Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04

Category:1945 in Israel

Israel didn't in 1945. This should be renamed Category:British Mandate of Palestine. Yann (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category name is reasonable for images directly related to the Yishuv. After all, we have (for example) Category:121 in Germany and (almost absurdly) Category:103 in Spain. - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:1945 in the British Mandate of Palestine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and move all images to Category:Reading Buses. The category keeps getting confused with the proposed rename, as the company today trades under the 'Reading Buses' brand - images are constantly landing under the redirect as opposed to the 'proper' category. Page has been renamed on Wikidata and is the same on Wikipedia, so why should this category still refer to an archaic legal name? Hullian111 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Okeanos Explorer

Seems to be a duplicate of parent cat --Arlo James Barnes 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though there could be something like "Photographs from the Okeanos Explorer" for many of these images. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would imply a category:videos from Okeanos Explorer as well for proper diffusion.

Support. Arlo James Barnes 20:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by the United States Department of Agriculture

Duplicate of Category:Photographs by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. BriefEdits (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the one with the name spelled out. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both / Both those categories are redundant - all USDA photographs should be tagged {{PD-USGov-USDA}}, which categorizes them into Category:PD USDA. TheImaCow (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tramvajový průvod 2015, Praha

Duplicate of Category:Slavnostní průvod tramvají ke 140. výročí MHD v Praze. Both are about tram parade in Prague (2015-09-20), a.k.a anniversary of 140 years of public transport in Prague. Perituss (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book christenings

merger suggestion - The categories Category:Book christenings, Category:Book launches and Category:Book releases see to all be different names for a formal event where for the first time a book is presented publicly, usually in the presence of the authors and other important people. DGtal (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DGtal: "Christening" in this sense is a specific ritual which imitates a baptism. --ŠJů (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but to the best of my knowledge nobody christens books because of water damage, so it's just a figure of speech, and not different from the other two categories which are also the same thing. DGtal (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I see at least one photo in which it looks like a book is indeed be baptised, like a ship, with I guess wine, see photo. So for those kind of launches we do need this category; but only for them, the rest might be moved to one of the other two. To me Book releases are just that: the release of a new book, even without a ceremony or other event, it may also be just a message or an announcement to the press. I would like the Book launches to be reserved for the events for new books and be a subcategory of Category:Book launches. (Book signing can also be for older books.) So perhaps we should keep all three of them and just give them good descriptions. JopkeB (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Category:Book launches and Category:Book releases, which are the same, as far as I can tell. I can't really decide on the merge direction, the names both seem fine to me. If anything, "book releases" is a bit more neutral. Simply merge and delete Category:Book christenings, as that formulation is not really used, it seems like a mistranslation to me. --rimshot^talk 22:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket by country of association

This is a recently added duplicate category, adequately covered in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cricket_by_country so has no reason to exist. It just causes confusion and should be removed. Acabashi (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Category:Association football by country of association, I'm guessing this was designed to house the "countries" of the United Kingdom, but it seems an unnecessary repetition of the "in the United Kingdom" category tree. We do have a Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom tree which is clearer. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dames second class of the Order of the Starry Cross

The order of the Starry Cross was conceived with only one class Socius sociologicus (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dames, 1st Class of the Order of the Starry Cross

The subcategories belong to Category:Dames of the Order of the Starry Cross, there were never Dames 1st class of the named order. Socius sociologicus (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dames, Special Class of the Order of the Starry Cross

The subcategories belong to Category:Dames of the Order of the Starry Cross. This order never has had an other class then Dame Socius sociologicus (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Penis in art

Should be plural, deer penis, bull penis, dog penis, etc. 45.250.252.182 19:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Parent category is "Penis", as are relevant subcats. Not a problem leaving as is. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings by Paul Fischer

It is a subcategory of Paul Gustav Fischer, and Creator:Paul Fischer goes to a different individual, so it and all its subcategories should be by Paul Gustav Fischer. Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Paul Fischer with the creator template is a German photographer, not known for paintings and drawings. The Gustav middle name for the painter was not widely used, and is really only used on Commons to distinguish him from the German. I therefore see no reason to change all these painting and drawing subcategories. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear when Category:Paul Gustav Fischer includes Categories about Paul Fischer, and when Paintings by Paul Fischer includes labels by Creator:Paul Gustav Fischer, or incorrectly by Creator:Paul Fischer. I get that he usually goes by Paul Fischer, but in the course of the huge Commons, I think consistency here is more important that using the usual, short form of the name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed renaming would involve a lot of categories and subcategories. It would be much easier with just one renaming: Creator:Paul Fischer to Creator:Paul Fischer (photographer). That would remove a lot of (potential) confusion between the two. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every wikipedia article has him at Paul Gustav Fischer, so it makes sense to keep him and subcategories with that name. At the same time moving Creator:Paul Fischer to Creator:Paul Fischer (photographer) also makes good sense. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AI-generated paleoart of the ancient past

