Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/07

Category:Gambling games

It's not really clear what the difference between this category Category:Games of chance is. Except maybe this category is specifically for the type of gambling game. Whereas the other category is for "games of chance" as a concept. But if that's the case then this category should probably be renamed to something like either "Gambling games by type", "games of chance by type" or something else entirely. Either way, it seems like this category and Category:Games of chance should be merged since it's not really clear what the difference is. I'm just not sure which is the better category name of the two or how exactly to go about it. Adamant1 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:June 2006 in Grand Est

Region Grand Est created in 2016 (template modified, example Template:Month by year in Alsace before 2016). Gzen92 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories :

@Gzen92: What are you even requesting be done here? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think these categories should be removed thanks. Gzen92 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gzen92: I assume you mean deleted. The question is why do you want them to be deleted? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
One year ago, I found a discussion with @Birdie: User_talk:Birdie#Grand_Est, what is your opinion ? Gzen92 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
HHhmmm, I think the general idea of the question and issue makes sense. You obviously wouldn't want categories having to do with Grand Est from before 2006, but it existed in 2015 right? So I don't really see what's inherently wrong with "December 2015 in Grand Est." Although it's possible I'm just not understanding the issue or otherwise missing the point here. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh wait, never mind. You said 2016, not 2006. I guess it makes sense to delete these categories then. Most of them seem to be empty to begin with anyway. If you want to give me a couple of hours I'll probably nominate them for speedy deletion and close this if no one takes issue with it in the mean time. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok for empty categories. Gzen92 (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Concentrated solar power South Africa

Not related to the parent category Shoba98 (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

What would be a better parent category? --rimshottalk 21:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Touristic trains

The name "touristic train" sounds nonstandard to my ear because the adjective "touristic" is "rare in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, common in Mainland Europe, Latin America" as per Wiktionary. Therefore, it should be renamed to tourist trains with the common attributive use of the word "tourist", like "tourist attractions". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

had a glance into some of the subcats.
i think people are mixing two concepts into one here. one is trains that (often) carry tourists, e.g. a train thru some popular tourist destinations (imagine a train thru switzerland). this is in contrast against trains that usually carry commuters/goods, which are not tourists.
another is trains that are touristic attractions by themselves, e.g. a steam locomotive that still runs.
some trains can be both. the difference between the two concepts is not easily defined. RZuo (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I see even more concepts. Apart from the two you mention, I find the trackless tourist "trains". But then we also have the trains, that may be interesting for tourists, but also carry commuters etc. Shouldn't we separate the concepts in own categories? Gürbetaler (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The so-called trackless tourist "trains" may be Tour buses or something similar. And I don't think we need a separate category for "trains, that may be interesting for tourists, but also carry commuters etc". Such trains can be categorised to both Tourist trains and Commuter trains. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this category is thought for "touristische Züge" but not for "Touristenzüge". I leave the final decision to those with deeper linguistic knowledge. Gürbetaler (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:2023-07-02 Führung zu Tombs und Epitahs

Kategorie bitte löschen, Fehler im Titel, ist ersetzt durch eine korrekte Kategorie und die Fotos sind dorthin verschoben Pimpinellus((D)) • WikiMUC • 15:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Category:Loanwords of Dutch origin

i dont think commons cat trees should be used to record etymological info.

besides, these titles are bad in themselves. any word is loaned from one language from another. just saying the origin would put "tycoon" (an english word) and "文明" (a chinese word), both loaned from japanese, into the same category.

this is the first cat of this format https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=incategory%3A%22Loanwords%22&ns14=1 . RoyZuo (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want the whole category tree to be gone, you'd better start this discussion in Category:Loanwords. JopkeB (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus No consensus
Actionsnone
Participants
NotesClosing this old discussion. I agree with JopkeB that the discussion would be better done at the level of the parent category. You might also want to look at other subcats of Category:Etymology.
Closed byAuntof6 (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: lol, when the parent cat is discussed for the subcats, users would then say the subcats should be discussed.
what's the point of this bureaucratic procedure.--RoyZuo (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
e.g. Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/06/Category:Videos_by_display_resolution#c-Nyttend-2019-09-10T01:56:00.000Z-TheDJ-2017-06-02T12:31:00.000Z. RoyZuo (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Archbishops of Canterbury (Roman Catholic)

Not a useful split between Anglican and Roman Catholic. Not relevant to images. Extra complication Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Archbishops of Canterbury (Anglican)

