Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02

Category:Headscarves in Turkey

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Women wearing headscarves in Turkey.

This new cat is redundant with Category:Hijabs in Turkey. Using English, Turkish, Alemannisch etc words at the same time create multiple identical cats. If a headscarf (TR: Başörtüsü) is not the "hijab" (religious) dressing element, we simply call it "eşarp". Non-Turkish speakers, I'm referring to what Grace Kelly wore while being driven in a red convertible. E4024 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

If it is possible to wear an "Başörtüsü" that is not a "hijab" then why are the two redudant? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see from your other discussion that you're saying they aren't technically redundant, but the content in the two categories is presently redundant. A woman wearing a hijab could be in Category:Hijabs in Turkey and Category:Women wearing headscarves in Turkey. If we're talking purely about unworn articles of clothing, is there a visible difference between a hijab and another headscarf? If not, maybe it would make more sense to cut out the middle category and have:
Would that make sense? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Hijabs is a sub-set of Category:Headscarves and should therefore be a sub-cat of it. By the same token, Category:Hijabs in Turkey should be a subcat of Category:Headscarves in Turkey. This would eliminate the redundancy, as all images of hijabs in Turkey would be sorted there while non-hijab scarves stay in the parent headscarves in Turkey category. Josh (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I managed to express what hijab is and what is is not at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Females wearing hijabs but still people "want to" take the hijab -which literally means "being ashamed of (someone), am I right, Doctor Ashashyou?- as a "dress" (clothing!) and impose it everywhere, reverting others who have no religious whatsoever prejudices. As we are very sensible to etiquette here, I will not give blue links to any particular edit; we all assume goodwill from each other. Indeed we should better have cats for "concrete clothing items" (headscarves, socks, shoes etc) and not a subjective "hijab" thing, because one can use a "wig" for hijab not to hide her beauty under a scarf or another can use a "burq"a to perform prostitution without being recognized. We should not tag people for religion here, except for those people who dedicate their life to or earn a living practicing religious duties. Full stop. --E4024 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Women wearing headscarves in Turkey

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Headscarves in Turkey.

This and Category:Hijabs in Turkey -at present- save the same purpose. I would eliminate one, but with the "passion of Islam" that drives many Commons users, I would make this a subcat of the mentioned cat. Although, I believe, we are simply "overcategorizing" (id est: Putting an identical cat over another.) BTW why do these people never make cats for women wearing mini skirts (or shorts) in Turkey? Whatever... E4024 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's a little weird that only women wearing headscarves/burqa are divided by country, but not women wearing any other clothing. The closest comparison I can find is Category:Women with earrings by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Miniskirts by country would be just as valid as a Category:Hijabs by country. It is normal to sort images by location, so I have no problem with either. I don't know why we need to differentiate between men and women wearing things. Category:People wearing headscarves in Turkey is more than sufficient. I do see the point in differentiating between a clothing item and people wearing the clothing item, though we may not always have media of both conditions for each type of clothing, so I would keep Category:People wearing headscarves in Turkey as a subset of Category:Headscarves in Turkey. Josh (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I managed to express what hijab is and what is is not at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:Females wearing hijabs but still people "want to" take the hijab -which literally means "being ashamed of (someone), am I right, Doctor Ashashyou?- as a "dress" (clothing!) and impose it everywhere, reverting others who have no religious whatsoever prejudices. As we are very sensible to etiquette here, I will not give blue links to any particular edit; we all assume goodwill from each other. Indeed we should better have cats for "concrete clothing items" (headscarves, socks, shoes etc) and not a subjective "hijab" thing, because one can use a "wig" for hijab not to hide her beauty under a scarf or another can use a "burq"a to perform prostitution without being recognized. We should not tag people for religion here, except for those people who dedicate their life to or earn a living practicing religious duties. Full stop. --E4024 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Face in Hole

See also: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/02#Noun?.

Starting this discussion following Commons:Village_pump#Wrong_category_names …

Category:Face in Hole and Category:Comic foregrounds are aimed at the same thing: Those boards with some kind of figure printed/painted on the front and a hole cut where the face would be. You stick your head through the hole and someone else takes a photo. However, neither Category:Face in Hole nor Category:Comic foregrounds are for this kind photo-opportunity exclusively:

Both categories strictly speaking also to not allow all pictures of this:

--El Grafo (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be considered funny to pretend you're some ace fighter pilot, but I get you point. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that a board has to have a face stuck in its hole at any one moment to still be a "face in hole board". I would probably prefer to move all images showing boards with holes for faces to be inserted to "Category:Face in hole boards" or similar... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Face in hole boards I think it's good. --Benzoyl (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
They go by many names.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think "Photo stand-in" is actually the best title. It avoids the requirement of a board or a face (which might not always be present). It's also clearer than "comic foreground" for reasons pointed out above. I wouldn't include the "bread cat" images here anymore than an image of someone sticking their head out a window or through a hulahoop. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I might add that, unfortunately, most of these images could probably be deleted as derivative works, unless Freedom of Panorama is in effect or the art on the board is released under a commons compatible license... =( - Themightyquill (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: this is actually a pretty old tradition. See various examples here: http://www.laboiteverte.fr/des-photos-anciennes-dans-des-decors-2/. Many would be public domain now, the problem is putting an actual date on them. Some classic photo stand-in designs were made by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge, those would (mostly?) also be PD. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The meaning of "Photo stand-in" is not too clear unless you already know the term. Some alternative names are more intuitive... AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: Strangely, these things don't have a single uniform name: http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2015/01/search-engines.html, http://www.shadesofthedeparted.com/2009/03/friday-from-collectors-march-20.html:

We had a request for a photograph of one of those end-of-the-pier painted boards into which you stick your head to get photographed. But what are they called? No one seems to know. (..) Two Flickr groups featuring pictures of them have the titles Head Through the Hole and Things You Stick Your Head In (..) My search online found face cut-outs. Michael Hocken tells me that the Web site of a British seller of the things calls them head through the hole photo booths. (..) the invoices had called them photo cutout boards. (..) comic foreground, a name (and a genre) which Wikipedia claims was invented by the American painter and cartoonist Cassius Marcellus Coolidge (..) tells me that the French call them passe-têtes (..) Peter Casey discovered examples of carnival cutouts (..) Richard Beard, former director of the California Renaissance Faire, says such items are a stock-in-trade at US themed events and have the name lookie loo (..) another term used by a number of the US makers of such items is faceless cutouts (..) In lieu of a name that will be understood everywhere, a couple of readers suggested that they be called Headleys in honour of the questioner.

— Michael Quinion of World Wide Words
It wouldn't even be a bad name. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No horse in this race, but "Face in Hole" seems to be capitalized weirdly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • merge them all I don't care what they're called, but hair-splitting debates about whether or not a face-is-in-the-hole are unproductive. A 1:1 correlation between every imaginable concept and category only leads to every image being in its own category, which defeats the purpose of categorization helping people find like images. A comic foreground is an entirely appropriate category name/redirect: we shouldn't avoid names just because someone may conceivably mistakenly place this image in the category. And yes, not all comic foregrounds are 'comical', yet neither are all comics. Comic is synonymous with graphic. FWIW, I don't think "photo stand-in" is the most common term, but if its the most inclusive term, by all means use it.--Animalparty (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge into Category:Face in hole. Add a description (
    English: "Face in hole" is the concept of using a hole through which a human or animal face can be seen in order to alter the depiction of the person or animal for comedic or other purposes.
    Under this category, if the need exists, there can be categories to differentiate between the types of objects that might have such a hole (board, bread, etc.), whether or not a face is in the hole and what kind of face it is (cat-face-in-hole?), and what purpose the face in hole serves (comedic, etc.). I am not saying all of these are needed, but they can be created if needed. The point is to create Category:Face in hole as a parent category for all of it, regardless of subcats. Josh (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Since no one did anything for three years, I merged the categories and added Josh's description (I found the discussion after uploading a nice vintage example from 1895). I also merged the two Wikidata items (one was just the link to the Commons Category without anything else). I don't have a strong opinion about which name to use, but there should only be one category. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Edmund Johanson

Do we need this cat for him, as he is on this file on top of the book? Sanandros (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You could probably nominate that file for deletion as derivative anyway. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The Edmund Johanson Category contains files related to the KGB general of the Latvian SSR, Johanson. On the file placed in this category is a book written by the general. The file is already placed in the article of the Russian Wikipedia - Йохансон, Эдмунд Волдемарович . Subsequently, other illustrative materials related to Johanson will be placed in this Category. -- Kalnroze (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: yes that I was also thinking that the file doesn't fulfill de minimis but I don't know latvian copyright rules.--Sanandros (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The category now contains a single image of a signature. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep for hope of being able to find that signature. More images may be added later, but it is enough on its own, no? Josh (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Stale discussion. Still have one file depicting his signature. I would upmerge this one file and empty category to be deleted. But there are people who eagerly support one-member categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Capitals of former countries

What was the need in opening this cat while we already had a Category:Former national capitals? The relation between these two cats (cat-subcat) is another mystery. Another question could be "which one is a better name"? E4024 (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Capitals of former countries would be places that were capitals of countries where the countries don't exist any more. Former national capitals would be cities that used to be national capitals, but the country may still exist. For example, the US has at least two cities (Philadelphia and New York, I think) that used to be the national capital. So there could be some overlap, but they're not the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Look at Category:Capitals of the Ottoman Empire. I also make mistakes -and try to correct them- but some users all the time make arbitrary categorization. (This is why I proposed the other day we should tell them to stop it.) --E4024 (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that would fit better under Category:Capitals of former countries. Are you thinking we need only one of these categories? If so, I think Category:Former national capitals covers both circumstances.
As far as stopping arbitrary categorization, we're always going to have users who don't categorize correctly, either because they're not very familiar with how to do it, or because they aren't familiar with particular categories. I see no way around that unless we restrict who (or what, in the case of bots) can categorize, and I don't see that happening. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Side Note: Aunt, I never check "by whom a cat has been opened" while I open cats to discussion. Afterwards, while I check my contributions, I see that the notifications for CfDs concentrate in several user talk pages, 4 or 5. You can find them out, easily. One (from my country, I guess) left us leaving a lot work to do behind. That's it. --E4024 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Former national capitals. I do not see any consistent element in the media warranting a distinction between 'cities that once were capitals of countries that still exist' and 'cities that were capitals of countries that do not exist any more'. Note that the vast majorities of images in the sub-categories have nothing to do with their status as a capital, so again, I am not seeing any value in sorting them by their capital status from a Commons perspective. Josh (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Do it. What are we waiting for? E4024 (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Islamic art of book