AI simply can't do this kind of stuff which needs critical thinking, Commons:out of scope and misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: If you think images should be deleted as out of scope, please nominated them for deletion. Simply deleting this category will not help. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated them all already, but we simply shouldn't have a category consisting solely of out of scope images, hence this one has been nominated for discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That it can do this kind of stuff at all, on its own, or currently is not implied here. Having a separate category for these if it usually or currently always can't would make this category even more useful. Not out of scope and a misconception of what AI image tools: they are not autonomous entities but tools used by humans and those humans can do the critical thinking through things like training, editing, selecting, creating the underlying base images, modifying (such as regenerating specific parts of the image), and so on. Moreover, that all have been nominated is not true; for example File:Wooly Mammoth by OpenAI Sora.webm isn't. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the image has not been removed is that it is only kept to demonstrate functionality of Sora; it is still inaccurate, and if it had no purpose, deletion request would have been submitted as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ma

should be deleted Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Road space consumption

I don't understand what pictures should fit into this category. Google doesn't help a lot. Looks like out-of-scope category. A.Savin 01:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, in Germany - especially in urban center there is a discussion about traffic transformation. Changing from indiviual motorized transport towards more and better public transport and more bicycle friendly cities. This category should document the current state of car centralized planning concepts (since the 60s) in Germany. With progressing climate change and increasing temperatures the (black) streets surfaces become hotspots and have to be transformed. Wikitarisch (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every scientific term requires a category here on Commons. What I see so far is a random sample of photos of roads or highways, not of any special aspect within this topic. For instance, how is this file depicting "Road space consumption"? And how is this file, as well as any other picture of a road, not? --A.Savin 12:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, you are right. Just lost my focus.

My aim was a collection of shemes like this here:

http://sensibletransport.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Emissions-and-size-V7.png

https://www.treehugger.com/thmb/yQk61ny-ttzrwI2RvW2yvLVGVrw=/997x638/filters:fill(auto,1)/__opt__aboutcom__coeus__resources__content_migration__treehugger__images__2016__08__modes-67a8cb79b78d442381e327050aa86079.jpg

Just want to show a collection of grafical depiction of public traffic space distribution according different modes.

Will keep search for better pics.

Thanks! Wikitarisch (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can there be at least a good description in this category, in English, German and/or any other language? JopkeB (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi JopkeB,

I just added a description I think describes the aim best.

BR Wiki Wikitarisch (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But can you give an extract please? Just like the introduction on a Wikipedia page ("Road space consumption is ...."). A category description is meant to be short, only two or three lines. People should be able to get a quick glance of what a category is about and not have to read half a page. JopkeB (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening finished ;)

Thanks for the hint!

BR! Wikitarisch (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. But I am still not happy. What about this one:

Road space consumption is about the spatial footprint of different kind of transports, an indicator in m² representing the surface allocated to transports in the city. Distinguish:
- the space used by transports – i.e. the space consumed by the different ~~vehicles~~ types of transport – and
- the space allocated to transport – i.e. the whole road network, parking spaces, sidewalks and cycle tracks.

(Source: Transportshaker-Wavestone)

[My comment:] Then it is up to a Wikipedia article to describe the consequences of the different kind of transport for the footprints, as in your description.

Question

Would this be correct? Does this description meet your intentions with this category?
If you agree, then I have another question: Would "Road space usage" be a better category name? That would include the second part, the allocation. Or something with "footprints" in the name? Or forget about "Road" in the title and change it to something like "Spatial footprints of transport"? For me that would be a more clear name.

JopkeB (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Globally locked Commons users

Propose deleting per w:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Template:Blocked user. This category isn't really needed as this is already shown in the logs and lots of users have been locked, far more than the 97 users in this category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale:

Keep Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Globally locked commons users. This has already been proposed and kept. Krok6kola (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: Template:Indefblocked-global should also be deleted but anyway that discussion was nearly 6 years ago so its probably worth a revisit especially given the 2019 TFD I cited and note that the template was deleted at w:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 14#Template:Locked global account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: What happens on enwiki is for them to decide. This is the Commons and that category is very relevant to me and probably others. But as noted, only users with a significant number of edits on the Commons should be in there, not those which only have a few to none, which is the case now. What "logs" are you referring to that lists them all? Krok6kola (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to the user contributions the fact a user is blocked or locked shows up so its not adding any more information than can be seen. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: But that requires prior knowledge. Only a very small proportion of blocked users on the Commons are blocked as a result of a WMF office action (i.e. globally locked). Krok6kola (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: Note I've opened Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Indefblocked-global which seems a more appropriate venue maybe this should be closed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interior of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple

We don't have any media depicting the interior of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Commons, since no electronic devices are allowed inside the temple. Since I don't know Malayalam, I can't say whether ഓണവില്ല് പദ്മനാഭസ്വാമിക്ഷേത്രം.jpg is taken inside the temple or not. Better deleting the category for entities that are hard to even photograph. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squares in Chile

Please merge it to Category:Urban squares in Chile, I don't know how it's done. 186.172.133.80 15:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency with most other countries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squares in Chile by region

Please rename it as Category:Urban squares in Chile by region. Thank you. 186.172.133.80 15:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sambenito

(1) Is there any particular reason the name of this category is singular? (2) is it mixing two things (the pointed hats and the painted and worn documents displaying offenses and punishments)? Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or (on question 2) are both of these collectively a sambenito, which could be made clearer by hat text, and should we distinguish sambenitos in art from actually surviving sambenitos? - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superpowers

