Jump to content

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Category:Anonymous people

[edit]

Also:

It is not clear how these categories are defined or how they are different to each other. Anonymous people is not defined at all, while Unidentified people invites users to attempt to identify people. This may not be a great idea for some files, like Children of Dakkia.jpg and Future Model (10807783053).jpg. Also, Unidentified people contains Censored images of identifiable people; if the images are censored, then presumably users are not supposed to identify their subjects.

To make matters worse, these categories share some subcategories. For example, Anonymous people (via Hidden faces) and Unidentified people (via Censored images of identifiable people) both contain Human faces cloaked by censor bars and Intentionally blurred human faces. Anonymous people also contains Human faces cloaked by censor bars directly. Brianjd (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Anonymous people is a subcategory of Unidentified people. So why does it also have {{catseealso|Unidentified people}}? Brianjd (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Unidentified" has indeed the connotation of inviting users to attempt to identify people, as Brianjd writes. And "Anonymous" has in Commons the connotation of photographers/artists/writers who have published their works anonymous.
But that might not always be the intention of a category with photos of people who are not identified. Some categories of unidentified or anonymous people are just a collection of photos of ordinary people whose name is not known, and it is an illusion that these people will be recognized ever. Such collections of ordinary people without names may be valuable enough for Commons to keep them as such. They may show how people in a particular community look like, their traditional clothing or current fashion, what they do in their spare time, how they have fun, the situations in which they work, and so on. This is especially true for local categories (about a village or town) which won't be split into all the detailed subcategories for the involved human activities. See for instance the subcategories of Category:Anonymous people of the Netherlands.
So I think there are three kind of concepts we might discuss here:
  • Anonymous people, as in artists, writers and photographers who were anonymous when their work was published and want to stay anonymous.
  • Unidentified people on images who we want to be identified and after that these files will be moved to the right category.
  • Ordinary people in their everyday life or at events, which need not to be identified and of which the categories will not be subcategorized into the involved human activities.
--JopkeB (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB and Brianjd: All three of these cases are unidentified people. Unidentified people however is a maintenance category that presumes all contents fit in the middle case and beg identification. I have tried to do some work with the whole 'unidentified' maintenance tree, but I'm not enthused by its implementation. Different kinds of Unidentified people have a different maintenance need, and only one of them do we actually want users bothering to identify the subjects:
  • Unidentified people requiring identification:
  • Public figures requiring identification (notable people we would want to have identified) is a useful maintenance category, as a place for pictures of those people we would normally sort by identity. I may not recognize all of the senators at a press conference, but another user may, and that would be good info to add. This is the only one with an active maintenance need.
  •  Question Is there any non-public figure that we would need to identify?
  • Unidentified people not requiring identification:
  • Anonymous people (those wishing to remain unidentified and for whom presumably we would not seek to pierce that veil on Commons): This is really more a topical category than a maintenance category, as essentially nothing (identity-wise) should be done with them, and instead they illustrate the topic of anonymity of people.
  • Ordinary people (those who are not necessarily anonymous, but yet are not public figures either, and for whom sorting by identification is not desired) is more like 'anonymous' in that it really just says no maintenance is needed (we don't need to identify these people), but I wonder if it really serves any real purpose. I'm not crazy about the name, but not sure I have a better one. However, it might be okay to have a place to put regular 'not identified, but don't need to' images.
  • Generic people (those without an identity in the first place, real or fictional) is another 'don't need to identify these people' category. I'm not sure whether this serves any more purpose than 'ordinary', but if we are going to have a place to sort people who do not need identification despite not having been identified, I think it makes sense as one of those cases. (My question below relates to this category).
I think these all can live under Unidentified people, but that category should be reworked as a holder for these categories, and that any images placed at that level must be sorted into the sub-cats above, and only if they are in the first category (public figures) should they actually be identified and processed out. The others should just be categories for showing files that do not require further personal identification. Josh (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I understand the proposal of Strakhov well: Merge Category:Anonymous people into Category:People, so that there is no distinction anymore between these two? My problem with that idea is, that some categories will be very large and you cannot find easily images of well known persons or notable people anymore. How would you solve that problem? By the way, people are not buildings. Buildings have adresses and are always on the same location; if they have no name, we make categories with their adresses. (For the Netherlands there are plenty of them.) For people that is not possible. And I do not mean that people with a name we do not know are "uninspiring". This is about category structure, focused on easy retrieval of desired files (and I guess that there are more people who are looking for files about well known persons than for unknown persons), this is not about opinions about people.
I agree with you that we should have categories for Anonymity pseudonyms or so and Unidentified people.
--JopkeB (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I usually categorise "unknown/anonymous people" as "People" indeed. Or, sometimes, I do not people-categorise the files at all. If further categorisation is needed because "some categories will be very large" you can use "by place" (Category:People in Paris / Category:People in libraries in Paris), "by activity/occupation" (Category:Street musicians in Rome) or "by time" (Category:People in Madrid in the 19th century) subcategorisation. Exactly the same as with other categories. Anyway, I usually don't search content on specific-notable-people through "People" categories, but through the direct links to specific Commons categories included in Wikipedia articles. I mean, when I search pictures of Donald Trump I don't go to "Category:People of the United States" and start navigating there, trying my luck, but I click instead in the Commons category link in Wikipedia. Or I search "Donald Trump" in the Wikimedia Commons search box. So this massification problem in People-categories you mention ...is pretty secondary when it comes to search content on notable people, IMO. With regard to buildings -> File:Llamellín 07102.jpg these are "unknown/anonymous buildings" and they'll never (most probably) be categorised with a particular category specifying their adresses, whether they are located in a street with a number or not (most probably they do). Exactly the same with "non notable" people: they indeed have names, but we do not know them and, more important, most of the times we do not need to categorise them by that. You'd be amazed how many times I tried to find a photograph depicting a place with "anonymous people" walking in the distance or so in order to illustrate a Wikipedia article about a city ...and Wikimedia Commons categories did not help, offering me instead depictions of lifeless/empty streets and building facades. Strakhov (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear. IMHO Category:Anonymous people of Portugal should be moved to Category:People in Portugal. Category:Anonymous women of Portugal to Category:Women in Portugal. And so on. Obviously in the cases where the relation between the person and the country is not "location" (but nationality for example: "Anonymous Portuguese people eating in a Mexican restaurant in Oaxaca"), they should not be in "Category:People in Portugal" but in, "Category:People of Portugal" or "Category:People of Portugal in Mexico". In any case, I think that these anonymous-by-country categories are intended for location. And... Category:Anonymous journalists to Category:Journalists. Category:People in masks to Category:People with objects/Category:People by clothing, Category:Human faces cloaked by censor bars‎ to Category:Human faces&Category:Censor bars (...). Strakhov (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Strakhov, JopkeB, and Brianjd: Do we have a category for images of people who do not have an identity? For example were I to draw a stick figure, not a representation of any individual, nor even a fictional character. This is different from anonymous (having an identity, but that identity being obscured) or unidentified (having an identity, but it being unknown at the moment). Generic people doesn't exist, so any ideas? Josh (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For drawings of figures, no matter whether they are recognizable or not, we have Category:Drawings of people. JopkeB (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]

@Brianjd, JopkeB, Joshbaumgartner, and Strakhov: Based on the above discussions and my own analysis, I think we can have several human categories by identifiability:

Is my conclusion correct? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But...

