Wikimore

This page is for open CFD discussions started in April 2018.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2018/04.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2018-04.
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:Islamic artisans

They are not "artisans", they are artists. BTW every artist is a bit an artisan, and every artisan (at least the good ones :) are a bit artists. The "Islamic" word at the beginning of the title deserves another discussion but I will enter those discussions only when I feel I see a light in the tunnel that there is no tendency in Commons any more to create a "the other". (Therefore you can spare your words to talk on the last part of my presentation.) E4024 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the contents of Category:Artisans, there have surely been some Islamic (I agree - a questionable term in this case) artisans. Is the problem then with the current contents rather than with the category itself? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "Artisans" seems strange. I do not remember why I created it, but I think it has more to do with craftsman of ornate utilitarian objects as oppose to painter or sculptors. However I am fine with changing it to "artists" as I do not feel qualified to tell apart artisans and artists (assuming there is a difference). --Jarekt (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete--47.151.26.64 01:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete - I rarely agree with an IP. --E4024 (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Harbourmaster's offices and port captaincies in the United Kingdom

We don't have port captaincies in the United Kingdom so this name is wildly inaccurate. Please stick with local terminology rather than create Frankenstein categories that attempt to suit all. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Which terminology would you suggest? Article en:Captain of the port reads: "The captain of the port is an official who has different functions in the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries. [...] United Kingdom In the Royal Navy, the captain of the port was the officer, usually with the rank of captain, responsible for the day-to-day running of a Naval Dockyard under the authority of the admiral-superintendent..." Therefore, port captains are not unheard of in the United Kingdom, even if in the past. There is some logic to have all sub-categories of Harbourmaster's offices and port captaincies by country named after the same structure, and many, many countries name this office after a variation of "port captaincy" rather than "harbourmaster". However, suggestions are of course welcome to find a better name. Place Clichy 10:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: The problem with that article is that it is very poorly sourced, but a quick reading of it shows that "captain of the port" was a term limited to Royal Naval dockyards. That totally ignores civilian dockyards, such as Liverpool, operated by private enterprise and historically having harbourmasters. But in any case we would not use an outdated term unless any building was still extant of that name, and despite extensive Googling, I haven't found one in the United Kingdom. Hence I propose that unless a port captaincy is named as such (as a building rather than a role), UK categories should not refer to them, to avoid confusion. Following existing naming schemes is only useful if there are examples within both parts of the category- the rationale being that given enough content, there is then a strong case for splitting into separate categories under "Harbourmasters' offices" (note the correct apostrophe there) and "Port Captaincies". The would make Harbourmaster's offices and port captaincies in the United Kingdom look rather silly, having only one subcategory. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Which difference would you make between a harbourmaster's office and a port captaincy that would be the basis for splitting them in separate categories? There may be national variations in the definition of the exact offices, but the community will be better served by presenting them together. This is actually quite common practice when two concepts are so similar that it would either take an expert to tell them apart, or that overlapping national differences in terminology would interfere with functional substance and result in endless discussions. See the following examples :

Category:Universities and colleges by country : one can no doubt agree that a university and a college are two quite different things, but what is called a college and what is called a university changes so much from one country to another that they would no doubt overlap.
Category:Monuments and memorials by country
Category:Military units and formations by country
Category:Gardens and parks by country
Category:Imprisonment and detention by country
Category:Prisons and jails by country
Category:Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars by country
Category:Diseases and disorders by country
Category:Orders, decorations and medals by country
Category:High schools and secondary schools by country
Category:Seminaries and theological colleges by country

Place Clichy 16:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Stale discussions. @Rodhullandemu and Place Clichy: any further developments? I can say that the nominated category fits well into the parent Category:Harbourmaster's offices and port captaincies by country. Maybe the current situation is acceptable?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I support the current name of the category. I notice that no alternative name was ever suggested in the above discussion. Place Clichy 13:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: as an involved user, I am not in position to close this old stale discussion. Since your last query above is already several months old, do you feel it is now time to close? Place Clichy 10:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Harbourmaster's offices in the United Kingdom Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Aba (clothing)

