categories without paying attention to hull numbers. --95.29.161.130 19:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California Proposition 8 (2008)

The category uses a naming style that is no longer used or is different from the convention on Wikipedia, which would be Category:2008 California Proposition 8. See en:Category:2008 California Proposition 8, for example. --Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 02:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to use Wikipedia naming conventions. I actually like this one better. Also, if you look at Category:California ballot propositions, you'll see two with this convention and two others with yet a third convention. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quarters stop

Surely Category:Quarters stop should be renamed something that is meaningful, right on the surface, like Category:Quarters (LRT) or Category:Quarters (LRT station) or Category:Quarters (station) or Category:Quarters stop (Edmonton)? The problem with the current name is that someone from a completely different context, like, let's say, old fashioned film photography, could try out this a category name, see it didn't trigger a red link, and assume it applied to their field. Geo Swan (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the other stations in Category:Edmonton Light Rail Transit stations. With only ~~three~~ four other exceptions, they all have names like Category:Quarters station (ETS)‎. Geo Swan (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Grey Nuns stop (ETS) should be renamed Category:Grey Nuns station (ETS).

I think Category:Millbourne/Woodvale stop (ETS) should be renamed Category:Millbourne/Woodvale station (ETS).

I think Category:Muttart stop (ETS) should be renamed Category:Muttart station (ETS). Geo Swan (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more exception Category:Stadium station (Edmonton), which I think should be renamed Category:Stadium station (ETS). Geo Swan (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Quarters stop" matches the naming convention set out in en:WP:CANSTATION and en:Category:Edmonton Light Rail Transit stations. Although the City of Edmonton calls them LRT, the Valley Line is a street car, and street cars use tram stops, not stations. As for the other subcategories of Category:Edmonton Light Rail Transit stations, I do not know why they have unnecessary disambiguation, I have been on break from Wikimedia. 117Avenue (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we get false positives in the category? A more specific category name may be a good idea. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The City of San Francisco

It would confuse future users if a user page for a personal photo set is entitled "The City of San Francisco". I think it should be renamed "The Beat of the City by JCruzTheTruth" to better identify the purpose of the category. BriefEdits (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marcin Rosciszewski

To nie jest zdjęcie Marcina Rosciszewskiego 81.255.132.130 06:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This was the label on the original picture. Of course a mistake is always possible. Did you know Martin Rosciszewski personaly ?

If it is someone else, it must be a well-known geographer, possibly from Poland, invited to the Festival international de géographie in 2001. Could you find out who he is ?

In the first place we can remove the file from Wikidata, but please do not delete it on Commons.

Sincerely yours Ji-Elle (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one Marcin Rosciszewski. For reference: The book https://rcin.org.pl/Content/31430/PDF/WA51_44610_r2003-vol10_Geopolitical-Studies.pdf shows a photograph of him (same tie?). Another photo is this one: https://honoris.unizar.es/sites/honoris.unizar.es/files/img/honoris/marcin_maria_rosciszewski.jpg. For a third (small) one see http://rcin.org.pl/Content/3098/WA51_13320_r2003-t9_EuropaXXI.pdf. --Achim55 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings by Zanobi Strozzi in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg

There is only one painting by Strozzi in that museum - this situation is unchanged since 1893 and not likely to evolve. If another painting is acquired, the category could be recreated and would make more sense. Edelseider (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Although there is only one painting by Zanobi Strozzi in that museum, keeping that single file in a category makes it possible, or easier, to link it to "Paintings in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg by artist" or "Paintings by Zanobi Strozzi by museum". This applies to every artist, with one or more paintings in that museum. --Fabrizio Garrisi (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree completely with Edelseider. A Category system is only helpful for greater units and not 1 file 1 category. The micro atomized categories make it more difficult to see the files. Better painting categories are for e.g. Paintings from Italy .., Religious paintings....Oursana (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Langres pendant la Première Guerre mondiale

To be renamed to "Langres during World War I" please NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename, but I think the usual naming would be "Langres in World War I". --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, same change should be made on Category:Chaumont pendant la Première Guerre mondiale. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway Inn public houses

Do we really need a separate category here from Category:Railway pubs? I propose merging there as that's the simpler form similar to w:WP:DABNAME using the simpler name for pages that list pages by name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it for pubs named Railway Inn? We could make it more explicit, but it can be a simple way to categorize these.

Category:Railway pubs is more complex and vague to me. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But generally "Inn" is used or not used interchangeably just like "The" is just like having Category:Swan public houses and Category:The Swan public houses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway pubs is broader than that, it currently includes Railway House, Railway Hotel, Tap on the Line, The Railway, Railway Tavern, Station Inn.

If a pub's category is named "The Railway Inn", I'd still add it here. If "Inn" is absent, not.

Category:Pubs named Railway Inn makes it more explicit. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colored photographs of Switzerland taken on black-and-white reversal films

Should be deleted. Contained only reproductions of colored lantern slides (German: Glasdiapositive), which are technically something else than photographs on reversal film; the files were moved to the new category "Hand colored photographic lantern slides of Switzerland". I doubt if there are any colored black-and-white pictures on reversal films, because color reversal films were available soon after the invention of the reversal film; so the parent category "Colored photographs taken on black-and-white reversal films" should also be deleted. Lu-xin (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Laurels in art

Problematic (?) and old (over three weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:W like wiki) rationale: this category to be moved to category:Laurel wreaths in art, because: "English is not my mother tongue but I think both means the same.". Date: 2022-07-24 Estopedist1 (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to be noticed that we also have Category:Laurel in art Estopedist1 (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose According to Oxford dictionary and Merriam Webster, laurel (uncountable) is the plant; laurels are "honour and praise given to somebody because of something that they have achieved", not only laurel wreaths. So category:laurels in art must be a subcategory of category:laurel in art, and category:laurel wreaths in art a subcategory of category:laurels in art--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Londisland

propose renaming to Category:Screenshots from Londisland —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2 letter alphabet logos

What is the difference between this Category:2 letter alphabet logos and its parent Category:2 letter logos? And ditto for other quantities of letters.

Affected:

@Benzoyl: pinged as creator. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a difference. Another issue: it seems to me that these should be under text logos anyway. What's the difference between a text logo and a letter logo? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I think the difference is that Category:Text logos is transcluded by {{PD-textlogo}}. But you’re right: it should be the parent cat of this tree. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: Actually, I was thinking they should be merged, probably under text logos, and the alphabet categories eliminated. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: To confirm, you do agree that these 10 categories with the word "alphabet" should be merged up to their respective parents as listed above, keeping the categorization of the number of letters envolved, yes? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are letters not "alphabet". for example, in Chinese Japanese .--Benzoyl (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these characters letters or numbers? Because where I live they distinguish these things. Web-julio (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/09

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.