...even more simpler. Strakhov (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I have added additional categories to deal with categories like Category:Anonymous people, which is central to this discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just in case, I have labelled the proposed Category:Public figures as optional, because I think uncensored files of identifiable people by country normally go under "people of X" categories, with censored ones would go under "anonymous people of X" categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous people could go just in "People". When they are identified they could be subcategorised to "People by name". And when they are not identified but someone think they could (and that that would be useful) they could me subcategorised to "Unidentified people" instead. Same as with, I don't know, buildings? We have no "anonymous buildings". Why anonymous people then? Strakhov (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous people in a souq in Morocco, with faces intentionally blurred (can go to Category:Anonymous people).
The owner of an old bookshop in Kolkata, India, whose identity is not yet known (can go to Category:Unidentified people).

Same as with, I don't know, buildings? We have no "anonymous buildings". Why anonymous people then?

"Anonymous people" are those who don't want to be identified in any form and are thus censored (like MoroccoMarrakech souq.jpg). "Unidentified people" are those who are not censored like this but are not yet identified (like The owner of a old book selling store at Golpark, South Kolkata.jpg). The identified ones go to one of the subcats of Category:People by name. For buildings, if someone don't want to reveal certain buildings, the entire buildings are censored, unlike humans where only faces or eyes are censored. This is why we don't have "anonymous buildings" but "anonymous people". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment — I see the main problem lies in the usage of Category:Anonymous people, as it is misused for random images of people, censored or not. Instead, that category should be reserved for images of people whose faces or eyes are censored, and are thus no way identifiable. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sbb1413, for reviving this discussion and for your proposal. My questions and additions:
  1. What is the difference between Category:Homo sapiens and Category:Generic humans? Can these two be merged?
  2. Reading the reactions, I think there are two groups of people who want to be anonymous. I think we need two seperate categories for them:
    1. Artists, writers and photographers who were anonymous when their work was published and want to stay anonymous.
    2. Ordinary people on photographs who do not want their face to be recognizable, with faces intentionally blurred, the ones that are called here "censored files".
  3. I miss in Sbb1413's scheme people with names who are not public figures. For example: ordinary people of which the names are known and mentioned in the file(s).
  4. What would be a good definition of Public figures? What would be subcategories (politicians, artists, royalty, who else)?
  5. But whatever the definiton will be, Public figures are allways People by name, so then the order should be:
    1. Category:People
      1. Category:Anonymous people, split into two subcategories: (1) for people who were anonymous when their work was published and want to stay anonymous and (2) for censored files
      2. Category:People by name (including ordinary people of which the name is known - should they have a subcategory of their own?)
        1. Category:Public figures
      3. Category:Unidentified people
  6. What to do with people which need not to be identified because that is a hopeless task? Like ordinary people who do mind their face to be recognizable or have died after the photo was taken? What category should be used for them?
--JopkeB (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Thanks for reply.
  1. The difference between Category:Homo sapiens and Category:Generic humans is that the former is supposed to cover almost all human-related categories, while the latter covers depictions of generic humans with lack of any identities that could identify them (excluding broad identities not useful for identification, and the ones already censored for sake of anonymity). Category:Generic humans is also distinct from Category:People, which covers individual humans with certain identities.
  2. We already have Category:Anonymous works for works by anonymous artists (including writers and photographers). The censored images are directly put under Category:Anonymous people.
  3. I actually find hard to guess a category name for identifiable people, and I think such a category is not needed as images of people are non-censored by default. So, I have labelled Category:Public figures as optional. I don't mind if that category gets created at some point in the future.
  4. I'm not going to discuss the definition of "public figures" right now.
  5. By considering the above points, the order would be:
  6. They can be put under Category:Unidentified people indefinitely, as many images under "unindentified" categories remain there indefinitely till someone identify them and put them at appropriate categories. The owner of a old book selling store at Golpark, South Kolkata.jpg is one good example of such an image I can fimd here close to home, unless I myself visit Kolkata and search for that person in bookshops.
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. This makes sense. I agree with this category structure. Whoever will close this discussion: please add descriptions to the categories mentioned in this category structure if they do no not have proper ones. JopkeB (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like "Anonymous people" for files which depicts people with blurred faces. IMHO blurring a face in a photograph does not make the person depicted "anonymous". It makes them less probably to be identified, if anything. If categories grouping files which happen to have blurred people are really needed (because their very existence can create, somehow, a Streisand effect) I'd suggest just Category:People with blurred faces or Category:People with intentionally blurred faces. Strakhov (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Blurring or other veiling is a specific editing technique which is related to anonymity, but not necessarily equal to it. A picture of Albert Einstein with a blurred face would not make him an anonymous person. Josh (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: you're right. So, I think it is best to ditch "anonymous people" in favour of Category:Censored images, and my previous proposed category schemes are moot (Category:Generic humans are not "people" in the sense that they have no "identity" to speak of). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural Earth

[edit]

The category name is not intuitive, I suggest it be renamed into "Natural Earth maps" or something even more specific like "Natural Earth based maps" in order to make clear that this category is about the map data source Enyavar (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar:  Agree. I suggest Category:Maps from Natural Earth--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 That would suggest that the maps themselves come from Natural Earth, but do they? Or is it only the underlying data that comes from Natural Earth? Brianjd (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: maybe you are right, that "from" (and "by") refers to the origin. When I see parent Category:Maps by source, then Category:Natural Earth maps may be the best solution. Also notifying user:Auntof6--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 That would be consistent with, for example, OpenStreetMap maps, which says:
Maps created using OpenStreetMap data.
But it doesn't solve the problem. When I see the name "OpenStreetMap maps", I think "maps from OpenStreetMap", but the description contradicts this. Brianjd (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in Category:Natural Earth is a map. How about a subcategory Category:Natural Earth (dataset) maps? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with maps created using a particular data source or type being renamed to "Maps incorporating source data" or some such that make it clear they are being categorized by the data used to create them, as distinct from a map creator, publisher, etc. Josh (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd @Enyavar @Estopedist1 @Joshbaumgartner @Themightyquill Hi everyone, just checking in, have we reached any consensus since then? I noticed the template for the category under discussion is still up. Riad Salih (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, of the suggetsions above, I favor "Natural Earth (dataset)" for non-maps and "Natural Earth maps" (no bracket disambiguation needed for the latter). --Enyavar (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go ahead and create them. Should we move this category to Natural Earth maps? then we create a new category for the dataset? Riad Salih (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puebla City

[edit]
See also: Category:Puebla City.

Move to "Puebla (city)" for consistency with most subcategories as well as English Wikipedia parent article Another Believer (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: no oppose. Related topic: Category:Puebla should probably be a disambiguation page. Also pinging user:Marrovi--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a city called Puebla within the state of Puebla. English Wikipedia has "Puebla" for the state and "Puebla (city)" for the city. No preference re: disambiguation, but just wanted to clarify in case. -Another Believer (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would moving to Category:Puebla de Zaragoza solve the problem? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Support @Themightyquill: Yes, it would. There in fact seems to be a trend lately down here in Mexico to promote the longer forms for names like this, particularly to distinguish them better from other similar short names, so I see no problem with using such names. It beats "Puebla City" which is just fiction, "Puebla (city)" which is a Wiki-ism, and even "Puebla, Puebla" which might be technically correct but some people are funny about those kinds of 'double' names. It is btw what eswiki uses as their article name. Josh (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Does moving to Category:Puebla de Zaragoza work for you? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. -Another Believer (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beach bunny

[edit]