Not a useful split between Anglican and Roman Catholic. Not relevant to images. Extra complication. Necessitates a searcher knowing the religion before selecting the appropriate category. The office of Archbishop of Canterbury remained unchanged after the Reformation. The office itself did not split into two factions. There was a seamless continuation. No aspect of images changed, so why is the cat split? For example there was no change in the heraldry. No change in the monuments. No change in the portraits. How does it help a user to know the religion? Or does the split rather hinder a user, because he is forced to know the religion before proceeding with a search? Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Aurora in Fairbanks, Alaska

By virtue of having separate hierarchies for adjoining census-designated places and the surrounding Fairbanks North Star Borough, we say that "Fairbanks, Alaska" refers to the city of Fairbanks, which has clearly delineated boundaries (see here). Nothing about this category pertains to the city of Fairbanks. This is consistent with the attitude of many editors that communities can be arbitrarily defined, which doesn't work with Commons content as that content more often than not depicts geographically fixed locations. Most of the photos with identifiable locations in the category are of Chena Hot Springs Resort, which has its own gallery page and category, the latter located in the appropriate place in the hierarchy. The need for a category of this sort specific to the city of Fairbanks is unlikely, as light pollution drives tourists seeking aurora views out of the city. RadioKAOS (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

See also Category:Aurora in Anchorage, Alaska and Category:Aurora in Nome, Alaska, created by the same editor around the same time. Evidently, their enthusiasm for the topic of auroras has overtaken their need to be appropriately clued in to the geographies involved. The Anchorage category contains only one photo with coordinates traced to Anchorage. The aurora depicted therein is quite unspectacular and doesn't warrant a separate category. The other files contain coordinates traced to Hatcher Pass, which is not within Anchorage's corporate limits and about 60 road miles from central Anchorage. Two of the three photos in the Nome category are of Nome Creek, which is located about 70–80 road miles northeast of Fairbanks on the Steese Highway, nowhere near Nome. The parent Category:Aurora in Alaska is not overburdened.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Cueca

Cueca es chilena. "Cueca chilena" no es necesaria. Unir (merge) estás dos categorías. Además la Category:Chilena no tiene nada que ver con estás categorías. Por Dios!!! 186.174.243.114 13:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it's enjoyed in Bolivia and Argentina as well. We could subcategorize those, perhaps, if Chile is the primary location? -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Cueca chilena

Unir (merge) con Category:Cueca. 186.174.243.114 14:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No, This is a distinct form of Cueca Pierre cb (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Russian campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars

I don't see for which reason images are sorted into this category. Was this a title of a specific work (book, exhibition)? This seems to be a redundant category with Category:French invasion of Russia Enyavar (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

should merge. Rathfelder (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Swans in Dorset

Consider renaming to "Cygnus olor of/in Dorset" for harmony with other categories listed at "Category:Cygnus olor of England" ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Vote yes, and same for all other categories 'Swans of/in' (@ITookSomePhotos: ; for living things, we use scientific names at Commons as standard, not unreliable vernacular names - MPF (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Only if we want to verify the species shown in all the images, because there are other species of swans in England. Otherwise, if we want the scientific name, I think we'd have to go with just "Cygnus". --Auntof6 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ysogo

Usuarios pueden subir un par de fotos personales. (No sé porqué.) Qué pasa con los usuarios como este caballero que convierten a Commons en su álbum personal de fotos personales? 186.174.159.158 19:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

WMIT member, nothing to complain about here. --Achim55 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:The basics of photo art/Humanist photography

There is also Category:Humanistic photography 191.125.178.135 01:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm the author of the photo works in this category. What's wrong? — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Largos

Does Category:Largos have a purpose beyond "Things (at least partially) called Largo" ? It seems to rather be Category:Urban squares and I agree with keeping "Largo" attached to individual categories, but we don't have Category:Piazzas or the equivalent in other languages. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Thoroughfares (Gibraltar)

The category basically contains items which depict streets and stairs. Streets should be in Category:Streets in Gibraltar, and stairs should be in category:Stairs in Gibraltar (ans also in the streets category if they have house numbers, like category:Castle Steps (Gibraltar). There is no Throughfares category for any other city or country. I see that it leads to confusion, and there are duplicating categories like Category:Main Street (Gibraltar) and Category:Main Street, Gibraltar (this particular one I will fix now). Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see that it was created in April 2023 by an IP, so it is a newish category, but let it go through the discussion anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Thames Clippers