Subjective categories like Superpowers, Great Powers and Blank maps showing current or potential superpowers should be deleted, as there will be edit wars on which countries should be considered as superpowers/great powers. Of course, the United States is universally considered as a superpower and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are universally considered as great powers. However, other countries may be subjectively considered as superpowers or great powers, including India and the European Union. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to replace the above categories with Hegemony, which may include the media under great powers and superpowers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What constitutes a "superpower" on the international stage is unavoidably subjective, and time-dependent, and the category name is ambiguous - it could easily be misunderstood to refer to supernatural abilities of comic book heroes! Images in Category:Blank maps showing current or potential superpowers should be considered for deletion if unused, as the category is a magnet for opinion (including some very strange ones like File:Superpowers - copia.png). Omphalographer (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect: The main issue here is that people unfamiliar with our category tree will try to place files in these categories - whether they exist or not. And if not, they will place files in red categories, or place them in Category:Superpower (2023) or whatever category fits their bill, or they will outright re-create the category after not finding any suitable cat.
Content that will fit these categories exists (and will continue to exist even if we also delete the current files right now), so we shouldn't delete, but rather create sensible redirects to actually useful (NPOV) categories. Possibly Category:Hegemony like SBB suggests. --Enyavar (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this !vote. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chauvinism

Another subjective category that should be deleted in favor of Nationalism and Patriotism. Chauvinism refers to the excessive nationalism or patriotism, and there might be edit wars on which category should belong to chauvinism. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's impossible to police an "ism". Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military food by country

country categories to be harmonized under the name "Military food of Foo country". After renaming we can use the template Countries of Europe Estopedist1 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: I have little no idea what you are proposing about this category. Or is this about its child categories, unmentioned here? And are you somehow saying this is specific to Europe? I'm obviously missing something. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: yes, child categories. E.g. "Military food of Estonia" Estopedist1 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Then those are what need templates linking them here, not the parent category. - Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Election maps of the United States by municipality

This category was moved without discussion from Category:Election maps of the United States by city to Category:Election maps of the United States by municipality. Now it no longer matches its parent categories, Category:Elections in the United States by city, Category:Election maps by city, and Category:Maps of cities in the United States. It probably should be moved back it its original name. Eureka Lott 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lipstick

Shouldn't it be plural? Lip-sticks are not flour. 45.250.252.164 23:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. "Lipstick" is a mass noun, like "flour" or "clothing". The individual objects used to apply lipstick are idiomatically "sticks of lipstick" (like "bags of flour" or "articles of clothing"), but the category refers to both those objects and to people wearing lipstick. Omphalographer (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Omphalographer. Usage is correct. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Voussoir

Is there any good reason this category name is singular? Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know and I dont understand why I am notified about this cfd Juandev (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juandev: because according to the history you created the category in 2011. - Jmabel ! talk 13:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Depictions of existing technologies decades before their invention

Has promise along the lines of w:en:list of stories set in a future now in the past, but perhaps needs less specificity...why "decades", for instance? Arlo James Barnes 03:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of a better name please suggest it (or multiple ones).

Decades is in the title because it's key to this category that it's been depicted at least two decades, maybe at least three decades, before first invention. If there's depictions centuries before invention that could go into a separate category.
Depictions is in the title because it's not about talk about things before they exist like Asimov's interview about the Internet but about depictions such as visual art and scientific illustrations.

This cat is about technologies and other inventions. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay. I think my own next step will be looking for other media that fit the description, then we'll have more samples to go off of. What about the internal structure of the category? Should there be subcategories or should it remain a flat list? Arlo James Barnes 22:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be great if you can do that and find some. I thought there would be more but couldn't find any which is probably largely due to the really unreasonable long copyright protections which often keep things away from the commons for centuries and for many decades after the creator's death. I think as with other categories, subcategories would probably make sense and be useful once there are enough files but currently there are not enough files to have any subcategories. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demonstrations and protests against countries

the cat name does not make sense in most cases and I think it should be renamed, for example to something like "Demonstrations and protests against countries' policy" or "…countries' actions" or something similar (maybe "…protests relating to countries" where how it relates to the country is specified in the cat title). The category could also be split depending on what is protested against. "against countries" suggests that the existence of the country is protested against or something like that which isn't the case for nearly all of the contained categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NDTV

Massive anti-American protest in Sri Lankan capital

24 Sept 2012

The China Project

An anti-American protest during the Chinese Civil War – The China Project

9 Feb 2022

WSET

Lynchburg City Schools Superintendent fires back at claims she is 'anti-American'

10 May 2023

Voice of America

Palestinians Killed in Anti-American Protest - 2001-10-08

27 Oct 2009

NBC News

Moscow youth protest U.S. — with pumpkins

here're 5 random news articles i just found by googling "anti american protest". can you identify what exactly about USA each of them is protesting against?

suppose media about such events were uploaded and divided as you proposed...