Our Category:Abaya says "aba" is synonymous with abaya. (It said so until 5 minutes ago when I changed the description with the entry in Cambridge dictionary. BTW I could not find any "aba" in there, related to clothing). I think there are things to discuss here; I mean other than all the unnecessary cats added here, "Middle Eastern" and "Arabic" passion etc. Anyway, food for thought from "the other". Thanks. E4024 (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I Thinks its best if we move it to Bisht (clothing).--Mojackjutaily (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

en:Abaya: "The abaya "cloak sometimes also called an aba, is a simple, loose over-garment...".
ABĀ (iranicaonline): "ʿABĀʾ (in Arabic, also ʿabāʾa and ʿabāya), a loose outer garment...."
I'd say they are synonymous. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
you guys clearly don't know the difference between Bisht and Abaya--Mojackjutaily (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mojackjutaily: Any helpful comments you have would be greatly appreciated. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: عبا (Aba) is the Persian word for bisht (The Arabic word) which is worn by men. Unlike abaya which worn by women. If we use the word Abba or Aba I am afraid that people will confuse it with abaya --Mojackjutaily (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mojackjutaily: That doesn't seem to match perfectly with the link I posted above, which indicates no different gender attributed to Aba vs Abaya, and further states "The ʿabāʾs worn by women in Syria and Arabia are virtually indistinguishable from those of the men" and a google search for "Bisht abaya" yields plenty of results. However, your description does match up with english wikipedia articles for en:Bisht (clothing) and en:Abaya. If we want to split between Category:Abaya (for women) and Category:Bisht (clothing) (for men), that's fine with me. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Stale discussion. Specific topic, but I guess that we should follow enwiki. Concept cloud:

Category:Aba (clothing) = Category:Abaya #enwiki says: Aba short form of Abaya, a middle eastern robe
Category:Bisht) #enwiki en:Bisht (clothing)

--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Saint Catherine

There are multiple saints named Catherine. Therefore, this category and certain others that reference a nonspecific "Saint Catherine" should be either renamed to reflect a specific saint or changed into disambiguation pages. Below is a list of the categories I think should be changed. If everything in an individual category is for only one specific saint, then the category should be renamed to specify which one.

Note: I recategorized Category:Saint Catherine churches under churches by name instead of churches by patron saint, as in done with Category:Saint Bernard churches and Category:Saint Julian churches, but maybe those should be disambiguation pages.

Here is the list of categories that I think need action:

Categories that have been deleted or resolved

--Auntof6 (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

We have the same issue in a number of places. I tried to disambiguate the contents of Category:Saint Vincent churches recently so we could get rid of it, but I couldn't figure them all out. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Anything that has already been subdivided by actual saint, like Category:Saint Catherine churches in Egypt, I'm deleting as redundant. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Category:Saint Catherine churches in Hérault now contains only a single category for a specific saint. Would you delete this one, too? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Done. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Oops, I should have finished checking before I asked for that one: here are a couple more:

Thanks for the other two you just deleted! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Fully support making this a disambiguation cat once the contents have been sorted. I just moved a St. Catherine that was created for a certain chapel in Budapest; I’ll make the redirect that was left behind point here instead.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

We might never get all the content sorted. We could make it a disambiguation cat and then work on recategorizing everything we can. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Started to disentangle it, see how far I'll get. Joostik (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Joostik: Thanks. To help the rest of us, can you say what criteria you're using to determine which Catherine is meant? For example, how did you know in the case of this file? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't remember the precise steps I followed, but it's about Saint Catherine Day celebrations in Czechia, which by all accounts is about Catherine of Alexandria. In general, consider the iconography of any particular depiction. Attributes, dress, age, such things. I also had to google some churches to check the dedication. Also the age of some churches or depictions, and the time the saints lived. Some saints are pretty locally venerated, which gives you an indication on how to search. Joostik (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Btw, in Orthodox churches Saint Catherine almost always means Catherine of Alexandria, but I'd hesitate to just go from that assumption.Joostik (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Yefreytor shoulder straps

