Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in March 2022.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/03.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2022-03.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Commodores

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Commodores.

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:George Ho) rational: this category to be moved to category:Commodores (R&B band), because: "Must be disambiguated. Photos previously categorized incorrectly". Date: 2022-01-28

I also want to add that en:Commodores is reserved to this band, but en:Commodore is a DAB. In Commons, category:Commodore is a redirect Estopedist1 (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steam locomotives of RENFE

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/09/Category:RENFE Class 140-2053 to 2067.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Rail vehicles of Renfe.

Problematic (?) and old (over 3 weeks) requested moves:
Nominator (user:Iain Bell) is requesting to bulk move many of RENFE categories, and most of the cases the rational is "Show history of this locomotive" or "More precision in description". Any objections here? Affected RENFE categories are:

  1. Category:RENFE 240-2135 to be moved to Category:MZA 1155 → RENFE 240-2135
  2. Category:RENFE Class 040-2271 to 2285 to be moved to Category:MZA 547 to 561 → RENFE 040-2271 to 040-2285
  3. Category:RENFE Class 141-2001 to 2052 to be moved to Category:Category:Norte 4501 to 4555 → RENFE 141-2001 to 141-2052
  4. Category:RENFE Class 151 F to be moved to Category:RENFE 151F-3101 to 151F-3122
  5. Category:RENFE Class 230-2075 to 2134 to be moved to Category:Norte 1980 to 1989, 3101 to 3150 → RENFE 230-2075 to 230-2134
  6. Category:RENFE Class 230-4001 to 4030 to be moved to Category:MZA 651 to 680 → RENFE 230-4001 to 230-4030
  7. Category:RENFE Class 240-2081 to 2200 to be moved to Category:MZA 1101 to 1220 → RENFE 240-2081 to 240-2200
  8. Category:RENFE Class 240-2241 to 2315 and 240-2336 to 2425 to be moved to Category:MZA 1400 to 1565 → RENFE 240-2241 to 240-2315, 240-2336 to 240-2425
  9. Category:RENFE Class 240-4001 to 4045 to be moved to Category:Norte 4001 to 4045 → RENFE 240-4001 to 240-4045
  10. Category:RENFE Class 241-2001 to 2095 to be moved to Category:MZA 1701 to 1795 → RENFE 241-2001 to 241-2095
  11. Category:RENFE Class 241-4001 to 4056 to be moved to Category:Norte 4601 to 4656 → RENFE 241-4001 to 241-4056
  12. Category:RENFE Class 242 F to be moved to Category:RENFE 242F-2001 to 242F-2010

additions

  1. Category:RENFE Class 462 F to be moved to Category:Central of Aragon 101 to 106 → RENFE 462F-0401 to 462F-0406
  2. Category:RENFE Class 141 F to be moved to Category:RENFE 141F-2201 to 141F-2417

Estopedist1 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

addition

  1. Category:RENFE Class 060 to be moved to Category:Central de Aragón 51 to 54 → RENFE 060-4011 to 060-4014 #rationale: More precise description - there were three classes of 0-6-6-0 locomotives

--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Hi @Estopedist1: If you don't mind, first I'd like Iain Bell to make a statement about this massive move. In principle I am not opposed to the moves, but it seems excessive to me to create kilometric categories such as Category:MZA 1400 to 1565 → RENFE 240-2241 to 240-2315, 240-2336 to 240-2425. CFA1877 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment These locomotives have multiple identities – should their post-nationalisation identity overrule all others? I don't think so. Most of these categories are also in categories for their pre-nationalisation identities (see Category:Steam locomotives of Ferrocarriles de Madrid a Zaragoza y Alicante and Category:Steam locomotives of Compañía de los caminos de hierro del Norte), where their RENFE-only number doesn't make sense. In addition the word "Class" is unnecessary when the number-block is specified. In the above list, numbers 4 and 12 need expanding, and Addition number 2 is ambiguous – there were two classes of oil-fired 2-8-2 locomotives, and another one that was coal fired.

There are precidents for this type of naming scheme – see Category:London and North Eastern Railway steam locomotives and Category:Steam locomotives of the Compagnie des chemins de fer de Paris à Lyon et à la Méditerranée. Hope this helps. — Iain Bell (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You say that "in addition the word "Class" is unnecessary when the number-block is specified." It seems somewhat acceptable to me, a shorter version of the category name. Nevertheless, you quote the LNER category as an example, in which the term "Class" appears. That makes me confused.
You propose to eliminate the term "class" from these categories, Iain, but you would have to do that with other RENFE categories ¿right? Like this one or this another one, for example. In which case it would seem to me that the transfer is incomplete and would not make sense. There are many categories that have not been "touched". There are many categories that have not been touched. If the change is made as currently proposed, it would seem to me that the transfer is incomplete and would not make sense.
Lastly...in general, the argument for the transfer seems vague to me, even if it has a basis in truth. I'm still not convinced. You may be right, Iain, but the truth is that right now most of the graphic material available in Commons refers to the stage of these locomotives under RENFE. CFA1877 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments from Egypt and Ethiopia to the drawings of the kings of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm IV to these countries sent by his Majesty and ausgefuhrten in the years 1842-1845

[edit]