Vague, undefined and somewhat sexist category without a corresponding Wikipedia or Wikidata entry. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • But how do you visually show a beach bunny as defined in the article, a young woman who spends her free time at the beach? It looks like you or another user added images of women in bunny cosplay at the beach, which I don't think fit the intent of the category. If we're being honest, I don't think any of the other images fit either. It looks like someone added the category because "beach bunny" or "beach bunnies" happened to be in the caption or title, but all of the appear to be cases where the photographer is calling some attractive girl "beach bunny" as a term of affection, not because they're part of the beach bunny subculture. It'd be akin to adding photographs of rock climbers to Category:Spider-Man because of caption choices on Flickr.
Anyway, how are we distinguishing between images of young women who happen to be pictured sunbathing on beaches from young women who have logged sufficient time on the beach and around surfers to qualify for beach bunny status?
The category doesn't serve any practical purpose, and is there actually a picture of an actual rabbit on a beach? Ytoyoda (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But they're using "beach bunny" in the title the same way a soccer dad might caption their kid's image "Little Messi". It's just a term of endearment, the beach equivalent of "snow bunny". It's pretty useless for anyone looking for images related to surf culture. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article I linked to also says that they are usually pictured in bikinis. Is that because they are usually in bikinis, or because the pictures are biased? Is it even possible to answer this question without a better definition of "beach bunny"? All this supports the idea that this term is sexist. Brianjd (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Ytoyoda said above is relevant, a number of images use the words in the title, and are related to the topic. I'm also not convinced that either beach bunny or beach bum are sexist. It's certainly no worse than if you search for beach bum. Evrik (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Evrik Commons has imported a lot of crappy titles and descriptions, especially (but not always) from Flickr; that doesn't mean we should keep them or use them as inspiration. Brianjd (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The category would make sense if we could curate it to only include beach bunnies in the surf culture sense (or similar). In practice, as Ytoyoda notes, we cannot do that, and the category will be a random assortment of lightly dressed young women at beaches. I don't think such a category serves any educational purpose, but rather confuses the category schemes, and might misrepresent many identifiable people. –LPfi (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, move to Category:Beach bunny (cosplay) for those images with bunny ears. Otherwise (preferably) delete. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill I don't think the cosplay is a good idea either, since there's no value to dividing specific type of cosplay by natural setting. I think you're talking about images from Category:Cosplay at Riminicomix 2021 that happen to feature bunny ears and were placed in this category because a user performed a keyword search. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak keep The term undoubtedly has a strong potential for sexist connotations, but it does appear to be the term used historically for a gender-specific cultural sub-group. I do not see the need to add "(beach culture)" to the name as it does not need disambiguation. I do wonder however, why it is not pluralized as would be normal for category names as "Beach bunnies", since it is for media depicting beach bunnies. Obviously, policing which media is appropriate and what the threshold is for inclusion here will require attention, but that is not grounds for removal of the category. Josh (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner I think your rationale makes sense in theory — yes, "beach bunny" is/was a term used in surf culture. But in practice, are there any photographs we'd put in there? If you look at the category, there's maybe one image that actually fits the category's definition. Everything else is images found by keyword search because the title happened to contain the term. How is a photograph of a "beach bunny" meaningfully different from what's in Category:Sunbathing women at beaches? Ytoyoda (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess what I'm trying to get at it is, "beach bunny" isn't a category of people, but a cultural trope. Some young women in bikinis lying on the beach could be described as "beach bunnies", but there's nothing that could be photographed that would show it. You'd have to rely on things outside of the visual to make the differentiation. I would say the same with its male counterpart, the beach bum. Some guys on beaches might put off a beach bum vibe, but in a photograph, they're no different from any young man in a coastal town.
  • Or look at Category:Nerds. You'll see that the only pictures of people are nerd cosplay, because "nerd" is, like "beach bunny", a cultural thing. And it looks like you're populating the category with images where the title or description mentions "beach bunny" or "beach bunnies" vs people who identify as part of the surf culture. I'm not convinced how the category is of use to anyone because there's literally one photograph of a person who is actually a beach bunny. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anyone familiar with surf and beach culture in the US, beach bunnies are a known thing. Evrik (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Evrik What’s your point? This doesn’t answer any of the questions asked here. Again, the files in the category doesn’t appear to show what it purports to show, a cultural archetype that has more or less faded from existence by the time most of the photos were taken, except in ironic or derogatory terms. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said anything new for months. Let's just close it as a "keep" and move on. Evrik (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik I like your sense of humor.
Anyway, here’s something new. It’s interesting that you keep insisting the category is about surf culture but there’s a glaring lack of any surfers, surfboard, or any other indication that there’s surfing happening in the proximity. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This "beach bunny" cat seems unlikely to ever include pictures of a "young woman who spends her free time at the beach" taken while she is not at the beach. There may be a subculture IRL, but on Commons I can't imagine how we would distinguish a picture of a young women who does not habitually spend her free time at the beach from a picture of one who does. It's not possible to tell if a photo belongs in this cat by inspection, which makes it a poor cat. I'd support a cat called Category:People at the beach, but we have that already.
I oppose limiting this cat to women with surfboards. Surfing isn't always done on beaches, and "surfer" is less ambiguous and shorter. We have Category:Female surfers with subcats of notable surfers by name. Putting female surfers here instead would be very sexist, and the current "beach bunny" category description excludes that meaning (given on enwikiP) from the scope. So there aren't notable female beach bunnies, and we will never have that sort of subcat here. I would also oppose moving Category:Male surfers to Category:Beach bums. HLHJ (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ponytails in Ukraine

[edit]

At User talk:Túrelio#Category:Ponytails in the United States, I asked why the US category was emptied by Ruff tuff cream puff (which led Túrelio to speedily delete it). Ruff tuff cream puff said that country-based categories are not useful, and this one should be deleted too. I am inclined to agree, although someone obviously disagreed when they created this category. Let's discuss! Brianjd (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianjd if you see subcategories of Category:Hairstyles by name, then you see that no <Foo hairstyle by country> category exists. However Category:Ponytails is overcrowded (600+ files), so some intersection should be done. Besides, de minimis files should be removed, eg File:Stepan1111.jpg Estopedist1 (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a file to Women wearing sunglasses in New York City and Men wearing sunglasses in New York City; I was surprised to discover that such categories exist. Surely these categories are no more or less useful than the ones we are discussing here. Brianjd (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak keep The utility of such "in country" categories may seem limited in many cases, but enough have been created an populated over the years that they do have utility at some level. Since the structure is pretty straight-forward and simple to maintain, I have no problem keeping these categories in place. I certainly see no need to 'cleanse' Commons of such categories (and argue about whether they make sense or not for each given topic) or to police their inevitable recreation. Josh (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: Thank you for bringing the discussion here, which is the right thing to do. Emptying categories just so they can get speedy deleted is an end run around the discussion process, and the user in question should be informed to use the CfD process when they feel a category is useless, which is not grounds for speedy deletion. Josh (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SVG mathematics fm

[edit]

Should be renamed to a more informative name (what the hell is "fm" supposed to mean?) Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt What the hell does anything in this category mean? The problem seems to be that the names are in Spanish, when they should be in English. Brianjd (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What should be the name of the category?
Dáni (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnu72: This depends, of course, on what you intended to collect in the category. It appears that the current entries are image set categories created by you; in that case, I'd recommend that the category name should contain "by User:Dnu72", like some of its entries already do, and I'd recommend to turn all those categories into user categories, by placing {{User category|Dnu72}} in each of them. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fisheries by country

[edit]

i think this cat tree should use a format "fishery in country xx". fishery as an industry should be a mass noun. it includes fish farming and other forms of fish production (e.g. catching them from the wild). fisheries in the plural form could only refer to "fishing enterprises"? my proposed name follows the cat tree of Category:Animal husbandry by country. RZuo (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: Very good point, but I would not just rename 'fisheries' to 'fishery', as these are each their own thing, one being the industry and the other the discrete locations where that industry is done. I would keep the existing Category:Fisheries by country with sub cats in the format "Fisheries in country" for actual fisheries to be sorted by country of location. Meanwhile, Category:Fishery by country with sub cats in the format "Fishery in country" can be used for sorting industry media and topics (of which "Fisheries" would be a sub) by country. Josh (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Are there any objections on what @Joshbaumgartner has proposed? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds ok, if "fisheries" refers to organisations that engage in fishery. RZuo (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electric church chandeliers

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Electric church chandeliers.