Yefreiter shoulder straps → correct: Gefreiter shoulder mark (please see English Wikipedia w:en:Gefreiter) — Niklitov (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Niklitov: including the section en:Gefreiter#Yefreytor_in_Russia_and_the_post-Soviet_states ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Themightyquill! Thanks a lot for your attention! Pls find our conversation Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/02/Category:Shoulder_marks. Best Regards. — Niklitov (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Niklitov: Yes, the straps vs marks vs boards discussion is ongoing. But why move from Yefreytor to Gefreiter ? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm agree with you, Themightyquill! I think, we can create from Category:Yefreytor shoulder straps → (to redirect) → Category:Yefreytor shoulder boards and to Category:Gefreiter shoulder boards. Right? — Niklitov (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Early firearms

"Early" is rather subjective. Recategorize into Category:Firearms by era, Category:Firearms by century, and Category:Firearms by type Themightyquill (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill and Auntof6: enwiki has also en:Category:Early firearms (unfortunately no hatnote) therefore I rather tend to

Keep--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia also uses a general principle (en:WP:OTHERSTUFF) that suggests because some other bad decision was made doesn't justify further bad decisions. I don't see why wikipedia's decision should determine ours. Moreoever, the main article for that category is en:List of firearms before the 20th century which is, if imperfect, at least less subjective than this category title. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Curtain walls

Wikidata links to en:Curtain walls a disambig page to en:Curtain wall (architecture) and en:Curtain wall (fortification). Both of these somehow link back to Category:Glass facades. The first one largely describes glass facades, while the second describes a defensive wall. Can we merge Category:Glass facades and Category:Curtain walls? Themightyquill (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete--47.151.26.64 00:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No because they are not the same thing. A curtain wall is a non-structural wall, that can be made of glass but is not necessarily so. The main problem here is with the Wikidata links, I have no idea how to correct them. It would be appropriate to split this category into Category:Curtain walls (architecture) and Category:Curtain walls (fortification) if it was found necessary. Oxyman (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oxyman: If not all curtain walls are glass, are all Category:Glass facades curtain walls? ie. Could Category:Glass facades be a sub-category of Category:Curtain walls (architecture)? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No Many walls that are largely made of glass are also load bearing, typically having a metal structure such a seen on a greenhouse. Glass block walls are another example of a structural glass wall. One thing pertains to the construction technique used the other to a material used. I suppose a Category:Glass curtain walls could be used if that was helpful. Oxyman (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Oxyman: Wikidata links are corrected. But the nominated category is not DAB; enwiki has DAB. Currently we have Category:Curtain walls (fortification) and Category:Curtain walls (reserved to architecture). I guess that we also should do a DAB--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Association handball executives from Croatia

Is there something called "Association handball"? Why don't we have a "Category:Association handball" then? E4024 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a mistake by Silverije, I think. Move to Category:Handball executives from Croatia, and equivalents for the parent categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a Category:Association football executives by country with 21 subcategories. Is there any reason not to have the same category for handball? If so, move it to Category:Handball executives from Croatia. --Silverije 18:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Silverije: Association football is merely meant as a compromise between Category:Football and Category:Soccer, or as a disambiguation from other types of football. There's no other type of handball, is there? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you won't beleive it, but there is a field handball (so called "big" handball), better to say there was, because as far as I know nobody plays it anymore, at least in Europe. --Silverije 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Got images of it to publish? If not, no need for this cat. --E4024 (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Silverije: I didn't know, but I certainly believe you. We even have a category full of pictures Category:Field handball. Thanks for teaching me something! We also have Category:Frisian handball and Category:Gaelic handball, so in some ways, there is a need to disambiguate. On the other hand, I don't see any use of the term "Association handball" at en:Handball. Other names include team handball, European handball (apparently Frisians and Gaels are not European?) or Olympic handball. So if we were going to disambiguate, that's how we should do it, and we'd have to do it from Category:Handball on up. You're welcome to initiate that "Category for Discussion" if you want to change the name of that category. In the mean time, I don't think we have any images of Frisian, Gaelic or Field Handball executives, so there's no immediate need to disambiguate our executives tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Our Category:Handball, in the multi-language opening section, has "English:Team handball". Buh! Then why is the cat called "Handball" and not "Team handball"? Is this (the Commons that we are now editing) not an English medium thingy? --E4024 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Stale discussion. Enwiki has 0 links to en:association handball. Hence, I propose:

Category:Association handball executives from Croatia, upmerge and delete
Category:Association handball executives, upmerge and delete

--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Möhrendorfer Wasserschöpfräder

Ich hättegern eine Subkategorie: "Aufbau und Technik" zum Sammeln von Erklärbilder und Ausschnitten.n Markus (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Markus Bärlocher: Google translate says that you want to create a subcategory for "Structures and technologies" related to this cultural heritage monument. This is probably not a good idea, because the subcategories itself describe some kind of structure or technology--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Until now there are 45 pictures, sorted in 10 local geogaphi diffenent objects. We will need a special overarching category, which can mark parts of this 10 objekts for a technical description, how a such objekt is built and how it works. Bests, --Markus (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Estopedist here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Melbourne (ship)

There are a number of ships, see Category:Ships named Melbourne what year is this one supposed to be? The source in the image says date unknown. Crouch, Swale ([[User talk:|talk]]) 10:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the Royal Australian Navy as currently tagged. I would say Melbourne (1875), see Category:Macquarie (ship, 1875). The iron ship, 'Melbourne', 1857 tons, under partial sail [built as 'Melbourne' in 1875 and renamed in 1888. Well known in the Australian passenger trade, trading mainly to Sydney] [iron ship 1965 gross tons, 1857 net tons. ON70749, 269.8 x 40.1 x 23.7. Built 1875 (6) R&H Green, Blackwall London. Owners: R&H Green. Registered London, 1887 Devitt and Moore; 1903 renamed 'Fortuna' on sale to Norwegian owners and became a coal hulk in Sydney before WW1. The 'Melbourne' ran regularly to Melbourne until 1887 with an average voyage time of 82 days. She was sold in (1887) 1897 to Devitt and Moore who renamed the ship 'Macquarie' in 1888 and operated her to Sydney. When Devitt and Moore became associated with Lord Brassey's cadet scheme the 'Macquarie' was employed in training cadets while en route UK-Australia-UK. Very full notes in 'Blackwall Frigates'. Noted in 'Colonial Clippers']. See The 'Melbourne' under partial sail [PRG 1373/2/47] • Photograph at State Library of South Australia - Broichmore (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Its interesting to note that the source for the image in the category refers to Queensland, while the link you refer to refers to South Australia. The category is for some reason in Category:Macquarie (ship, 1875) maybe as you say because it was renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually I parked the cat in Macquarie this morning, apologies for misleading you. All of the state libraries in Australia (and the national) have collections of sailing ship images. Often duplicated. Seems that two or three collectors of these images were Aussie and bequeathed or sold their collections locally, or as is more likely the libraries have been hoovering up collections to illustrate one of their pet narratives which is documenting immigration to OZ. There's always been a brisk trade in copies of sailing ship images with hobbyists. The ships in these collections are global, not necessarily Australian; though many visited Aussie ports. The project is littered with ship images from AUS sources, where cats are ascribed to Ships of Australia on the basis that the image is owned by say StateLibQld, when in fact they are not. This image in particular is a good example. The Melbourne was owned and registered in London, and (probably, entirely) crewed by Brits. It features in six cats, only one of which might be correct. Look at this for example: File:StateLibQld 1 150219 Glaucus (ship).jpg A British ship built on the Clyde pictured in Bristol, probably when it was owned by an Argentine Co. Only 2 of its 5 cats are correct; Glaucus and Clifton bridge, it was never in Australia. Broichmore (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I just forgot to check the history, you didn't mislead me, I was just looking at you comment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Stale discussion. @Crouch, Swale, Broichmore, and Stunteltje: I am correct that Category:Melbourne (ship) should be redirected to Category:Ships named Melbourne--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support.--Stunteltje (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Delete also possible, as it has been removed to Category:Melbourne (ship, 1875). I didn't realise that.--Stunteltje (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It means nothing, In fact it's potentially misleading; just delete it. Broichmore (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the page has now been moved to Category:Melbourne (ship, 1875) so the original issue seems resolved so I'd just redirect this to the ships named category but I'm fine with deleting it though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:MacEwan University