then what should be the title of the category that group them together? because they are all considered "anti american protest", they must have some similarity and belong in a single category. RZuo (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I don't know which example I saw but it should still be changed somehow. News articles headlines are too short and often misleading anyway so it's not a good idea to use that as support, if anything it would be the article content not the headline. The issue is "subject opposed" (see cat:"Demonstrations and protests by subject opposed") is not or not necessarily these countries as in their existence or even the actions according their, usually flawed, collective decision making systems. I would have proposed something like "Demonstrations and protests relating to countries" but that already is a cat. Maybe some subcategories here could be moved to subcategories in that cat, maybe simply all of them. Or it could be renamed to something like "Demonstrations and protests against subjects relating to a country". Prototyperspective (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

quite often you cant pinpoint what exactly people are protesting about. only two things are usually clear: the country being targeted and protesters' attitude (for or against). RZuo (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steam locomotive boiler blowdown

None of these are boiler blowdown, they're the cylinder drain cocks being open. The two are very different. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some contributors have confused "cylinder cocks" and "boiler blowdown" by categorizing images.

I took off the images that did not match.

To date, only the "boiler blowdown" images corresponding to the category remain.

You could have done it too. Unless you confuse the two operations. Altona (talk) Altona (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what about File:Boone and Scenic Valley Railroad JS 8419 steam locomotive crossing the Bass Point Creek Bridge - 02.jpg? To me that looks more like an injector.

I'm not clear as to US railway practice on boiler blowdown. What is it? What is vented, steam or water? How often is it done?

Here in the UK, continuous blowdown might be used on stationary boilers, but not on locos. We're more likely to rely on a monthly cold or warm washout (not under pressure) from the foundation ring of the firebox, in order to shift the accumulated mud. A boiler might be blown down under pressure at the end of a shift, not during working time. This File:3254 lets off some steam.jpg (if it's boiler blowdown) wouldn't happen indoors, as it releases far too much mud and hot water, and so it would be done away from the working shed. An important point is that water is blown down, not steam. You're trying to shift impurities that are either dissolved in the water, settling out at the bottom of the water, or oily scum floating on the surface. Venting steam won't shift these. Some condensing engines did have surface scum venting, but AFAIK not on locos.

What is happening here: File:McCloud 5-30-04 121por (16571183884).jpg? That's a loco working very hard, presumably up an incline, which is absolutely not the time to be throwing away boiler pressure on periodic maintenance, like blowdown! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side "boiler blowdown" is a method used in the United States to remove sludge that accumulates at the bottom of the boiler, preferably at the edge of a precipice such as on the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad , or a viaduct to avoid burning a person.

The photo File:Boone_and_Scenic_Valley_Railroad_JS_8419_steam_locomotive_crossing_the_Bass_Point_Creek_Bridge_-_02.jpg was taken shortly after the photo File:Steam_train_crosses_the_Bass_Point_Creek_Bridge.jpg This is indeed a “boiler blowdown” operation.

In the image File:McCloud_5-30-04_121por_(16571183884).jpg although abundant, the smoke comes out relaxed from the chimney, which seems to indicate that the locomotive is not making effort. Altona (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steam Dolbadarn (locomotive).jpg Yet again, nothing at all to do with boiler blowdown. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is the vacuum brake exhaust, a specificity of British railways and which can sometimes be observed on the boiler top. File:252008_ČSD_6.jpg

But the steam jet is much less violent than the "boiler blowdown". Altona (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rapid transit

Although this category includes both rail and bus rapid transit systems, in practice the term "rapid transit" only refers to rail rapid transit. There's already a well-established category tree of Category:Bus rapid transit. So I propose to reduce the scope of the category Category:Rapid transit to rail rapid transit only, which is consistent with Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me it makes sense to have "Rapid transit" contain both types. In fact, Category:Rail rapid transit is a grandchild here, under Category:Rapid transit by type. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hermann-Chaim-Eiger-Stolperstein

There are 3 categories that have been created by the original uploader, one for each Stolperstein in this set. I renamed Category:Neumann-Eiger-Stolpersteine_in_Leipzig to this name. The remaining 2 categories can be deleted. Frupa (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arabian Kingdom in the 9th century

There is a multitude of categories about an ominous "Arabian Kingdom", all of them seemingly created to maintain the fiction of a continuous "Pan-Arabic Realm" that exists since the Islamic Conquest or even earlier. This entity included the Caliphates until the begin of Ottoman rule, then it is more constricted to all history of the Arabian Peninsula and finally merges seamlessly into the Saudi Arabian monarchy and its history.

Examples of some things I found and already corrected to the best of my knowledge, and the categories those were placed in:

File:Pilgrim Flask LACMA M.2002.1.240 (2 of 2).jpg --> "Hajj 800s", implying that this vessel was used in that very decade during Hajj ? --> and this category was then included in "Arabian Kingdom in the 9th century"
Category:Military of Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War (20th c.) --> "Wars of the Arabian Kingdom"
Category:Ottoman-Saudi War (19th c.) --> "Wars of the Arabian Kingdom"
Category:Basous war (5th c.) --> "Wars of the Arabian Kingdom"
Category:North Yemen Civil War (20th c.) --> "Wars of the Arabian Kingdom"
Category:Midian (yes, the ancient region) --> "Historical regions in the Arabian Kingdom"
File:Battle of Talas.png (8th c. in today's Uzbekistan (!)) --> "Military history of the Arabian Kingdom"
Category:Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal (18th c.) --> "War ministers of the Arabian Kingdom"