"Art of book" sounds peculiar to me. What do you think? E4024 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It is the academic term for all arts relative to books in Islamic culture : painting, but also calligraphy, illumination, binding, gilding... Calame (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"Islamic art of book" yields precisely 28 hits on google. I'm a little skeptical that it's an accepted academic term. A category with this purpose might be justified, but we can find a better title. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
E4024 I'm ready to move this if you can think of a better name - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Islamic arts of the book" is the proper term. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Medieval Arabic anatomy

Strange "Arabic" cat with "Persian" images in it. E4024 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are referring to "some" of the content language. The category is referring to the "medieval Arabic civilization medicine". Its manuscripts are mainly in Arabic, some are in Turkish, some are in Persian and also in other languages. All written in Arabic script letters. Even latin translation of medieval Arabic medicine can be put here. In my humble opinion. If you check relevant language references, you would find that medieval Persian medical language was based on Arabic language. I advice you to read Gustav Lobon book "Arabic civilization", it would add much to your understanding of the relationship between Arabic language, script, islam,and other related terms. I would like to mention that there is a new political tendancy to separate Persian medicine from Arabic civilization medicine. However any fair person, would find it not making sense. Even Medieval great Muslim physicians as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and al-Razi (Rhazes), although they were from persian origin but all thier scientific legacy as al-Canon (Canonis) & al-Hawi (continentis) are in Arabic language as Arabic language was the lingua franca of science at that time, hence the name Arabic medici. Regards.--Ashashyou (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Medieval Islamic anatomy. This alleviates the issue of which is Persion or Arabic. Josh (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Stale discussion. Any objections for upmerging, as suggested by user:Joshbaumgartner? Pinging also user:E4024 and user:Ashashyou--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Kebab wraps

IMHO duplicate with "dürüm" but if the cat is confined to remote areas where the word dürüm is not known, or Pakistani people are confused with Turks, I have no problem. (Please note that I also have no problem with Pakistani people, with whom we Turks have a great feeling, mutually.) The issue is, as a person who lived in Spain and knows Pakistan, there is no "döner" in Pakistan's cuisine tradition and seeing Pakistanis opening "döner houses" in deeper Spain and being called "Turks", it was necessary to add this part. Take it as a parenthesis. E4024 (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not a duplicate, durum is made with yufka, though it should probably be renamed "Kebab pita wraps". Durum also includes non-kebabs like spinach durum, or potato durum. I created this category because there was no existing category for our many images of pita wrapped kebabs.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I see confusion is because all the dürüm in our category are tortilla wraps. This is pretty common because commerically produced lavash is flour tortilla. It's not very good but I will recategorize the miscats. I hope we can get some better dürüm pictures soon.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • To Shofet: Firstly, please give yourself some time to familiarize with our practice here. I understand your Commons adventure began the day before yesterday, right? Try to observe and read a bit, as a newcomer. Secondly, please write "dürüm" when you mention something quite notable; we have special letters aid. Thirdly, be consistent with what you say and do. (You can have a look at my reverts to understand the preceding sentence better.) Last but not the least, do not think that every country or everybody has the same eating habits. In Turkey we mostly put a "lavaş" or "tırnak pidesi" or "yufka" (in alphabetical order) or other flatbread on the plates, not because there is an obligation to make dürüm (there is none) simply for "presentation" and to remove the melting grease from sight. BTW in Turkey restaurants serve "dürüm" and "others" in different conditions, prepared in the kitchen, and generally with different prices. Come to eat with me some day, in the future, if you can become a habitué in Commons. --E4024 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    Adana kebab in Ankara: Not a dürüm nor any "wrap" (sic). Many people simply eat it with fork and knife. The bread is a "bed".
    Pics also teach.
I understand to dispute inclusion of particular photos but not to delete category entirely. As I said, dürüm can be made not only with kebab so this is not duplicated. I made this category to improve problem you are describing. These pictures were previously categorized only by "shwarama" "gyro" "döner" and even cevapi and other types I am still searching for to add. I am sorry if I did something wrong from inexperience, but I think if they are cumbersome to navigate this way, categorization needs improvement.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Just so understand: Is durum a turkish word literally meaning wrap? If so then all kebab wraps in Turkey are durum, but not all kebab wraps everywhere are durum (they might be called something else), and not all durum in Turkey wrap kebab (they might wrap something else). Is that right? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Shofet tsaddiq: specific food topic, but I can see that: we have Category:Kebab wraps, enwiki en:Kebab wrap is redirected to en:Doner kebab (= Döner kebab), but we have also Category:Döner kebab. If "kebab wrap" and "döner kebab" should be distinguished, we definitely need explanatory hatnotes for both categories in question--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Contestants of the Eurovision Song Contest by country