Content relates to the same institution as the older Grant MacEwan University. While this name reflects the current branding, according to enWP the official name still starts with “Grant”. No strong preference as to which name should be kept, but we need to pick one. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Since the more established category name is still valid in some sense, I'll weakly support merging Category:MacEwan University into Category:Grant MacEwan University. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge into MacEwan University Educational institutions get renamed from time to time. Go with the most current name as we have done with the recently renamed Category:Toronto Metropolitan University leaving behind a redirect as we did with Category:Ryerson University. Or see Category:Concordia University, Montreal, which encompasses when there were two separate institutions, pre-merger, Loyola and Sir George Williams. I hope we can clean this up at some point, six (!) years later. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Flowers in the United States

I would suggest to merge the categories:

Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't know which way to go. "Of" seems to be slightly more common than "in" in Category:Flowers by country but there are plenty of both. I'm kind of leaning towards "in" because these aren't necessarily flowers that originate in that place, and they certainly aren't national flowers. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Whatever is chosen should also be done to harmonize everything in Category:Flowers by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Flowers of ..." is the most common (72x). I think that should be keep. "Flowers in ..." should be a redirect when it exists. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Double:

Category:Flowers of the United States ........ Category:Flowers in the United States
Category:Flowers of the United Kingdom .......... Category:Flowers in the United Kingdom
Category:Flowers of Tajikistan ............ Category:Flowers in Tajikistan
Category:Flowers of Latvia ............. Category:Flowers in Latvia

--Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This in/of issue is always tricky. "In" means that the flowers were in the place when photographed, whether or not they grew there. "Of" can mean that the flowers shown grew in the place, or just that the type shown (but not necessarily the specific ones in the picture) grows there. So neither option completely includes the other.

Besides all that, some of the subcats in Category:Flowers of the United States are the scientific names of plants that produce flowers. Some of those subcats include images of the plants when they aren't in bloom, and some include maps showing where they grow -- neither of those are flowers. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rudolphous: Do you have an opinion? Because you created new categories in 2018-07-30.

--Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I would keep "in" since that is a little more correct. But if someone chooses opposite I can also live with it. Regards, Rudolphous (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

We could keep "in", but we couldn't merge "of" into it unless we verify where the images in it were taken. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Arnaud Palastowicz, Themightyquill, Auntof6, and Rudolphous: What should we do with such cats? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:KNAG collection maps of Europe

Request for deletion. New category page is located at 'Category: Europe (Map collection KNAG)'. DeJong2332 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That isn't generally how we name categories on commons. We have Category:NARA images of Tennessee not Category:Tennessee (NARA images). Category: Europe (Map collection KNAG) looks like we'd need to have a hatnote at Category:Europe reading "This category is about the continent. If you were looking for the KNAG map collection, see..." Could we maybe instead use Category:KNAG Maps of Europe collection, Category:KNAG European maps collection, Category:KNAG map collections (Europe) or some other formulation? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@DeJong2332: ? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I think KNAG collection maps of Europe is a good suggestion. I choose (Map collection KNAG) because there are different subcatgories in the Category:Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap (also known as KNAG). By adding (Map collection KNAG) the subcatgories are ordered alfabetically. There are 8 more subcategories that need to be changed I guess, please look at the other subcategories at Category:Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap.