This category should be removed, since 98% of chandeliers in the category 'church chandeliers' are electric anyway. There is a parallel category structure 'candle chandeliers' that can be used to distinguish those with candles as light source. Periegetes (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Non-electric chandeliers are quite common in old photos and paintings - and even in current installations - though obviously less common in general than the ones with an electric installation. The standard procedure is categorizing the most common cases, and not the reverse, as you are proposing here. Besides candle chandeliers there are gas, petrol,, and whatelse chandeliers, therefore the proposed structure does not describe correctly the reality..-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we identify electric chandeliers? (Most, in older churches, will be conversions) Is it useful to try and identify them?
My main issue with this is that I have zero interest in how chandeliers are illuminated today. If anything (and this too is minimal) I'd be more interested in dividing them as original (candle) chandeliers both in original condition and now converted to run on electricity vs. chandeliers designed from the outset for electricity. But that's not even on the table. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want retain category 'electric church chandeliers', you should re-categorize all electric chandeliers in category 'church chandeliers' into the subcategory electric. I am not volunteering for that. I agree that it is necessary to distinguish chandeliers with candles as the light source, but that is easily made by developing existing category 'candle chandeliers'. In fact, I have already started picking candle chanderliers in to that group. Dear Darwin, please learn about the existing category structure for chandeliers: There are subcategories already distinguishing light source. At the moment the category 'electric church chandeliers' is irrrelevant, because it contains only c. 1 % of the target group - you could at least admit that? Periegetes (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Electric is not the only kind of church chandelier. Of course any electric chandeliers should be placed in this sub-cat. They may also belong in other sub-cats along the lines Andy Dingley mentions. Category:Candle chandeliers converted to electric chandeliers or vice-versa could be a sub of both electric and candle cats. Clearly there is some sorting work to be done, but not seeing a cause for deletion of the electric category. Josh (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Calico cats from the Franklin Farm section of Oak Hill, Fairfax County, Virginia

[edit]

I think it's obvious that this is just a silly category. These are pictures of cats indoors, seemingly mostly the same cats, uploaded by the same person. Where they are doesn't seem particularly relevant as they are all just pictures of cats, not of the area. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved almost 200 pictures from the parent category, “calico cats” and created this category. Feel free to change the category name. Also note the same person who uploaded the 200 pictures to the parent category established a category for cats in Franklin Farm, Virginia.Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This location-based category was improperly nested. I've corrected this. Famartin (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, Ca tegory:Cats of Virginia is sufficient for these 197 cats uploaded by Famartin. None of the other states have this type of subcategory. Hawaii has a subcategory for Feral cats, Florida has a subcategory for Cats of Ernest Hemingway House, another US state has a subcategory for Cats in Disneyworld or something to that effect. Remove all these subcategories as they are not needed. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Famartin (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep in general, though this specific category has been rationalized to Category:Calico cats in Franklin Farm, Virginia, which is fine. Just because Virginia's cats are better sub-categorized than other states, is not a reason to undo that effort. Josh (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (voted delete above) And if the cat were moved to a different state? I doubt we should be keeping tabs on where pets live... Thus, it is "not "better sub-categorized than other states" as it is. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still no. Famartin (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you realize that just repeating the word "no" is in no way a compelling argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you realize I don't care. I didn't create this category, but now that it exists, leave it alone. Famartin (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The category for 197 cats was specific, leave it alone, more serious problems in this world, like all the stray cats in the Feldmans and Iron Horse neighborhood where I live. 😺 Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture of the South China Sea

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:History of the South China Sea.

What does this category even mean? This was created by a "Musée Annam" sock, a person known for inventing things, but if someone can find real world usages of this term then this category shouldn't be deleted. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Copied from "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism" (Permalink), Kind of find it odd that a globally locked sockmaster known for threatening users gets a 1 (one) week block for death threats while users "Rodhullandemu" and "Jdx" get banned for life, well, c'est la vie, I guess. Anyhow, the main type of abuse this Musée Annam sock does is in categorisation (which I would argue are more damaging than some death threats that only arouse laughter from its target, LOL) as they seem to have invented a number of non-sensical forms of categorisations like the "Culture of the South China Sea" and adding the "No-U Movement" (which is a legitimate movement) to encompass all opposition towards both the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) and Chinese expansionalism on perceived Vietnamese territories. Musée Annam often has these own "invented definitions" of terms which judging from my experience in volunteering with vulnerable individuals makes me think that he suffers from either a form of Autism or Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder especially in light of them maliciously socking for over a decade (but then again, I am not a psychologist and these are just observations of similarities in behaviour with these mental and developmental disorders, I do not mean to insult them only try to understand why they act so idiosyncratic and easily to identify), I don't want to call the users that usually hunt this sockmaster because they're all deletionists and would also undo his good edits, which I believe would be detrimental to undo, but my main reason for reporting him is because I believe that the negatives of his edits with this account outweigh his positive edits, such as replacing free images with copyrighted ones (a staple Musée Annam behaviour) and mislicensing files. Anyhow, this user is a Human Rights Activist (like the Nipponese Dog Calvero family of socks) so I would say that there is a certain sense of nobility in his edits and if he lashes out against me I do not hold it against him as he is frustrated with a misanthropic system he wishes to overthrow, but still, this doesn't justify inventing bullshit things like a supposed "South China Sea culture" that somehow includes Hong Kong, Viet-Nam, and a vague definition of other places based on nothing other than his fantasy, that simply doesn't have a place on the Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flaschensammler

[edit]

This category is using the German words for "bottle collector" but is wikidata linked to en:Canner (occupation). Different things have deposits in different places. Maybe we should make up a new term here. Category:Beverage container harvester? -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no special opinion, but this is the term we use in Germany and my pictures are from Germany. Flaschensammler however do not often go through glass containers. People are reasonable, and they leave bottles with deposit in front of the container, if they don´t want to be bothered with collecting the deposit and do not want to waste the money either. Legally the bottle in the container has a new owner and taking bottles out is theft, but it never gets prosecuted. Some of them have build in flaps that make it hard to take out bottles. Flaschensammler is not something like an occupation in Germany it is just something that people do, to make an extra buck and it is not limited to the poorer class. I myself collect bottles that are left in the environment, but it makes no noticeable contribution to my income, I just hate the litter. There is one exception and that is at big festivals, where you can not bring in your own beverages or empty bottles. This is the hour of homeless people that joyfully take hundreds of them to have money for one day.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

"Other" is not appropriate category name in Commons. To be upmerged into Category:Crests of Japan Estopedist1 (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Browne

[edit]