Just a curiosity: A Turkish singer represented San Marino rather recently, someone from another country represented Luxembourg in the remote past, the relation between Greece and "Republic of Cyprus" (no, I'm not referring to 12 points :) as regards the use of singers... Maybe a "touch of detail" might be needed in the title. E4024 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and Céline Dion represented Switzerland, Olivia Newton-John the UK (which is less weird since, in spite of being Australian, she was born in Bradford, Yorkshire). That said, I don't get the point. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's see if anyone will get the point. If not, I will close the discussion. Sorry. --E4024 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: It seems there is no further discussion? Do you propose a change, or do we close with no action required? Josh (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Josh, you were my last hope! :) If you did not get the point, no one else will. Do as you wish. --E4024 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@E4024: lol, I don't know if I got the point or not... I get that there is a difference between a person's country of birth/citizenship and the country they 'represent' when appearing in the contest. Perhaps a name like 'by country represented' or such would work. However, the Eurovision Song Contest and its rules are far from my area of expertise, so I'm happy to implement an agreed upon proposal, but not offering one of my own. Josh (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Stale discussion. Enwiki uses the cat name like en:Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants for Turkey (parent cat: Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants by country). Using "FOR" would solve our problems? At the moment we are using "FROM", eg category:Contestants of the Eurovision Song Contest from Turkey. Opinions @E4024, Blackcat, and Joshbaumgartner: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: no, definitely and unnegotiabily. "By country" criteria means already "By country" in the framework suggested by the mother category. So, if we are talking about association football, "Country" means a FIFA country (i.e England which is not a sovereign country but is a country for football); if we are talking about rugby union, the Island of Ireland is a "country" because its Union is the governing body of the game in the whole island. As well, "contestants to the Eurovision Song Contest by country" means the country they represent. On a side note, it's about too few exceptions for considering changing a whole categorization tree. --- Blackcat 11:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Firearms by calibre

Why do we need this cat? Firearms are sometimes chambered in diffrent calibres. Sanandros (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • thanks you,

I'm Japanese and not good at English, so I'm sorry if I'm saying too directly or impolitely.

Reasons I made this cat was,

  • Same aim cat Category:Artillery by calibre is already exists and actually used. It is my understanding that over 20 mm caliber projectile weapons are "Artillery", and less than 20 mm caliber projectile weapons are "Firearms" .(is this understanding specific and peculiar to Japanese people only?)

I myself do not stick on this cat, thanks.--Brakeet (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sanandros and Brakeet: The reason for this category is as an index of categories which group firearms by caliber, such as its one sub Category:7.62 mm firearms. However, only having one sub means it isn't very useful. Perhaps merge with the existing Category:Artillery by calibre into something like Category:Projectile weapons by calibre? Josh (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't like that then pictures are in this category. If we say only galleries are allowed I would not have a so much a problem but if we say also categories and with that also pictures are allowed in this cat then we have for example the problem that Desert Eagel pistols are in diffrent calibres like we have here a .44 Magnum calibre while this is a .357 Magnum calibre.--Sanandros (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Sanandros and Brakeet: enwiki has also en:Category:Firearms by calibre. I think this justifies the existence of this category in Commons also. Sidenotice: there seems to be mess with using "calibre" or "caliber" in category names, but this should be discussed at another CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

fine for en wp but articels you can categorize in diffrent caliber while pics of firearms are always weapons in a single caliber, so we can say only galleries are categorized in this cat. Or we do sub cats of weapons which have diffrent caliber.--Sanandros (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Peter Casey

Just a name, no clarity about person, no biodata (occupation, place of birth, year of birth, nationality). There are severable notable persons named "Peter Casey" on Wikipedia's (en,ga,pl) and on Wikidata, this is not one of them. Paulbe (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment From what I can find, Peter Casey is the Director of News and Programming for WBZ. Bidgee (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate If this doesn't refer to any WP articles at "Peter Casey" then its confusing to have this person at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Paulbe, Bidgee, and Crouch, Swale: Enwiki gives priority to Category:Peter Casey (entrepreneur). Maybe we should mirror enwiki solution. If so, then our Peter Casey to be moved under eg category:Peter Casey (radio personality). Also notice that en:Peter Casey (disambiguation) is rather scarce--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This category should become a disambiguation category, rather than picking a person. What works for Wikipedia, doesn’t necessarily means it will work for commons. Bidgee (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I’ve made the move, Category:Peter Casey is now a disambiguation category. Bidgee (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
We normally have DABs even when Wikipedia has a primary topic, see Category:Perth and Category:Warwick for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct - October 22, 2011