It's very easy to sort categories alphabetically, regardless of their name, with a sortkey. It's important that the category name be clear and preferably in normal English. I'd recommend Category:KNAG map collections (Europe). - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and DeJong2332: per parent Category:Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, the name should be Category:Europe (Map collection KNAG). If we don't accept this name, whole subcategories must be renamed--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I was thinking of making it match Category:Maps by source by country. If we want to keep the original categorization titles from KNAG, they shouldn't subcategories of content-focused categories like Category:Maps of Europe (which this isn't now, but others are). -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Seasons by year

Procedural nomination FYI Auntof6. We had a CFD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Spring 2018 before it was Spring, now it is in some places the original argument is moot, however I pointed out the defining Spring is not black and white, while this may be useful for a "main" category. For example see this edit, where it was pointed out that snow isn't limited to Winter and this post. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this category tree is worthwhile. Aren't images are better off catalogued by specific date and specific weather content of the image (Category:Fallen leaves, Category:Snow, Category:Rain, etc.) ? If the specific weather conditions aren't visible, why are we categorizing by season anyway? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to categorize by date (year and month) and what's visible in the image. Otherwise, you can get strange situations like you have in Category:Autumn by year by country, where some of the subcats are for March through June (southern hemisphere) and others are for September through December (northern hemisphere). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a problem. In the seasons "templates" of the respective countries, it is easy to set when it is sorted into which categories. You could also skip the months. A user from Chile knows when it is winter in Chile. A user from Spain knows when it's summer in Spain. If you don't know anything, you can google it. But it is definitely not a reason for deletion for this category tree, which respects the principles of categorization (as is common in other areas).

-> While clearly some users see no benefit to this category structure, there are others who do find value in it. Since the structure complies with the basic principles for categories and a number of users value it, there is no reason left to delete it. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 08:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Good morning. I also find these categories somewhat problematic in their current form. We have the category about snow. And we have the categories of the individual months and days. I see here two ways we could deal with this category tree. 1. I have seen this possibility before in other countries (unfortunately I did not remember it), but it would be possible to classify the category of November in the category of autumn. After all, all the pictures taken in November were also taken in autumn. This would allow us to assign every single day of the year to the seasons. 2. If the category of seasons is about representing typical characteristics of the seasons, option 1 is of course not suitable. But then we are faced with the next problem. Who defines what is typical for a season and what is not? Personally, I have always handled it in such a way that I have sorted pictures that were taken in winter and show snow or frozen waters, for example, into the winter category. But that's my personal interpretation. Other users behave differently here. If we want to keep the categories of the seasons, then we should define clearly and comprehensibly for all users which images should be assigned here and which should not. Kind regards! Lukas Beck (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think a picture should be in a "Autumn 2018 in..." category just because it was taken on a day in October 2018, for example. --A.Savin 14:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep useful. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 06:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Triplec85: Please be more specific. How is this category useful? -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Many users search for images by seasons. There are many pictures that show motifs of spring, summer, autumn and winter. If there are more than 80,000,000 images in Commons after about 20 years... for example, how many pictures about seasons will exist at the end of the 21st century? ... So sorting the Seasons images by year also makes sense, in addition to the benefit that some users see, some may not. However, as in other by-year-categories, same principle. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 22:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep useful. anro (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@AnRo0002: Can you be more specific? How do you think it's useful? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep Let's not repeat mistakes. (Remember, decades are counted from 1 to 10, not from 0 to 9. The 2010s are 2010 to 2019, but the 202nd decade is from 2011 to 2020.) Seasons do not span specific months, something like March to May for spring. That would be a significant error of more than 20 days. This sort of thing should be avoided at all costs for the seasons. The meteorologists are trying to simplify. (Even if a shift forward by about 10 days would have been somewhat more accurate and also easier to calculate). The seasons have an astronomical dependence (see Axial parallelism) and the time (not even to the day) changes continuously. It would be factually wrong to change to fixed months here. Moreover, it would make people believe that this is also correct. The season notation, which is actually only used internally among meteorologists, has become far too widespread and misleads people. We should not support this at all. The incorrect month assignments in Autumn by year by country and others should be corrected urgently. --XRay 💬 06:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep Having read the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Spring 2018 and having read this discussion, I have not found convincing reasons for the deletion of the seasons-by-year categories, but only confusion, sorry. It’s clear that e.g. spring 2018 is in another part of 2018 in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. So what? That’s not a problem with the spring category, it is a problem with people who assign such categories just on the base of the date. When adding such season-related categories, one must consider at least the place in which the photo has been taken. If this makes general categories like Spring 2018 too complicated for some people, we should encourage users to use the country-specific variants like e.g. Category:Spring 2018 in Germany; they avoid the season ambiguity completely by including the location. --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Clothing donation boxes