Move to Browne family (Marquess of Sligo) - "House of" is used for royalty, with no surnames, Brownes not royalty Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lobsterthermidor, I disagree with your opinion. I think that the term "House" can be applied to any noble family. This term is commonly used for noble families, which may or may not belong to royalty. For example House of Rohan, House of Alba, House of Izmaylov, House of Ordelaffi.
Also I do not agree with your statement that " "House of" is used for royalty, with no surnames ". For example "House of Stuart" - Stuart is a surname, but not a title.
You suggest to rename the category to "Browne family (Marquess of Sligo)". If the member of this family does not have a title "Marquess of Sligo" should the information about this person be placed in this category? For example, father of 1-st marquess of Sligo was Peter Browne, 2nd Earl of Altamont. Does he belong to "Browne family (Marquess of Sligo)"? No he does not, because he does not have the title "Marquess of Sligo". But both father and son belong to the same noble House.
At the same time the term "family" is too uncertain. There can be a lot of families with the same surname.
I stay with my previous opinion that this category should be named "House of Browne". Beavercount (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beavercount and Auntof6: "House of" is very pompous when not used for royal houses, in England at least. In England there is no true aristocracy as there is in Continental Europe. In England only the eldest son becomes an aristocrat, when he inherits the title, the younger sons are mere gentry, Esquires and Gentlemen. In Europe, all sons are noble, hence there is a true aristocracy. So "house of" is fine for Continental Europe, but totally absurd for English gentry families, some of whose members are noblemen. Many English "noble families" (no such thing in fact) sprang from very humble origins. Much of European nobility, I think it is true to say, springs from owners of great estates, often going back into pre-history. That is true with only a small fraction of British nobility. I agree that "Browne family (Marquess of Sligo)" is not ideal, so the alternative is to go back to the first title of nobility held by that family, which I think was Viscount Montagu. So the family would be called "Browne family (Viscount Montagu)". That would cover Browne baronets and Browne, Marquess of Sligo and Browne, etc. That's off the top of my head, I haven't researched it thoroughly, but that's the principle I'm suggesting, in a nutshell: use the earliest title created for the family. The alternative is to use the greatest/most senior title held by the family, ie "Browne family (Marquess of Sligo)" as to call the great Howard family, Dukes of Norfolk, "Howard family (Baron Howard)" would not be right. (Wikipedia Baron Howard: "On 15 October 1470 John Howard was summoned to parliament when he became Baron Howard. In 1483 he was created Duke of Norfolk"). In my opinion the latter option is best: use the greatest title ever held by any member of the family. As for Browne family (Anglo-Irish aristocracy), the early Browne family (Viscount Montagu) had nothing to do with Ireland, as far as I know. And when there's no Irish element, you're left with just (Anglo aristocracy / English aristocracy), which may be insufficient to distinguish. As a last thought, what about the Berkeley family of Berkeley Castle? One of the oldest families in England, once held many titles, Marquess, etc, now just plain "Mr Berkeley", still owns and lives at the Castle, a possession since the 11th/12th century. To exclude them from "noble families" would be a travesty, but now technically they are mere gentry. That's why in my opinion it's best to avoid use of "House of", in England gentry and nobility are indistinguishable. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked into the question a bit further as to the suggestion of Category:Browne family (Anglo-Irish aristocracy), there's a major problem: the family of Browne, Baron Oranmore and Browne, is apparently unrelated to the Browne family (Marquess of Sligo), certainly different coats of arms and GEC Complete Peerage mentions no connection. It turns out that the former is of ancient true Irish origin, whilst the latter is of English origin, certainly based on heraldry. Baron Oranmore has been based in England now for a century or so, with little remaining connection to Ireland. Thus also "Anglo-Irish". So I again propose a naming rule to be followed: use the highest ranking title held by any member of the family descended from a common male ancestor bearing the same surname, thus "Browne family (Marquess of Sligo)" and "Browne family (Baron Oranmore)". It may take a bit of research to establish (i.e. reading the relevant wikipedia page on the title), but should produce a logical result every time. What do you think? Lobsterthermidor (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Self-contained breathing apparatus (mining)

[edit]

Is Category:Self-contained_breathing_apparatus_(mining) redundant with Category:Self-contained self-rescue devices? Or are only the latter for emergencies? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1: No. 2: Yes. --Markscheider (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Markscheider: Then Category:Self-contained breathing apparatus (mining) shouldn't be a subcategory of Category:Mine rescue because they aren't just for emergencies? -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are for mine rescuers, so i would assume yes. Self-contained breathing apparatus' (omg, don't you have any longer terms?)) are more alike to firemens rescue devices. They allow the firemen ore mine rescuer to actually work in hazardous gases and to rescue other people. What we in german call a Filterselbstretter is a much smaller device, every miner carries one of these, usually at his belt, during his shift. Early versions used active coal to clean his breathing air. Because this dosn't work with carbon monoxide, which is a great danger in case of an underground fire, latter versions used catalytic process to convert CO into CO2. The must at least have around 15 % O2 for these to work, or else our miner will die of lack of oxygen (or get unconscious and die then). Thats when oxygen producing device where developed. They are larger and heavier, but are completely undependend of the surrounding air. Oxygen is produced vie chemical reaction, CO2 converted and separated form the internal air, which the miner in question breathes over and over again. The chemical reaction adds enough oxygen to keep him alive and walking for about 4 hours with moderate breathing. This is like some scuba devices. He can't rescue his buddy, or both will die, because heavy exercises reduce drastically this time. This three devices are only for self rescue. Markscheider (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, Self-Contained Self-Rescuers (SCSR) are defined and regulated in federal mine safety regulations, issued by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). See the US Code of Federal Regulations at 30 CFR Part 75 (Mandatory Safety Standards--Underground Coal Mines); 30 CFR Part 57 (Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mines); and 30 CFR Part 49 (Mine Rescue Teams). Moreau1 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So german Filterselbstretter translates into "Filter Self-Rescuer (FSR). A type of gas mask approved by MSHA and NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84 for escape only from underground mines and which provides at least 1 hour of protection against carbon monoxide." and what we call Sauerstoffselbstretter (lit. Oxygen(-making) self rescuer) is: "Self-Contained Self-Rescuer (SCSR). A type of closed-circuit, self-contained breathing apparatus approved by MSHA and NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84 for escape only from underground mines." (both Part 75) and then we have the self-contained breathing apparatus, which is only used by mine rescue teams (Part 49). This makes a lot of sense.--Markscheider (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Markscheider and Moreau1: Thank you both for your helpful explanations. This is actually quite interesting, and I feel much more informed now, though I'm not sure if US and German regulations match up, and I'm still not 100% sure how to organize things. Is Category:Respiratory protective devices for self-rescue synonymous with "Filterselbstretter" (because it's protective rather than oxygen producing) or are their other protective self-rescue devices that don't use filters? Are Category:Self-contained self-rescue devices (Sauerstoffselbstretter) a subcategory of Category:Respiratory protective devices for self-rescue or a peer (perhaps both could go under Category:Self-rescue breathing devices?

Let me know if that works, or feel free to edit/adjust as necessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Self-contained_breathing_apparatus_(mining) and Category:Self-contained self-rescue devices are quite different devices. They have one very narrow potential overlap, for one of the two types of self-rescuers, but even then the technology used to implement it is quite different. I know of no case where an SCSR is what would be regarded as SCBA (i.e. gas under pressure), although I think that Soviet bloc practice did use this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agony in the Garden

[edit]

same as supercat Jesus Christ on the Mount of Olives, not two parallel cat trees Oursana (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Category talk:Agony in the Garden.
copied from Category talk:Agony in the Garden

I oppose the proposed merger of Category:Agony in the Garden with Category:Jesus Christ on the Mount of Olives. The Agony is but one event during Jesus's stay on the Mount of Olives, others being the Kiss of Judas and the Arrest. Usually, the Agony depicts Jesus praying, comforted by an angel, while three apostles are asleep. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with your explanation, but we must make clear this structure, as it is massed up.
Kiss of Judas Iscariot has supercat Agony in the Garden and Category:Jesus Christ on the Mount of Olives. We should only use the first Agony in the Garden and use "see also:Kiss of Judas Iscariot with Category:Jesus Christ on the Mount of Olives.
Church of All Nations (Jerusalem) has (and more) supercats
Category:Capture of Jesus Christ
Category:Gethsemane, Jerusalem
Category:Gethsemane churches in Palestine
Category:Roman Catholic churches in the Mount of Olives
Category:Jesus Christ on the Mount of Olives
The second and last should be deletedOursana (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similar problem with Paintings of Jesus Christ on the Mount of OlivesOursana (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boundary stones in Finland

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Boundary marker of Treaty of Teusina.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Boundary markers in Finland.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Border signs in Finland.