We need a more descriptive name than Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct - October 22, 2011. Something like Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct - 2011 pedestrian tour and partial demolition? Kind of long. Most of the photos are of the pedestrian stuff, but the partial demolition is important. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be one category for that day. Hoping to get some demolition photos today. Some of them can also go in Category:Views from Alaskan Way Viaduct or whatever. I just don't want to have to poke around to figure out what happened on October 22, 2011. Copule clues in the category name without getting too wordy. I've also been trying to categorize the 200+ photos there so they're easier to deal with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Move to Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct on 22 October 2011 with images also catgorized under Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition as appropriate. Maintain the explanatory note on the category page detailing why that day was notable for the Viaduct. Looks like there was another event we have some media for to support Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct on 2 February 2009 as well. Josh (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, separately from this we now have Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Jmabel and Dennis Bratland: maybe Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition is unnecessary, because so far only two (?) demolitions have taken place (2011 and 2019; see en:Alaskan Way Viaduct). I suggest to create "Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition on Date/Date interval" and "Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct demolition on Date2/Date interval2", these two categories are subcategories of Category:Alaskan Way Viaduct--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  • The two demolitions were really phases of one project, though. I'd really prefer to see a parent category lumping the demolitions, with a subcat (as we have here) for the one day for which we have so many photos. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Female politicians of Portugal

Does not seem to be an helpful category, and discriminates and contributes to the gender gap by keeping women isolated from the main category of politicians. Darwin Ahoy! 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Shouldn't we do the same for the other 163 subcategories of Category:Female politicians by country? And what about everything else under Category:Women by occupation? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Certainly separating women out from a main category where categories for men are kept is discriminatory. Many countries, however, have something in Category:Male politicians by country. This could be done similarly with Portugal and other countries that don't have "Male politicians..." categories. I can see advantages and disadvantages to subdividing each occupation by gender. Mostly disadvantages to be honest, but I think it will be a difficult sell to have them all deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Creating corresponding categories for men would also address the issue, but raise another one: some people don't identify as either male or female, so what do we do with them? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete And yes we should do the same for the rest of Category:Female politicians by country. While Auntof6 (talk · contribs) is right that making them for men, and other gender categories I suppose, would solve the technical problem of unequal treatment, I question the value of gendered categories for something like politicians in the first place. Splitting politians by country, political sub-division, time/session, party/movement/ideology, or even voting record maybe makes sense, but gender, ethnicity, hair color, favorite food, height, shoe size, etc. is not really relevant. @Themightyquill: you stated you can see advantages to it, are there any you can elaborate on that might make it worth keeping this around? Josh (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: Politicians haven't been traditionally been prevented from running for office because of their hair color, favourite food, height, shoe size, etc. It's not unlikely that someone might want to look up photos of female politicians from their country. Of course, it isn't strictly necessary to subdivide anything by gender and/or country. We could put Category:Maria da Graça Carvalho in Category:Women, Category:Politicians, and Category:People of Portugal, but there are obviously advantages to having Category:Women of Portugal and Category:Politicians of Portugal and Category:Female politicians. This is just another layer, that keeps Category:Female politicians from being incredibly full. I'm not sure what the best solution is. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. Because enwiki has also massive gender-trees, eg en:Category:Women in politics by nationality, it is unlikely to be solved with this CFD. Future nominations should be discussed at higher level, and tendencies in enwiki should be taken into consideration--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Alter-globalisation

HapHaxion has suggested moving Category:Alter-globalisation to Category:Anti-globalisation with the reasoning "Better umbrella term. Alter- and Anti-globalization can also be split if needed." This seemed like it might be controversial. This category currently links to en:Anti-globalization movement on wikipedia, but en:Alter-globalization does exist. The former article notes that the term "anti-globalization" is disputed by many within the movement, but also notes the terms are essentially synonymous in common usage. Themightyquill (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I don’t agree with this change, nor with the reasoning behind it. The crux of the matter is not globalization itself, but the unstated qualificative: Capitalist globalization.
    • Some are against it, and emphazise that they yes want a globalization, just not this one ("alter" means "other").
    • Others are in favour of it, and refuse the epithet, under the TINA worldview.
Changing "Alter-globalization" to "Anti-globalization" would amount to favor the latter interpretation over the former. Furthermore this change would fail to tell apart true anti-capitalist globalists from anti-capitalist anti-globalists and all sorts of anti-globalists. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion.  Keep enwiki has both articles en:Anti-globalization movement and en:Alter-globalization--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Cristoforo dall'Acqua

User:Horcrux suggested that this category be moved to Category:Cristoforo Dall'Acqua; however, the authority control sources are fairly evenly mixed on the capitalization of the last name. I'm not sure which capitalization is more in line with how Italian surnames usually work. BMacZero (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Samaritani also supported the capitalized last name on the category's talk page. BMacZero (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
* I am the original uploader. Some Italian surnames have the lowcase letter "d" with the prefix "da" (meaning "from"), some others don't. My surname has a compulsorily capital "D" and "O", Dall'Orto (don't ask me why), but Lorenzo de' Medici is compulsorily lowcase. In general noble surnames have a lowcase "de / da" prefix, but this is not a general rule. So it must be checked case by case on a reliable source. If Enciclopedia Treccani has it as "D", then let's change it, I am not opposing it. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. Enwiki also uses "D". If moving will be taken place, then Creator:Cristoforo dall'Acqua also to be moved--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Six and nine

Is there a benefit to this category? To note the ways to distinguish 6 from 9 when "up" is unclear. We don't have Category:b, p and d. Could we at least phrase it better? Themightyquill (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