We have this cat but we also have Category:Textiles collection boxes with a Category:Clothing bins subdivision. Maybe I'm confused but I feel like we have some overcategorization around here. E4024 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete--47.151.26.64 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
These should probably be merged into a consistent naming hierarchy, and the leftovers should have a {{Categoryredirect}} to the appropriate subcat within the chosen hierarchy. For the record, the term "clothing donation box" is a fairly common term in Canada and the United States, which is why I created this category. I'm sure the various terms are preferred in other locations. (For the record, I have never heard the term "textile collection box" in a Canadian or US context.) An option is to have one generic category to capture all such objects, with a per-country variant as necessary. See, for example, Category:Petrol stations by country and Category:Gas stations in the United States. (BTW: the same can be said for "alms" and "donation boxes".) Mindmatrix 13:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, I didn't know we had a precedent for distinguishing per-country category names that way. I support merging this category into the established Category:Textiles collection boxes or an appropriate child, but I suggest that Category:Textiles collection boxes in the United States should probably renamed to Category:Clothing donation boxes in the United States because, as an American, I would never find it otherwise. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have merged all three categories into Category:Textiles collection boxes because there were definitely no difference between pictures in them. However, if somebody would like to continue discussing renaming this category or its subdivisions, I would not object. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Arabic cuisine by country

I have two issues here: One, we have pages with the word "Arab" (which looks "more" correct to me, if we are not speaking about the language) and pages with "Arabic" like this one. I leave that issue to native speakers of English to solve, if there is a need. I've got another problem, and, sorry, which relates to subcats of this cat. I do this this way because it is much more practical than opening to discussion several cats. IMHO (or "indeed) this cat is about "foreign cuisines". It is intended to host, for example Category:Arabic cuisine in France. That is alright, and there are two more subcats, within the 11 at present, which are alright. The other 8 cats must go. I could have done these things, but a discussion-resulted consensus will bind everyone. Thanks and sorry for your time. E4024 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I certainly agree with changing to Arab as per en:Arab Cuisine.

Second, it's not obvious from the name that it's only for foreign food, but you're right - it's a sub-category of Category:Cuisine of Asia by country, which is a sub-category of Category:Foreign cuisines by country. Our system is somewhat broken though. Category:Cuisine of Asia by country doesn't contain Category:Cuisine of Japan. On the other hand, Category:Cuisine of Africa by country‎ does contain Category:Cuisine of Botswana‎.

I wonder if we could rename this category three better. It doesn't make obvious sense that Category:Cuisine of Asia has "Cuisine of Japan" but Category:Cuisine of Asia by country does not. What about creating Category:Arab cuisine abroad and Category:Arab cuisine abroad by country,Category:Cuisine of Asia abroad by country, Cuisine of Europe abroad by country‎? But then does Category:Cuisine of Europe in France‎ fit in "abroad" ? I'm not sure what's best. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ignaz-Harrer-Straße (Lehen, Salzburg)