Boundary stones in Finland / Border signs in Finland / Boundary markers in Finland - whats the difference btw categories? Please clarify. It is question of administrative and/state boundaries/borderd??? Periegetes (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to thisːCategory:Boundary stones in Finland was cteated as a subcategory for the existing Category:Boundary stones by country and it should also be a subcategory for Category:Boundary markers in Finland. As the Category Category:Boundary stones by country already existed, I can find no reason for not toi have such category for Finland as well. If yuo wish to remove the category for Finland, you should remove all the others as well. And then Boundary stones are a subcategory for Noundary markers, because there are boundary markers that are srtones and boundary markers tat are not stones, for example this: Category:Boundary marker of Treaty of Teusina. That is not a stone but a carving in a rock. And because there was a pre-existing category Category:Boundary markers by country, this category is necessary ass well, or orherwise you shouild remove all rthe otherd as well. But now it seems that Category:Boundary stones in Finland had not breen sorted under the category Category:Boundary markers in Finland as it should have been. And also some stoines (but not rock carvings) skoud be moved between these categories. So the two categories are mecessary as well the categories from other countries about the same phenomenon.

And then the category:Border signs in Finland to my understanding is for road signgs at state borders in Finland or road signs at mucipal (or regional) borders i Finland, which in its turn is a totally different thing. But it seems that erraneously soime images of boundary markers or boudary stones have been sorted there by mistake. This, I guess, may be due to the fact that in finnsh language (and in current standard swedish as well, I would guess) there is only one word fot both boundary and border (fi: raja, sv:gräöns). And as well the words sign and marker me be difficult for a finnsh speaker unless they realise that in this context "sign" means same as "road sign". (In finnish: road sign = liikennemerkki, boundary marker = rajamerkki)

So as far as I can understand, all these categories are necessary - as it could easily have been seen due to the existing parent and sibling categories!). Only somme of the contents that are now erraneously in wrong categories should bee sorted into right categories. --Urjanhai (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this seems very much like Wikipedia:Snowball clause.--Urjanhai (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is a good clarification. Based on the contents of the categories I just could not figure it out. I have a suggestion that this explication would be added to each category to help users orient, could someone who understands this clearly, do this, please? And was the problem with the category hierarchy already fixed? Very good, if we can fix the confusion with the categories! --Periegetes (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the category hierarchy, i. e. boundary stones sorted under boundary markers, only with these two categories, not globally. Also within all three categories some images should be moved from a wrong category to the right category. I will try to do that in some occasion unless someon happens to do that before.--Urjanhai (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it was just the local contents within these three that was partly sorted to wrong categories. --Urjanhai (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now, I guess, the subcategories and images that were in a wrong category should be in the right category. --Urjanhai (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I did not check these categories for other countries than Finland.--Urjanhai (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Border signs in Finland

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Boundary marker of Treaty of Teusina.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Boundary stones in Finland.

Boundary stones in Finland / Border signs in Finland / Boundary markers in Finland - whats the difference btw categories? Please clarify. It is question of administrative and/state boundaries/borderd??? Periegetes (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wls added. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with Finland? We already have Boundary stones by country / Border signs by country / Boundary markers by country Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the same. For Finland especially, see my reply here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Boundary stones in Finland.--Urjanhai (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this seems like Wikipedia:Snowball clause.--Urjanhai (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the images and subcategories that had been sorted into a wrong category to the right categories. But only regarding Finland.--Urjanhai (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boundary markers in Finland

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Border signs in Finland.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Border signs in Finland.

Boundary stones in Finland / Border signs in Finland / Boundary markers in Finland - whats the difference btw categories? Please clarify. It is question of administrative and/state boundaries/borderd??? Periegetes (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in another discussion page: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Boundary stones in Finland. I suggest that furher discussion should be carried on there. If that is noit possible, I can copy my reply here as well.--Urjanhai (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure: Boudary markers and border signs are two different things. Only some items have now been sorted in wrong categoiries. And as well the categories Boundary stones and bondary markers have global parent categories and global sibkling categories. Only now som items have been sorted in wroong categories between these two as well.--Urjanhai (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Pakistan by administrative unit

[edit]

This is a subcategory of Category:Cities in Pakistan. Move to Category:Cities in Pakistan by administrative unit and sort content appropriately. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is also the parent of child categories that are each named 'cities and towns of ...' so the current category name is entirely appropriate as long as these child categories populate it. Hmains (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: None of those categories has a "cities in" equivalent, so they could all be renamed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. All the subcategories of Category:Cities and towns in Pakistan by administrative unit are named in the form of Category:Cities and towns in xxxadminunitnamexxx. Certainly 'cities and towns in' in the subcat names is the same as 'cities and towns in' the category name. Changes might be needed, but not what you proposed here, which is what I am going on. Hmains (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are cities here, move them to Category:Cities in X (none of which exist currently). If they are towns, move them to Category:Towns in X or the most appropriate alternative, probably Category:Populated places in X. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
some changes have been made Hmains (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: Thanks. I see you've made Category:Cities in Pakistan by administrative unit and logical subcategories. Now there is definitely no need for "cities and towns" categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I worked the city tree; I have not yet done the town tree Hmains (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags of cities and towns of Croatia

[edit]

This is a subcategory of Category:Cities in Croatia. Rename to Category:Flags of cities in Croatia (or Category:Flags of populated places in Croatia) and sort accordingly. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Garhi dupata

[edit]

A similarly spelled community, en:Garhi Dupatta is aparently in Category:Muzaffarabad District not in Category:Bagh District. Was this a mistake or are there two communities? -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Themightyquill: I created that category in 2016 when I was new to categorizing in Pakistan and used the file uploader's name and location of the area. Feel free, from my point of view to accept enwiki's information regarding the apparent town (though poorly sourced). Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bhimber

[edit]

Is Category:Bhimber redundant with Category:Bhimber City or Category:Bhimber district? -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Domail

[edit]

Category:Domail is in Category:Astore District (Gilgit-Baltistan region) but en:Domel is in Category:Bannu district (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province). Category:Domail also has a subcategory Category:Domail Lake which is also a Category:Lakes of Azad Kashmir (yet another province). Category:Astore District also has subcategory Category:Domel Lake. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:China Southeast

[edit]

also:

i have never heard of these names and groupings of regions of china. neither in chinese academia nor in english. RZuo (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my suggestion is to delete all this layer of categories, because they dont have precise definitions. it's impossible to tell which subcats should fall into each of these divisions of china. RZuo (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manshera

[edit]

Redundant with Category:Mansehra (city) or Category:Mansehra District? en:Manshera is a redirect to Mansehra. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Balakoat City

[edit]

Are Category:Balakoat City and Category:Balacot redundant with Category:Balakot (town) or Category:Balakot tehsil ? Themightyquill (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bisham, Pakistan

[edit]

Is Category:Bisham, Pakistan redundant with Category:Besham (village)? -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Themightyquill: I don't know off hand. The way I dealt with Pakistan was to look carefully at every image to make decisions. A good thing to remember is that the language of Pakistan is not English, so there are "translations". Plus, as has been pointed out to me, those providing files from Pakistan are not the best spellers, nor necessarily identify items correctly. Also, many editors, including various IPs, have made a "project" of Pakistan and recategorized images, changed names and descriptions, moved files etc. There is an editor from Pakistan who has uploaded many flies over the years you could ask called User:Shahzaib Damn Cruze who might know. Also, enwiki is NOT a reliable source and just recently an IP went over there and changed some information after having some files moved here. Krok6kola (talk)