To me the title means showing the numbers six and nine together, which some of the images have. I don't see other categories for pairs of numbers, though, so maybe it is for what you say. With some of the images, only one of the two numbers is shown and you can tell which is intended. Where you can't tell, I would just leave the number off. In any case, I don't see the need for a category with this name. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I think benefit. Other possible also, Bingo balls or Lottery card etc. Why is such fuzzy category name, The reason there are 2 type.
1. Underlining - "File:Orange, 10-sided die.jpg", 2. Underdotting "File:D14 cuboctahedron.JPG". But, It may be necessary, This category rename. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess I agree with you both individually. If it's for images of 6 and 9 together, then we drop images which only show one number. If it's for "methods of differentiating between 6 and 9" (whether underlining or underdotting) then we should rename to something like Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 and remove images which don't include any features like this. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 - I think that very good. --Benzoyl (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
If Category:Six and nine abolished, How does the parent category? --Benzoyl (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The differentiation rename suggestion sounds good to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The creation of Category:6 with underlining and Category:9 with underlining makes overcategorization (parents and grandchildren) difficult to avoid. Maybe we should keep those two, but rename Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 to Category:Differentiation between similar characters or something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
If Category:6 with underlining and Category:9 with underlining be "kept", rename (these parent category=) Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 to (more broad sense name=) Category:Differentiation between similar characters that’s fine (I think so too.). --Benzoyl (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Because there was Category:Slashed zero, I Created Category:Differentiation between similar characters.
I agree merge Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 to Category:Differentiation between similar characters. --Benzoyl (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
If the issue is telling them apart, then I don't think this is arbitrary. Someone might want to illustrate methods for distinguishing between the two numbers when you can't control what direction they'll be viewed from. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't this also apply to "d", "p" and "b" and "n" and "u" and "w" and "m". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Those rarely appear in contexts where they need to be told apart, but if we have such images, then yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Themightyquill, Auntof6, Crouch, Swale, and Benzoyl: any new ideas? At least Category:Differentiation between 6 and 9 seems to acceptable. One reason, why I want to delete the nominated category, is that it encourages to create similar ones, eg "One and six", "Two and four" etc, and these definitely are not acceptable per Commons category naming policy--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If there is a sub category that points to keeping this one, if not the sub category should probably be deleted first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sazs

"Sazs" sounds strange. We should make it "Saz". There is also a Category:SAZ from 2016. Therefore I propose to move "Sazs" to Category:Saz (musical instruments) (plural) and we should also rename Category:SAZ; and then make a disam page with "Category:Saz". Objections? Proposed names for "SAZ"? E4024 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary says the plural is "sazes" or "sazzes" which we could use. The wikipedia article is at en:Bağlama so perhaps we could just use Category:Bağlamas? Is Category:SAZ the same as Category:SeAZ vehicles? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The Category:SAZ is not the same as Category:SeAZ vehicles.
SAZ - Saranskiy Avtomobilnyy Zavod (Saransk Automobile Plant)
SeAZ - Serpukhovskiy Avtomobilnyy Zavod (Serpukhov Automobile Plant)
Zinnsoldat 13:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! So I propose we create either Category:Saranskiy Avtomobilnyy Zavod or Category:Saransk Automobile Plant, and then redirect Category:SAZ to a disambiguation page at Category:Saz. Category:Sazs moves either to Category:Sazes or Category:Bağlamas. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment w:SAZS redirects to w:San Carlos de Bariloche Airport, I would  Support disambiguation of some sort. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One-and-a-half year and we are still at the preliminaries... Any hopes of reaching somewhere before life on the earth ends? I already have repented to open a discussion in search of consensus instead of just moving things to my own choice like many others prefer to do here. Josh, can you come back to close some of these discussions please? --E4024 (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Police tactical units of the United Kingdom

I have doubts that the two pics in this cat are showing police tactical units. Sanandros (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sanandros: : Would you care to elaborate? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know it in the UK but in CH also normal police members train storming a house with MP5. File:Day 214 - West Midlands Police - Firearms Officer uniform and equipment (7690257016).jpg says they train only 10 weeks which sounds for me very short to become a member of a police tactical unit. File:MOD Plod Ship 2007.jpg is nothing written which unit it is.--Sanandros (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Sanandros. I see your point. en:West_Midlands_Police#Firearms and en:Authorised firearms officer shed some additional light on this. If a en:Police tactical unit is "a specialized police unit formed and trained to handle situations that are beyond the capabilities of ordinary law enforcement forces because of the level of violence - or risk of violence - involved" then perhaps an "Authorised firearms officer" would be considered part of a police tactical unit in the UK, even if a cop with a gun wouldn't be considered out of the ordinary in other countries? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The problem is I don't know anything about UK tactical police units as they use the SAS for these situations (like the Iran embassy hostage crisis). Also a quick literature research didn't reveal anything about UK police tactical units.--Sanandros (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sanandros: In the UK, police officers are generally unarmed and do not receive firearms training. The minority of officers that do receive firearms training are called authorised firearms officers (AFO). A minority of AFOs, receive further training to become specialist firearms officer (SFO)/counter terrorist special forces officers (CT-SFO) who form teams/a unit - a police tactical unit - which in the United States they would call a SWAT. 10 weeks is an appropriate time to train a SFO.--Melbguy05 (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok we can do that. For me a weak defintion of a tactical police unit but ok for now.--Sanandros (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Power plants

Hello. I've been around editing power station topics since 2009. The way power station categories are named has been bothering me since then, and I never considered actioning on it since the task is somewhat large (and hence will probably bother some editors). Today I decided that I should bring this to CFD so that it can be discussed, as the issue only seems to be getting worse.