Examples of still existing categories:

It's positive that the creator(s) of those categories didn't claim that Saudi-Arabia existed in the 8th century, but in my opinion, historical stuff prior to the 20th century should be categorized under "Arabia" or "Arabian Peninsula", to remain neutral. Enyavar (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic buildings

A vague category that is supposedly a disambiguation category, though instead is filled up. What is a historic building, is just a building or was a building. The category as a meta category or disambiguation category is just problematic to manage without any real benefit — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's a problem that inevitably arises when users not familiar with commons categorisation fill in categories during upload.

the problem will be solved probably only if all such categories beginning with "historic" are deleted.

otherwise, when this one is deleted, and when those users type "histor" in the category field, other such categories are prompted and then files get added to those. RZuo (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added some others, and today am just going to tackle those that I see today. The others can be managed in time. Have to start somewhere — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we can try to eliminate as many of these ambiguous categories as we can, but...

some valid categories do begin with "histor" (e.g. "history of xx").
we cant control what users do. for many people, it is intuitive to describe an old building as either "old building" or "historic(al) building" (applicable to not only buildings but also any other concepts). both of these names are problematic to use as commons categories.

so in the end, those users will still add files to those cats with such valid titles.

imho it's inevitable that we keep some of these cats with very generic titles so that they catch all such files added by clueless users. then other users can sort them into better cats. RZuo (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:Old maps, which is for old maps in public domain. Similarly, we can create Category:Old buildings for old buildings in countries with limited COM:FOP. We also have Category:Heritage buildings for buildings explicitly declared as heritage. There used to be Category:Historical images for images in public domain. I have created Category:Old images for such images. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to avoid the words "old" and "historic..." at all in category names and use something like "in the public domain" instead? (The term of public domain might be different for each country.) I helped implementing the conclusions of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images, but I never read in the discussion page that the purpose originally was about public domain. Otherwise they might have been kept or renamed. JopkeB (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Old" is subjective. "Historic" just means there's something historical about a place -- the "something" might date from centuries ago, or from yesterday. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you not create these problematic categories? RZuo (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with comments above, but I note it is now a disambiguation page pointing to some better categories - I think it might be better to leave it so for the benefit of new users to help steer them to more proper categorization. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation: How does "category:buildings" not steer them to where we want them start? Everything on that page is not a disambiguation term, it is all explanatory. We would be better to remove the category, and if needed develop a page Help:Historic that redirects to Help:Categorisation which we develop to help people to better categorise. Leaving the categories in place just has them being populated and needing constant maintenance for no value. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:UploadWizard when you want to fill up the categories. noobs tend to write "historic/old..." if they are uploading such things. RZuo (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions so far + questions

The category name is too vague to be useful.
Category names with vague words in the name like "historic..." and "old" should be deleted, not get a redirect or become a disambigious page, to prevent that they are used by unexperienced uploaders. Another opinion is that we should keep some of these categories with very generic titles so that they catch all such files added by clueless users. then other users can sort them into better category. This means that editors should spend time on this kind of maintainance, which is not desirable.
Though, we can create Category:Old buildings (or use something like "in the public domain" instead) for buildings that are in the public domain in countries with limited FOP.
Perhaps it is even better to develop a page Help:Historic that redirects to Help:Categorisation which we develop to help people to better categorise.

@Billinghurst, RZuo, Sbb1413, and Infrogmation: Question

Do you agree with the conclusions? Is this a good summary of the discussion?
What would be a good proposal to be able to close this discussion in the near future?

--JopkeB (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Historic" and "old" appear to be used when they are at least a lifetime ago, and historic additionally when it has a level of notability or notoriety, usually with an event or a person. They are too vague. Their notability needs to be specific, tied to a person or tied to an event, something that demonstrates the importance. This could just be an English-language attribution, so I would like to hear a broader opinion. I claim no expertise in this area, just have a dislike for vague and mis-used categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical people

What is a "historical people", aren't they just people? All past people are historical, so it isn't filling any clear educational purpose. It doesn't form a useful disambiguation purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is information about people in the past under Category:People by century. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- ReneeWrites (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is now a Disambiguation category. I suggest to keep it that way, add Category:People by century and remove Category:Historical persons. I am afraid that there will always be people who are searching for historical people (or persons) and then they get a page where they can click to the correct category. JopkeB (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree @JopkeB: , people will just populate the disambiguation category. I still feel that we are better to delete such antithetical categories. Plus ancient peoples has different connotations in the English language to historical peoples. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is always a risk, about whatever subject the disambituation category is. JopkeB (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer a valid disambiguation page, it only has one term and that does not mean historical people. The cat serves no valid purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But when we add Category:People by century then there are two. JopkeB (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty

Indiscriminate dump category used mainly for spam and files somebody thinks are pretty. Unless there’s some way to restrict new additions this category is mostly just unnecessary work to maintain. Dronebogus (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beauty is an extremely subjective matter, and we already have categories depicting beauty in some way. For example, natural beauty can be found at Category:Nature, cultural beauty can be found at Category:Culture and beautiful women can be found at Category:Women. It is up to the end user to look for beautiful pics in these categories. We should not involve in such matters. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but retool. Agree that the vast majority of images currently in the category are there inappropriately, and that the definition is subjective. However the concept as a cultural phenomenon is significant, and IMO in scope - There is a fair sized article on en:w en:w:Beauty, and it looks like corresponding articles in some 50 other languages. Possibly this should be turned into a metacat, with only better defined subcategories? I see a few files which would be properly illustrative of topics, eg File:18891109 Arsenic complexion wafers - Helena Independent.png for historic products claimed to promote beauty, File:Unrealistic Beauty Standards.png for cultural standards. See also my comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Beauty in art. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)

I respect your opinion but I’m currently the only one even trying to maintain this and it’s a thankless chore. I understand the hypothetical use of this category but in practice it’s just a pain. Dronebogus (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty in art

Unobjective category, isn’t most art supposed to be beautiful? Dronebogus (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No. I'm wary of including files in here, as that's too subjective, but we seem to have a number of valid categories in here that are clearly labelled as connecting art to beauty in some obvious way. If we accept their existence, we justify this category. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beauty is an extremely subjective matter, and we already have categories depicting beauty in some way. For example, natural beauty can be found at Category:Nature in art, cultural beauty can be found at Category:Culture in art and beautiful women can be found at Category:Women in art. It is up to the end user to look for beautiful pics in these categories. We should not involve in such matters. Although we might have "a number of valid categories" "that are clearly labelled as connecting art to beauty", they can be still categorized without having this rather subjective category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree it is subjective, but also has historic cultural importance (with different cultures at different times defining it differently). IMO if kept it should be for media illustrative for anyone researching the historical concept, such as when artists self-describe what the depict as "beauty" by the standards of their time and place, eg Category:Three Beauties of the Present Day, Category:Our native birds of song and beauty, File:Alonso Perez A cloaked beauty 1890.jpg etc. IMO should not be used for random images some user finds personally "beautiful". Any thoughts on useful hatnote, or potential better name for category? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category Agree with Infrogmation. Subcategories like Category:Allegories of beauty, Category:Beauty and ugliness in art, Category:Beauty pageants in art address beauty as a direct or indirect theme, topic or concept in art, and this category is equally useful in that regard, but should be renamed for clarity. Sinigh (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Beauty (concept) in art”? Dronebogus (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments and memorials in Tula

All entries must be reviewed for copyright because there is no FOP for 3D works of art in Russia Altenmann (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann

Speedy keep, Categories for discussion is not an appropriate venue to review unfree public monuments of Russia. Categories can only be deleted if those are empty (like, all images have been deleted). You may want to activate COM:VisualFileChange gadget in your preferences for you to conduct mass deletion requests. Or, review each file individually, even if it may jump the number of successful Russian FoP cases threefold (like becoming ~6,000): successful French FoP cases have reached more than 7,000. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above. The city of Tula is hundred of years old, so likely would have at least some 3D works old enough to be out of copyright, and it's likely that there will be more in the future as copyrights expire over time. (Certainly DW copyright violations of recent works should be deleted, if you see any list them for deletion discussion. That is no reason for any action be taken on the general category.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colorized by Julius Jääskeläinen

All of these pictures were imported from a no longer existing flickr account, many are watermarked and tagged as creator “Colorized by Julius Jääskeläinen,” and CC-BY 2.0. In fact many are originally sourced and labelled as taken from from the Finnish Wartime Photo Archive which are CC-BY 4.0, but only some. This archive does not provide creator info, it is to be suspected that many photographers survived the war by many years, very likely leading to COPYVIO. in addition all those only giving “Colorized by Julius Jääskeläinen” as creator are wrongly labelled (no “sweat of the brow”!), clearly license washing. Many others may, even those from the Finnish Army will still be protected. As fixing the above licenses would require very extensive research on several hundred images I must request to completely delete this category as a matter of the precautionary principle. Zenwort (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Checking the uploader’s discussion page one finds a long list of license washing and copyvio deleted images. --Zenwort (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been quite a few problems with these images. I was happy when I found the photos on Flickr but should have checked the photos better. Don't have a direct opinion on whether to remove all of them or whether to list the ones used on Wikipedia and start controlling these images. Maybe easier to delete the whole category to be on the safe side. VisbyStar (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the problems are with the images, surely deleting the files will make more sense than only deleting the category they happen to be collected in? ACo2c (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Earthquakes by Richter magnitude

The subcategories of this category refer to the en:Richter magnitude scale, while the Wikidata items and the descriptions in the Japanese Wikipedia refer to the en:Moment magnitude scale. I suggest that this be made consistent and would like to know how to go about that. It doesn't seem correct to include Wikidata items on moment magnitude scale in subcategories on Richter scale. Should the subcategories be renamed and how? The descriptions need to be rectified too. --TadejM ^(t/p) 11:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I understand, the Moment magnitude scale is now generally used, but the earlier Richter scale was the most common for about 50 years, so certainly would be found in historic media. So they seem to be two different measuring systems, and subcategories of one should not be in the other. Someone more familiar with geology topics might advise how best to organize? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Infrogmation. Thanks for the comment. As far as I know, this is correct. It makes sense to keep the categories for older items related to the Richter scale but the moment magnitude scale is mostly used today. For this reason, it seems best to create categories for it and recategorize accordingly. --TadejM ^(t/p) 14:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:West Allington