Category:Buni

[edit]

Is Category:Buni redundant with Category:Booni? -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pinus jeffreyi in California

[edit]

90%+ of all Pinus jeffreyi trees are in California: this is largely redundant with Category:Pinus jeffreyi and should be deleted. — hike395 (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed.
We don't much care where 90% of the trees are, we care more about where our photos come from. If we were to have a large collection of photos of just one tree, out of its habitat in an arboretum somewhere, that might change things. But as it is, both the trees and our photographed examples of them seem to be Californian. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ship christenings

[edit]

Rename. These are namings, not christenings. "Christening" is used interchangeably but only inaccurately: this is not a Christian ceremony, or with the same religious implications. Particularly for supposed "ship christenings" in non-Christian countries. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just mention that enwiki en:ship christening is redirected to "Baptism#Boats and ships".--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects ceartainly aren't RS for anything. They're often how we deal deliberately with misnomers like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Move to Category:Ship naming ceremonies. Keep the redirect from Category:Ship christenings but delete the redirects from "Ship christenings in X". I'm not sure what to do with Category:Christening bottles. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to renaming, perhaps under new Category:Naming ceremonies, itself under Category:Ceremonies and new Category:Naming of objects [or things?], separate from human names. An identical procedure might be suitable for other objects eg aircraft, motor vehicles, etc. Let's get this done soon.PeterWD (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with renaming and also to expand the scope to include Category:Christening of things and its sub categories. Autom (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All other remains at Mohenjo-daro

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Other temples, Bhodesar.

Innappropriate categorization. Delete and move content to Category:Mohenjo-daro. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I'm not sure how to handle this, but simply deleting and down-merging the content doesn't seem great when there's a number attached to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Other temples, Bhodesar

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Other temples, Bhodesar.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:All other remains at Mohenjo-daro.

Move to Category:Temples in Bhodesar ? -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not if these temples are grouped together as "SD-69" in the list of cultural heritage monuments in Pakistan. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malot Temple

[edit]

Category:Malot Temple has a separate cultural heritage number than Category:Malot temple, Jhelum but at least some of the images seem to be the same. I would suggest renaming to Category:Malot Temple, Chakwal District or something to avoid this confusion in the future. Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: if only one temple with this name. Then base category should be Category:Malot Temple. Others (with commas) to be redirected to the base category Estopedist1 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think there are two. We should make Category:Malot Temple a disambiguation page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill I looked at it all again and I think that images in the ambiguous category fit closely with Category:Malot temple, Jhelum, so I put those "undecided ones" there and redirected the category. Hope that you agree. Krok6kola (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Khanspur

[edit]

Is Category:Khanspur redundant with Category:Khanaspur? -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trains of Tōkyū Tōyoko Line

[edit]

Problematic requested move:
Nominator's (user:XtraJovial) rational: this category's subcategories to be moved such that removing macron: "Macrons not used in English". Date: December 2021

This would be a massive move. We definitely need more inputs, can @Yasu and Miya: help? Estopedist1 (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I support "move" - to remove macrons from these subcategories. And if we move them, we should better rename other subcategories with "Tōkyū"s and "Tōyoko"s under Category:Tokyu Railways, too...such as:

and also some subcategories under:

To display all subcategories click on the "▶":
Stations of Tokyu Corporation (empty)
To display all subcategories click on the "▶":
Train station signs of Tokyu Corporation (empty)
To display all subcategories click on the "▶":
Stations of Tōkyū Den-En-Toshi Line (29 C)
To display all subcategories click on the "▶":
Stations of Tōkyū Ikegami Line (18 C)
To display all subcategories click on the "▶":
Stations of Tōkyū Meguro Line (15 C)
To display all subcategories click on the "▶":
Stations of Tōkyū Ōimachi Line (18 C)
To display all subcategories click on the "▶":
Stations of Tōkyū Tamagawa Line (9 C)
To display all subcategories click on the "▶":
Stations of Tōkyū Tōyoko Line (27 C)

yes, it would be a massive move indeed.--miya (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Confederate States by decade

[edit]

Depending on its meaning, I'm not sure this category makes sense. The Confederate States lasted from 1861-1865 so only the 1860s decade. However, would a picture of Jefferson Davis from the 1880s fit here as he was a person of the Confederate State but the picture is from outside that time period? I don't think that's needed so 'by decade' category for something that existed for a single decade is unnecessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per @Ricky81682 Estopedist1 (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682 and Estopedist1: Weak rename to Category:Confederate people by decade. Although the Confederate States had only lasted from 1861 to 1865, many of the people (including their descendants) called themselves Confederates (or Confederados in Spanish/Portuguese) till present. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Door bolts

[edit]

Should Category:Door bolts really be a sub-category of Category:Bolts? Or are they two different things with the same name? -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: connected enwiki article is en:latch. But we also have Category:Latches Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: There's a door bolt as the lead image at en:Latch. You're not confusing them with Category:Deadbolts (locks)? -- Themightyquill (talk)
en:WP doesn't meet RS (and they have an accessibility policy that large lead images shouldn't be animated either). Also the infobox on Category:Door bolts is the wrong one (wrong Wikidata QID, it's the one for latches)
A bolt can be slid to lock a closed door. A latch operates automatically to latch the door, as the door is closed. There are latchbolts which combine both features. Deadbolts cannot be slid open, but have some additional locking mechanism (i.e. a key) to control this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: One of the definitions of "latch" at Merriam-Webster is "a fastener (as for a door) in which a spring slides a bolt into a hole" [1] -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionaries are pretty poor for definitions of any technical concept. A good etymological dictionary (like the OED) avoids doing this by citing definitions, rather than (like Merriam-Webster or the infamously useless Chambers) writing them from scratch into a vacuum. We should be really cautious about using them for technical definitions.
If a spring slides a bolt, that's a latchbolt. It's one form of bolt, but certainly not defining (not all bolts are sprung, bolts which aren't are unlikely to be latches)
The latch image from Wikidata (and the infobox) on the right isn't (by Merriam-Webster's definition) a latch. Yet clearly it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, that's only one of the definitions used by Merriam-Webster's. Secondly, OED says "A fastening for a door or gate, so contrived as to admit of its being opened from the outside. It now usually consists of a small bar which falls or slides into a catch, and is lifted or drawn by means of a thumb-lever, string, etc. passed through the door." One of it's definitions for bolt is "An appliance for fastening a door, consisting of a cylindrical (or otherwise-shaped) piece of iron, etc., moving longitudinally through staples or guides on the door, so that its end can be shot or pushed into a socket in the doorpost or lintel." (My emphasis illustrates that the basic definition matches for both). -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your point? You're saying that because part of two separate definitions overlaps, then we should merge the two categories for the things that are otherwise carefully distinguished? What to? Category:Things that might be either bolts or latches? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying a door bolt meets basic the definition of latch according to OED, you're preferred source. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fabien Coupoux

[edit]

Crosswiki spam/hosting, out of scope. See archive. --Gyrostat (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyrostat: Is the image out of scope as well, or just this particular individual who appears in it? If the image is out of scope, please nominate it for deletion; this category can be deleted as empty if it's deleted. – BMacZero (🗩) 08:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: The image is not out of scope because of two of the persons appearing in it. But this particular individual is inadmissible on WP and out of scope on Commons, so far.
(For the record, this image's uploader submitted many pictures of this particular individual which were out of scope and subsequently deleted, thus the category at the time. The category has been vastly emptied by the deletion of those files, that one remains because of the other persons depicted.) Hope this make sense. Gyrostat (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nominees by Year