  • The parent category Power plants seems to start with majority of the subcategories following the naming style "plants".
  • As you go deeper, usually beyond 3rd level you will start to see a growing mix of power stations (example) and also sometimes just stations categories
  • Note that Special:PrefixIndex cannot pick those up as the name variations are often in the middle of the term.
  • While a larger percentage on Commons use "power plant", the majority of Wikipedia and Wikidata use "power stations"

I propose that we standardise all generic categories to power station, for neatness, and also to match the more commonly used terms across Wikimedia projects (and probably in most countries outside the US). To be clear:

Examples of proposal:

  1. Category:Hydroelectric power plants in xxx to Category:Hydroelectric power stations in xxx
  2. Category:Xxx power plants by country to Category:Xxx power stations by country

Comments welcome. Thank you, Rehman 15:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • This is probably one of the AE/BE issues. For me, power station works as well as power plant.
    In regard to example 2. above (see the linked categories), please note that "solar power plants/stations" and "photovoltaic power stations" are not the same (different forms of solar power, PV is only one of them).
    Anyway, all changes would affect hundreds of categories (and many subsequent linkfixes on Wikidata and Wikipedias; this can not be done in one hour). Keeping redirects could be indicated in many cases. And it would be sensible to bring it up also on VP so that others can step in this discussion. --Te750iv (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Regarding solar, of course, hence the "xxx". I've also crossposted this here, here, and here so far (the biggest active areas for WikiProject Energy participants). I will also post on VP. Rehman 05:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I also think this sounds like a reasonable proposal. Perhaps it's related to American vs British English, but I would think they could be used fairly interchangeably in most contexts, which makes it different than the petrol/gas station problem. I could be wrong on that though. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I  support anything that homogenizes the terminology we use — provided these are true synonyms. (Proper nouns / official names, when used in cat names, should be excluded from this homogeny, though.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support solution per enwiki en:power station--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Deaths by cause

Killing, Killings by type, Murder, all subcats of this. How come? This cat and around was played with too much in the recent past and we came to have suicide as a crime, animal slaughter as a crime etc. (Maybe vegetarian people do those changes. :) I see myself not capable of arranging all this. Sorry, I'm only attracting attention to the issues. I hope more people than the couple of users -who must have already got bored of my CfDs- come to help with these issues. Someone may tell me "we do not need so much discussion, better dedicate your time and energy to categorization"; but we must also give some clasification discipline to each other here. I mean while some try to put things in order, if others enjoy "experiments" life in Commons cannot be easy. E4024 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC) :Can you explain more about your concerns with this category and its subcategories? It seems quite straightforward to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the sub-categories should all be in the format Category:Deaths from X like those in Category:Dead people by manner of death? Or the category could be renamed Category:Causes of death ? It links, afterall, to en:Cause of death - Themightyquill (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think, why animals die should be subject to categorisation too. Therefore a category exclusively for human death should state clearly in the category nahme, that its subjet is human death. --Kersti (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. Probably  Keep. Enwiki has also en:Category:Deaths by cause--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Roads and streets named after kings

Category:King streets has been moved to Category:Roads and streets named after kings. Is "King Street" necessarily a street named after a king? I would think "King Edward Avenue" is a street named after a king. "King Street" could also be named after Billy Jean King or William Lyon Mackenzie King, etc, no? Just a thought. Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless we know that a particular King Street was named for a specific king, then I think these have to go under the general streets by name category. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm adding Category:Roads and streets named after queens to this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 Delete @Themightyquill and Auntof6: What value is there to categorizing media by the namesake of the subject? Categorizing by name I get, but namesakes, while interesting to some, seem completely trivial. I recommend we delete both categories and re-cat contents appropriately. Josh (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: Without categorizing media by namesake, then, for example, all the categories currently in Category:Things named after Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein will be dumped into Category:Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein. That's probably a mild example. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Thanks for pointing that out; there is an entire tree of namesake categories. Honestly, I think that whole tree is unnecessary, but that's probably a much higher-level CfD to have. I don't think that Category:Auguste-Viktoria-Allee (Berlin-Reinickendorf) should be in Category:Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein, because the link between them is a trivial one, so there is no need to have a category link. However, at least in that case, we are unlikely to have much categorized under Category:Things named after Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein by accident. Unfortunately the nominated category is different, as certainly not all "King Street" names are streets named after kings. Josh (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Auntof6, Themightyquill, and Joshbaumgartner: seems to be  Keep. Redirecting of Category:King streets may be deleted or not (if deleted then affected is also Category:Queen streets). If a street consists of the name "[K]king" and this street is not named after a king, then explanatory hatnote should be added--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think we need to reinstate Category:King streets for streets that don't have a specific king's name in them. Same for Queen streets. So, some would be in both categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 Keep For clarity, yes, I am fine with keeping this category for streets named after actual kings and removing streets that just have the word king in the name. If necessary, reinstate King streets to separate them again, though I'm far less convinced that we need a category at all for streets that just happen to have king in their name, as this is handled by the dab at Category:King Street Josh (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Churches and Chapels in North Walsham