There doesn't appear to be a particular place called "West Allington" it appears to be an alternative name for "Allington"[1][2]. There does appear to be an area in the Dorset one of which I removed File:Allington, postbox № DT6 14, West Allington - geograph.org.uk - 1352764.jpg. I suggest merging with Category:Allington, Lincolnshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JavaScript mascot

It's used to promote the personal website https://javascript-mascot.github.io/ 2A01:E0A:985:2020:1309:B175:D946:5709 06:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a seperate category for a single logo of an obscure personal website is not nessescary TheImaCow (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category is obviously confusing because the character is not the official JavaScript mascot. --린눈라단 (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrexham F.C.

The current name of the club is Wrexham AFC, and the name of the category should be moved back to Category:Wrexham AFC. さえぼー (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia already uses the proposed title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BSicon/chronology/uploads/2006-11

no longer fulfils a clear purpose — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as before for

I really don’t remember. Maybe I created these cats to match a wider set by someone else, with these few as redlinks, and later that set was deleted? Maybe discuss at Talk:BSicon/Categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BSicon/chronology/uploads/2006-12

no longer fulfils a clear purpose — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as before for

I really don’t remember. Maybe I created these cats to match a wider set by someone else, with these few as redlinks, and later that set was deleted? Maybe discuss at Talk:BSicon/Categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BSicon/chronology/uploads/2007-01

no longer fulfils a clear purpose — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as before for

I really don’t remember. Maybe I created these cats to match a wider set by someone else, with these few as redlinks, and later that set was deleted? Maybe discuss at Talk:BSicon/Categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BSicon/chronology/uploads/2014-03

no longer fulfils a clear purpose — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as before for

I really don’t remember. Maybe I created these cats to match a wider set by someone else, with these few as redlinks, and later that set was deleted? Maybe discuss at Talk:BSicon/Categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BSicon/chronology/uploads/2014-04

no longer fulfils a clear purpose — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as before for

I really don’t remember. Maybe I created these cats to match a wider set by someone else, with these few as redlinks, and later that set was deleted? Maybe discuss at Talk:BSicon/Categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game videos

Shouldn't this be merged to Category:Videos of video games‎? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cat is now at Category:Videos related to video games. I think they should be merged. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RECLAIM network

Meaningless and random category. Certainly no explanation as to what it is, or what the inclusion criteria are. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Random pictures of gardens, no purpose is visible behind this category. TheImaCow (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deletion for the category, because it is not useful or needed, there is many better categories for the images. I think this discussion can be closed. --Velma (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Limédia galeries

Without any idea why this chaos was created or what "Limedia galeries" are: I vote to dissolve all sub-categories here that only contain a single file or less, and move the respective contents to useful categories on Commons.

Please compare: [3]: One (1!) image was categorized as the only content of 8 (eight!) categories that serve as parallel duplicates of existing Commons categories that are not exactly filled to the brim Enyavar (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello !

There is a wikidata item for the category :)

These categories are maintenance categories : their goal is literally to be removed and replaced by meaningful categories on Commons. It's what has been done with Category:Category:Fonds André Cros - Archives municipales de Toulouse and it has been really efficient.

Here as you say there are too many categories with just one image : I would be ok to remove the categories with only one file, but only if 1. we put them in Category:Limédia galeries - to check and 2. the metadata is kept somewhere : for instance in File:Carte d’Amérique divisée en ses principaux États avec les nouvelles découvertes faites au Nord et da G-FG-ES-00065.jpg the name of the creators is only in the Category:Limédia galeries - XXX, best thing is to replace them with relevant categories and remove the Category:Limédia galeries - XXX but if you want to do if quicker i'm fine with puting the info as text form in the description template. Léna (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my fears were that this is a permanent structure. But since there is a plan in place, and in progress, it is not a problem at all! I consider this CfD as

Done, thanks for the information. All my best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos of past

what video is not a video of the past? Delete. RZuo (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this point coming and added a category description to clarify. Did you not read it?

Keep Didn't create this category, it was clearer that it has to be about the past to a meaningful extent when things where in the category above this one (not specific to videos). It's videos about the past but maybe the cat could be moved to be a bit clearer. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

these videos (from this week) were made in the past; depict objects that had been created in the past; the depiction itself was in the past.

how are they not videos of the past? do you not understand it? RZuo (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even what you see right now with your eyes actually is the past (13-120 milliseconds). Pls do read what I wrote above though. Basically I agree and currently I think probably the best solution would be to move the category. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ridiculous category. Things by date are by date; anything but an animation is going to be in "the past"; and I don't care how someone qualifies that by saying that the think "the past" ended 20 years ago. - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to find the PC case video here, haha :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Por qué no echan al morón que abrió esta categoría? 200.39.139.5 14:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y tú, ¿por qué crees que sea apropriada insultar a otro usario en un CfD? - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarification and as noted at the Wikidata item:

Concepts of past and present

The issue is that "Past" here does not refer to 'one particular subdivision of time':

it is one subdivision of time in that all time until the latest planck second is "past" from some perspective (what some people in this discussion seem to have thought this cat only refers to)
it is also various subdivisions of time in that some times until some recent time is past depending on the scale...for example when talking about biological evolution "present" may refer to the current millennia or even larger time-scales or when plate tectonics is the subject 'the present' would refer to a quite long time-scale that includes many recent years – so for these subdivisions the meaning varies
(largely related to the second point or sub-aspects of it:) there are different ways one can relate things to the past: for example History, Paleontology, Memory, Nostalgia – all of these are somehow linked to the human concept of "Past" (and like for other categories they can be found together as subcategories here which is appropriate, reasonable and useful)

In short, the misconception I think people had to some extent is that this category is only about #1 instead of the other two where subcategories make clear how they relate to the past. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--> I think RZuo and Jmabel jumped to conclusions – please read the above and consider it. I don't see how one could see it this way with this info. Something could be done like converting this to a CatCat that is supposed to only contain subcategories that somehow relate to the concept of Past (like Memory and History) and/or to clarify in the cat description and cat title if possible that this is about #2 & #3, but not #1. And Sbb1413 we should not invent our own definition of what history is, the things here are not history, that's just one subcat. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Videos of history. The Category:Past category should also be merged to the Category:History category. We generally don't maintain the distinction between past and history, and the Category:History category is used for anything related to the past. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A video about the origin of Earth for example simply is not a video of history. That the History category is not matching the established definition of History is a separate issue and not a good reason to merge files. The files could be merged into the cat:Past but they are not all videos of history. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know wht a video about the origin of Earth is not a video of history. In fact, Wikipedia describes the origin of Earth under the history of Earth. A history is basically a collection of "past events and their tracks or records", to quote Wikidata. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance because, to quote the ENWP article, it is the systematic study and documentation of the human past or because period of events before the invention of writing systems is considered prehistory. The origin of Earth is not history of humans since humans didn't exist at the time, it is pre-history. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary gives 19 definitions for "history." I'm pretty sure some would include the origin of the Earth, others wouldn't. I'm traveling now, so I don't have access to a physical copy, and my usual online access appears also not to be working (probably not accepting an out-of-country query), so I can't quote chapter and verse, but I would rely on their range of usages more than on a Wikipedia article.

FWIW, in the Wiktionary, definition 1 is "The aggregate of past events." - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay we could come back to this once you have access again. First it's not addressing what I stated above. Now when it comes to History e.g. merriam-webster has some definitions that specifies some time-span but all of them find it to be a chronological record of significant events but this e.g. an image of how Mars may have looked like in the past is neither an event nor a chronological record and the same issue exists with the other definitions. [One could argue whether a hypothetical actual real video of Mars from a million years ago would fit into "History", I'd be fine with moving such a file to there and it would be a "record", not a written but a visual recording. This is not the case here.] Prototyperspective (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pollard Opera Company

Is this in any way distinct from Category:Pollard's Lilliputian Opera Company (more recent, but linked into Wikidata, etc.)? Jmabel ! talk 05:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only came across this company recently, but they seem to refer to the same group. Given the name of the EN Wikipedia article, merging this category into the Lilliputian one seems appropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lisbon Metro stations

I believe that the current names of the subcategories of metro stations are not great, to conform better with other categories, I suggest renaming these as such, for example:

Alameda (Lisbon Metro)

or in Portuguese:

Alameda (Metropolitano de Lisboa)

Juwan (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a point. And they should be in English, so Alameda (Lisbon Metro) would be best. But:

It looks like there is variation of category names for metro stations world wide, even without the name of the city (for example Amsterdam and Athens), see subcategories of Category:Rapid transit stations by city. Should they all get the same category name structure?
I can live with Metro station Alameda (Lisboa) and the others, and it is a lot of work to change all 51 subcategories, would it be worth it?

JopkeB (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment basically I agree, I only ask for consistency. Let's find a common naming scheme. -- Blackcat 23:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS that apart, the correct name was "Stations of Lisbon metro" but Tm as usual moved it uncorrectly and without consent
PPSS Anyway, what ever is the scheme, that disambiguation "Lisboa" must go. In English the exonim is "Lisbon" and must be used that.

I agree; it’s worth the work. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuválkin: What do you mean: just the subcategories of this category or all subcategories and grandchildren of Category:Rapid transit stations by city as well? JopkeB (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but I’m certain that there is no reason to have the stations of the Lisbon Subway with their cats in Commons named in an unique way: They should follow the generic name system for other subway systems, whichever that may be. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again ping to Tuválkin, because of wrong spelling. --JopkeB (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What’s spelled wrong? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your official username is "Tuvalkin", and I pinged to "Tuválkin", which was not recognized. JopkeB (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Juwan (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JnpoJuwan: What exactly is the conclusion of this discussion and what did you do/change/implement ("Done")? JopkeB (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I did not specify. as there has not been any oppositions for 3 months, I have completed my proposal and updated the all station categories. Juwan (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04

Conclusions so far + questions

Navigation menu

Search