[edit]

Titles of this category and its subcategories are ambiguous. Parent category "European Tree of the Year" and current content suggests that the category is meant for nominees of this particular contest, while per current title nominees of any contests/awards could be included. So titles should be renamed into something more specific such as "European Tree of the Year nominees by year", "European Tree of the Year nominees in 2011" etc. See also another CfD on titles of categories for nominees by country. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:E0A7:1EA1:BB46:CFB0 16:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I think that anonymous users should not have discussions here, I would like to respond to the discussion (unnecessary in my eyes) in the spirit of the matter.
  • The argument of the anonymous user has already been dealt with and excluded in the description, so there is no ambiguity.
  • currently there are no known collisions with other images and data objects
  • the structure of the project is clearly shown and also what is meant by it:
    • the category of nominees only shows the nominees of the competition, as it is a subcategory of the main category ETOY
    • there is no known similar project / competition with which this category and its subcategories of countries could collide


A renaming is therefore unnecessary and a completely inappropriate measure, as there are neither other international competitions nor similar awards with which the creation of this structure could enter into a so-called ambiguity. The assumption that the selection of the Trees of the Year as a tree species (part of the national Nature of the Year selections) of the specific countries is also a kind of award is wrong.
The provocative false assumption that according to the current titles of the categories the nominees of all competitions/awards could be included, implies:
  • That there are other international competitions and awards in the tree category, but this is not the case.
  • even if these competitions should exist at some point, the names can be adapted later, but this is also considered unnecessary, as the structure of the sub-categories already excludes this.
  • If at some point a tree object and its images should become a candidate in other competitions that do not yet exist, the creation of new categories can be recompensed.


As long as no better and different arguments with valid evidence and examples are presented here by registered users, it must be assumed that the person opening the discussion is not concerned with the cause of the project, but only wants to disturb it.--Cookroach (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please see COM:AGF.
If you look around a little, you'd see that category titles are generally self-explanatory, and generally users aren't expected to go through category tree to find out what particular category is actually for. For instance, Category:Trees is for all trees, it isn't limited to, say, trees in France by setting it as subcategory of "Nature of France". So if there's a discrepancy between category title and parent category, first one suggesting that that the category is for any nominees and second one suggesting that the category is only for ETOY nominees, then users can't be sure what the category is actually for.
There are many non-trees that fit under current generic category titles, for instance, Category:Patty Jenkins as an Emmy nominee in 2011 would fit in subcategory Category:Nominees in 2011.
It may be that these categories are currently used the way you intended, despite ambiguous titles. If so then this is only because you recently created these categories and other users yet haven't touched them. Nonetheless, for the reason given above it's inevitable that current category titles will cause confusion later on, and so it seems reasonable to avoid larger cleanup in future and rather fix titles sooner than later. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:EC6D:596E:3FBE:D6BD 09:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree with the anonym. Massive renaming should be done Estopedist1 (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's nonsense, but to end this unholy discussion here, I would be willing to rename it. Since you both think that this seems to be necessary and you would not stop wasting my time anyway. However, I would then do this in the course of January and not immediately. The nominated categories will then each get the addition ETOY, if there is any further criticism of the categories, but I also expect that this does not come from anonymous users. This is the real reason why I am angry about this discussion here. With so much shitstorm on the net, you can at least expect those involved in the discussion to identify themselves, the anonymous culture really goes against the grain for me and I'm tired of talking to nebulous contrarians. I don't want to waste my free time talking about air numbers here. But I will try to get along with it, obviously there seems to be a need of the community to not want to identify themselves.

By the way, to compare trees with Emmy nominees, I find far-fetched and not at all appropriate. In my opinion, this is completely out of line.
Since you mentioned the COM:AGF, times thought that you people with it for stupid, if they can not read categories. I do not know how it is with you so, but in the German-speaking world and in all wiki forums known to me where authors talk, the categorization is a main content of the author's work.--Cookroach (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but as far as I can see, you are here the only one who's making a fuss (or sort of "storm", if you like). Your response in most part is argumentum ad hominem and as such unnecessary. By the way, not that it matters really, but most users here are to some degree anonymous, for example you use pseudonym as your username.
Generally, users should be able to make suggestions for improvement without being intimidated by hostile response from certain users. And so I expect and hope that later on similar issue with categorization of nominees by country can be futher discussed in civilized manner.
As for the actual subject matter, I agree that in general there shouldn't be much of a reason to compare trees and Emmy nominees. But in this case category titles are simply that generic. Anyway, if you agree to rename these categories for whatever reason, then this'll probably solve the issue. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:B909:4BFE:A99F:5182 09:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Automobile trailers in Germany

[edit]

Move to Category:Automobile trailers of Germany? Surely some of these German made trailers might travel abroad? -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I guess that the goal of the nominated category is to show location, where the concrete trailer is located. If here are also trailer companies/manufacturers, they should have placed into some other categories Estopedist1 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: As @Estopedist1 has said, this category is for automobile trailers located in Germany. You can create Category:Automobile trailers of Germany and categorize Category:Automobile trailers in Germany to the latter. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category "Automobile trailers" to define ordinary trailers designed to carry automobiles, something less than your standard multi-deck car carriers. Other users seemed to think it was for other types of trailers and made country-specific versions. From what I've seen so far, many of them look like they should be moved to whole new categories. --DanTD (talk) DanTD (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 and Sbb1413: If it's just for trailers physically in Germany, that's fine, but then everyone is okay with me removing sub-categories for trailer brands/types that don't specify location? e.g. Category:Heimstolz Weferlingen, Category:HP 500.01, Category:Friedel. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Automobile trailers in Germany is for trailers physically in Germany. For German-made trailers, I'll gonna create Category:Automobile trailers of Germany. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fifth-Wheel trailers

[edit]

Category:Fifth-Wheel trailers seems to be redundant with either Category:Semi-trailer caravans or Category:Travel trailers ? -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • More "Semi-trailer caravans" than mere "Travel trailers." But when I created the category, I didn't see one for this type of recreational vehicle. Besides that, "Semi-trailer caravans" isn't really a common term for these types of trailers in the United States, and I doubt it is in Canada or the rest of North America. ----DanTD (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Synonym for semi-trailer caravans, but travel trailers is clearly a hypernym (simple drawbar trailers are still travel trailers).
These are rare outside the US though, so a version with "trailers" might be preferred over "caravans", even if trailer is really to broad a term here (it's popular, but inaccurate, as most trailers are for freight not accommodation). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should let you know that I've also applied this category to similar non-recreational vehicles, Mainly horse trailers, mobile labs, and lighter commercial trailers that are intended to be towed by light-duty trucks, even if many light-duty trucks couldn't tow them. ----DanTD (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DanTD and Andy Dingley: Any trailer without a front axle to be pulled by a truck can go in Category:Semi-trailers, no? If we're talking recreational ones, I agree that something other than caravans might be useful, but I'm not sure what the best option is. Category:Fifth-wheel travel trailers? Category:Travel semi-trailers? Category:Semi- travel trailers? -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think any trailer without a front axle to be pulled by a truck necessarily can be in the semi-trailer category. By that thinking an ordinary U-Haul trailer towed by a Jeep CJ pickup could be added to the semi-trailer category, and those aren't semi-trailers. A few minutes ago, I actually removed an image in the semi-trailer category that belonged in the farm trailer category, and once I did, I found a lot of full trailers there. I will say this, your choices for a rename are interesting though. ----DanTD (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nomadic warriors

[edit]

I don't see the point of grouping this content (mostly weapons) together because the people who used them were nomadic. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nomination Estopedist1 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/12&oldid=1081528416"