There's no Category:Churches and chapels category. We have Category:Religious buildings which contains Category:Chapels and we have Category:Christian chapels in Category:Christian buildings. Yet we have:

Just to emphasize, aside from those indicated with indented bullet points above, none of these are connected via any kind of category tree. It seems quite random. I would propose some combination of deletions, splits, and moves to Category:Religious buildings in X, Category:Christian buildings in X and Category:Churches in X. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact I like this mix-up of churches and chapels, because we don't have a clear distinction between churches and chapels. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Not only that, but:
So is a chapel a type of church, its own type of religious building, or a church element? If churches are by definition Christian, then chapels aren't always a type of church because we have Category:Jewish chapels. Since some chapels are separate buildings and some are physically part of another building or structure, maybe they can't all be classified as the same kind of thing.
But, to your point, we might be able to address some of these piecemeal. For those that contain only churches or only chapels, we can rename the category (and recategorize as necessary).
Those are just some that I spot-checked. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Upmerge Per Auntof6 (meaning any pages in a "Churches and Chapels" category are moved to the "Church and Chapels" parent category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I may not have been clear, but I support eliminating all "churches and chapels" categories. That would mean not upmerging to any such category. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Bu "upmerge" I was meaning transfering the contents of Category:Churches and Chapels in North Walsham into Category:Buildings in North Walsham so yes that would mean eliminating all "churches and chapels" categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem number one is that we have no clear distinction between churches and chapels. So we would need to work that out first. Or let's simply rename all "Churches in ..." categories to "Churches and chapels in ...". -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It's partially compounded by the fact that churches (at least as Commons defines them) are all Christian, whereas chapels (as Commons defines them) might be Jewish or interfaith. That's why Category:Christian chapels exists. So Category:Churches and chapels is a little ambiguous: Christian churches and any chapels or Christian churches and Christian chapels? But Category:Churches and Christian chapels seems rather strange. Better to use some combination of Category:Religious buildings or Category:Christian buildings + Category:Chapels or Category:Christian chapels. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Upmerge to Category:Religious buildings... We do not need to have a clear distinction between churches and chapels to solve the category problem at hand. All "Churches and chapels ..." categories should be renamed "Religious buildings ..." (or upmerged into existing categories of this name). As for their subs, those that are churches can be put in the "churches ..." tree and chapels can go into the "chapels ..." tree. Some might go in both. If there is a problem with the existing definitions for Category:Churches and Category:Chapels, then a CfD can be raised there. Josh (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A distinction between churches and chapels is really not clear, and can differ by country. Not only by religion, but also by type of structure. In Central Europe, chapel-shrines are also counted among chapels (while column-shrines are not), even though this type of chapels are not buildings but rather something like sculptures. The distinction between a small church and a big chapel is also unclear. There are several unsharp criteria but none of them is reliable. E.g. churches are owned by the church while chapels other belong to a school, hospital, castle or are owned by the municipality. Other distinctive criterion can be that churches shelter the Eucharist, however abandoned churches are all the time considered as churches. Other possible conception can be that chapels are a subtype of churches. Some protestants use different terminology and can be difficult to compare it with the catholic terms (e.g. in Czech, catholics use terms "kostel" for a church and "kaple" for a chapel, while protestants use rather "sbor" (assembly?) or "modlitebna" (prayer house) but also "kostel" or "kaple" for older buildings. And what about e.g. "Kingdom Halls" of Jehovah's Witnesses?

As regards categorization, at some levels, Christian "chapels" are concepted as a subcategory of "churches". The name "churches and chapels" is more precise but at higher levels of categorization, special subcategory of chapels should be not missing. Chapels are very close to churches by their purpose - they should have nearer one to other then to rectories, monasteries, provost houses, chapter houses, bishop's residences, church schools and hospitals etc. which are not ceremonial sanctuaries but are religious in a broader sense. --ŠJů (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we put an amen to this discussion please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: An amen? In any case, do you see a consensus here? I don't. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I again suggest:

  • Churches in X
    • Christian chapels in X
  • Relgious buildings in X
    • Chapels in X
      • Christian chapels in X

A search combining intitle:"Chapels in" AND "Churches in" should reveal much of what should be renamed from "Chapels in X" to "Christian chapels in X" -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Župa dubrovačka

Should dubrovacka be capitalized or not? Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Not sure, it appears to be not so at both en:Župa dubrovačka and sh:Župa dubrovačka. We might be best keeping it as-is unless a better source turns up. Josh (talk)
@Joshbaumgartner: Then rename Category:Churches and chapels in Župa Dubrovačka and Category:Videos from Župa Dubrovačka? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, all sub-cats should use the same format. In a case like this, some sort of explanatory note on the category might be warranted to let users know. Josh (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. Because enwiki article name and first sentence contradict each other (dubrovačka or Dubrovačka), I opened a discussion here: en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Croatia#Name_problem_with_a_Croatian_populated_place--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)