Not sure what to do with this. "Thames Clippers" (river transport on the Thames in London) has been rebranded "Uber Boat" (in full, apparently "Uber Boat by Thames Clippers", though the prominent branding on the side of the new boats is just "Uber Boat"). Presently we have Category:Thames Clippers with subcategory Category:Uber Boat, the former containing many pictures of vessels without "Uber Boat" branding, and the latter containing some photos of vessels with "Uber Boat" branding. Should photos prior to the "Uber" rebranding go in a different category from the rebranded photos, or should they all be put together under one category, e.g. "Thames Clippers / Uber Boat"? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, the TOC on this page appears within a pale blue box headed "This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive." Something has gone wrong here: the TOC should be outside the box. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Another thing that has gone wrong. I have made a couple of edits to this post, but these are not showing up at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/07. When I go into edit mode they show up, but not otherwise. I hope this isn't another instance of the ridiculous "purge cache" nonsense. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Put Category:Thames Clippers as a subcategory within Category:Uber Boat. Any more recent Uber-branded photos go in the Uber category, and the old TC-branded photos stay where they are. Make sense? Cnbrb (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that "Thames Clippers" has a larger scope than "Uber Boat", the latter being just one of several brandings over time of the former. Does it make sense to make the larger-scope brand a subcategory of the smaller-scope one? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Fire-starting

Category:Fire-starting and Category:Making fire seem to be duplicating each other, they are even linked to the same Wikidata item (firelighting (Q1192478)). El Grafo (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

What you wait to merge them? 186.173.251.75 18:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not waiting, I forgot about it ;-) But we should probably discuss which name is better:
El Grafo (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I think Making fire/Fire making is a broader term than Fire-starting. Fire making is also about gathering wood, place it properly so that the fire might burn better, and then start the fire. So I think Category:Fire-starting should be a subcategory of Category:Making fire, give them both good descriptions and move the files and subcategories to the correct category. JopkeB (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Good point, but I'm a bit on the fence as to whether we should/need/want to distinguish between those two when neither Wikipedia nor Wikidata do so. We have a lot of media about the lighting part. But it doesn't seem like we have a lot of media about fire making in the broader sense and a bunch of the media that is not bout the act of lighting are part of a series that would be ripped apart ...
As for naming, however, I'd prefer:
El Grafo (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
What is not yet, may come later, and I see three files about making a fire without the lighting part, that is enough for me to keep this category and not merge it.
  • I agree: Category:Fire making should be the name, that is were I was searching for this morning, not for Making fire.
  • Category:Fire-starting is more clear for me. Firelighting can also be about a fire that is burning already still some time (though this may be not propper English; I am not a native English speaker and I would be confused). So I prefer Fire-starting.
JopkeB (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, let's keep them separated then. Just thinking: Category:Fire craft (compare en:Fire making might be even better for a general term. I think some input from native speakers might help here ... El Grafo (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Clothed babies

Category:Babies needs regular diffusion and has many sub categories to help. However this Category helps little as 99% of the 1000s of images in Category:Babies and its subcategories are of clothed babies. So potentially 1000s of images qualify for Category:Clothed babies and so to be any help the diffusion to sub categories would have to start all over again. By the way Category:Clothed babies is empty and so is its one and only sub Category. So I suggest it is deleted. Headlock0225 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Agree: delete. Empty and not useful. JopkeB (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
But on second thought: maybe we should wait a while, the categories are rather new, perhaps the intention is to make a structure like Category:Clothed children. --JopkeB (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I think there's potential here, although this has existed for over a month now. Joshbaumgartner has been doing a lot of work about what clothing people are shown wearing, and maybe just hasn't gotten back to this one. If it's like similar categories, this one might eventually contain categories about specific things babies are shown wearing, what colors they are shown wearing, etc. It might take the place of Category:Babies by clothing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
As it is empty and I frankly don't have the time at this moment to give it proper attention, I don't mind it being deleted. (it is populated now) I agree that there can be good cause for it, and disagree with the logic that if most pictures of babies are clothed, there shouldn't be a category for clothed babies, but the category can always be re-created if and when the attention can be given to it and actual items are sorted there. Josh (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
You can make categories for naked children, male and female, for the ease of many pedophiles that frecuent Commons...
Can't you not leave our innocent children out of your nudism stupidities, for God's sake?! 186.173.92.39 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 Keep It is populated now. Josh (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Only because you populated it with a large selection of files from Category:Babies which is hardy in keeping with the instruction "Please do not make major changes to this category" Headlock0225 (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Not really. Stripping out files or emptying a category is certainly a problem, but not populating it. If a category is empty, populating it is a valid solution to the problem. If there are other reasons to delete a category, populating it doesn't affect that discussion. Thus, there really is no problem with adding valid content to a category while it is under discussion. Josh (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)