This category is an intersection of a street and a district. There is a parallel category for other parts of the same street and a common, but imageless parent category. I would prefer to have a category for the whole street (not split in districts) for three reasons: 1) it is easier to categorize by address, especially when the district borders are not obvious. 2) It is easier to find images (by house number, not by district). 3) Looking down the street might cross district borders and need double categorization. If there is the need for further fragmentation, object categories for single buildings should be preferred. Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If we did it as proposed, we had two disadvantages: (1) a category "streets in XY district" could only contain streets which are located in that district wholly; all others would be missing. (2) Hence, you had to decide where to put the street category: either on municipality level only (e.g. "streets in Salzburg") or separately in each district. (Some streets in Salzburg pass in fact three districts.) In the first case, you would not be able to match a street with the relevant districts, in the second case buildings and other objects in a certain street section would appear in all districts, so possibly in wrong district categories even more often than in their correct ones. (For example, see Category:Elisabethkai (Salzburg) and Category:Franz-Josef-Kai (Salzburg).) Also we would not be able to subcategorize level A roads (Bundesstraße B) correctly (for example, see Category:Wiener Straße in Salzburg.) - The way as it is done now is the only way to allocate all streets and all objects in those streets to their correct districts. For referring to street sections in other districts we could use the {{See also|category}} template. --Eweht (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Street categories on the one hand model real world objects, intersections of street and district do not handle real world objects. On the other hand street objects often cross administrative boundaries. You can put the images (and object categories like single buildings) to the street category and to the district category in parallel, and put the street category to all the administrative subdivisions the street touches. This will help to find the images in the district as well as alongside the street, whichever is more suitable. The current situation is over-normalized and it is difficult to find an image for something you don't know the district of. If a street is the border between administrative subdivisions (as opposed to crossed by the administrative boundary), following your scheme you will have to split the street into left and right side, because both sides are in different districts. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Esotericism

Category:Esotericism seems to be redundant with Category:Western esotericism. Themightyquill (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete--47.151.26.64 00:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Merged Category:Esotericism into Category:Western esotericism, with redirect.--Allforrous (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree solution per user:Allforrous. Same solution in enwiki en:Esotericism (redirect) and en:Western esotericism--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose There's also Category:Eastern esotericism, which BTW has a Wikipedia article even if en:Esotericism is a redirect to en:Western esotericism for some weird reason. Regardless, you can't really have the category "eastern esotericism" as a child category of "western esotericism" for obvious reasons. So it makes sense to keep this category as is. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Reception of the ancient times

This seems rather forced, but I can't find a common translation in English. "Classical framework" ? Merge into Category:Classicism? Maybe we should just used the German word "Antikenrezeption" instead? Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: I noticed that dewiki de:Kategorie:Rezeption (römische Geschichte) responds to enwiki en:Category:Ancient Rome in art and culture. Could be a hint. Using Category:Antikenrezeption if no established English term, makes also sense--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: That's a great help. I think we can redirect to Category:Classical antiquity in modern art and culture. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Vitoria

Derails searches for "Category:Vitória" (PT). We need disam pages, not this RD. E4024 (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, especially because Category:Vitoria is just a redirect to Category:Vitoria-Gasteiz. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Category:Vitória" turned to blue after I opened this discussion; but I would expect our PT colleague to do something also for the ES. (I was expelled from ES:WP based on the lies -sorry- of a user; but I still care for them. I think this was called something in Spanish; altruismo?) Anyhow, I don't expect thanks for helping out PT -or anyone- but podríamos recibir una "notita" si no una "carta" aquí, en esta CfD, digo yo. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. I propose solution per enwki DAB: en:Vitoria. This means that Category:Vitoria is the main title, and Category:Vitória (currently a DAB) to be redirected to Category:Vitoria--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Apartment hotels

This is only about a small Australian cat and one more file. Perhaps should better be merged to Category:Serviced apartments (or vice-versa). E4024 (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutral While the two are similar, Serviced apartments tend to be bigger (less hotel like in size). Also two seperate articles on Wikipedia (Apartment hotel and Serviced apartments, so one could argue the two categories can coexist. Bidgee (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Bidgee: I added {{Distinguish}} to both categories. Explanatory hatnotes are missing. Once the hatnotes are added, we can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04