This category should be merged with category:Lepsius-Projekt and category:Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien (the content and scope of the three categories overlap entirely). The resulting merged category should be the latter of the three listed above, which is the actual common name of the book, per its Wikipedia article Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art Jarka-Podbořany

[edit]

Unsystematical user category, not created by the uploader. ŠJů (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů: parent category is Category:Files by Art Jarka. When renaming the category in question, I am not sure, do we try to be in line with user's parent category (acceptable name per our policy) or renaming something like Category:Files of Podbořany by Art Jarka Estopedist1 (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Negative stereotypes of Black people in art

[edit]

Rename Category:Anti-Blackness in art to match parent. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the relevant parent category is clearly Category:Anti-Blackness. Have you actually looked at Category:Black people in art and how sparse it is? Its parent, Category:Black people, is a disambiguation page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably others. Category:African American history contains some that could go into one of these cats. I agree it's confusing.Is there a way to clear this up? Krok6kola (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: The first two are irrelevant, since racism extends to a variety of skin colours. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: How about Category:Anti-black racism? Example from Dictionary.com: "In Chicago, for instance, anti-black riots were a regular part of public life." (There are other stereotypes in Category:Cartoons and illustrations connected to racism‎. As far as I'm concerned Category:Racism in art can be eliminated as indistinguishable from the other categories mentioned. Krok6kola (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: Seems like a discussion for Category:Anti-Blackness. Should we start a new discussion or try to flag that category for discussion here? -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I am pessimistic about a solution. "Anti-Blackness" is rather general, in that it could refer to not liking the color black in other things, not just people. And to capitalize "Black" makes it sound like there is such a thing as a "black race" when "race" is just a construct. (But perhaps I am just feeling tired at the moment.) Krok6kola (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: I understand your concerns, and so Category:Anti-black racism might be a better alternative to Category:Anti-Blackness, but that's true regardless of the art component. I also see your concern about capitalization, but words are sometimes capitalized to emphasize that they're constructs rather than subjects that exist in nature. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: That is better, maybe the best. Which of the many other categories would go under it? And some of those other categories overlap. Plus there are negative stereotypes of others in those categories (e.g. Anti-Russian, Anti-Japanese, Anti-Germany, etc.) Krok6kola (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HERE. Black in Rembrandt's Time

[edit]

Unclear category purpose. Probably delete? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogue and exhibition Rembrandthuis and virtual session Black in Rembrandt’s Time: Dutch and American Perspectivesat the Museum of Fine Arts San Francisco
 Keep--Oursana (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Themightyquill: Is this answer satisfactory to close this CfD? Josh (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--Oursana (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A rename to Category:Black in Rembrandt’s Time: Dutch and American Perspective (exhibition) would be clearer, no?
If you wish an addition, but there is wikidata infobox for. But please do not change the correct cat cat nameOursana (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:"*" for "×"

[edit]

substituting * asterisk for multiplication sign is a common practice. i dont think it's a spelling mistake. and it's such a common practice that i dont see why a category should be created just to collect such images. like, do you create a category of "i for ï" and then put all the occurrences of "naive" inside? RZuo (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinions. They are all wrong. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i'll happily paraphrase for user:tuvalkin:
  1. Tuválkin thinks substituting * asterisk for multiplication sign is an uncommon practice.
  2. Tuválkin thinks an alternative notation of the multiplication sign is a "spelling mistake".
  3. Tuválkin will create a category of "i for ï" and then put all the occurrences of "naive" inside.
by definition spelling refers to how a word is written with letters. neither the asterisk nor the multiplication sign is a word or a letter. i wonder how tuvalkin deduces the correctness of the non-existent spelling issues involving these symbols. RZuo (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still wrong and now mischarecterizing my own positions, not just parading your own. You better stop now: I am here and what I think can be readily asked from me, no need for your smarmy exegesis. Concerning your specific quips:
  1. Never said it’s uncommon.
  2. Good point (although poorly expressed): I recategorized this upwards from Spelling mistakes to Typographic errors.
  3. I don’t care for the umptieth case of French words misspelled by English speakers; you create that category and populate it, if you think it’s worthy.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
good boy, admitting poorly expressed words hold more truth than your stuff.--RZuo (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still writing in no-caps, hm? And at the same time refering to other’s supposed «obsessions» (shaking my head). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you seem to dislike upper case, even at the start of sentences, in a Latin script context. What did you say about common practice? Are you just pulling my leg, or everybody else’s, too? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no integrity, no good boy: why is user:tuvalkin now so sneaky, trying so hard to forge the timestamp and hide the fact that s/he started hostility on this cfd, by posting this personal attack and going off topic: special:diff/643930383? RZuo (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, both of you: keep civil. The writing style of somebody is not relevant for whether a category should be kept, deleted or renamed. –LPfi (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: Somebody’s writing style of is not directly relevant to most CfDs and even most discussions here, I agree. On the other hand one who choses to impose on everybody else such a peculiarity as this user does is borderline trolling. (If instead of no-caps RZuo’s «obsession», to reuse a word from this discussion, were all-caps instead, then it would be considered clearly trolling.) And since writing style quirks, being harmless or trollish, borderline or not, affect any and all discussions, this is orthogonally relevant here too.
Furthermore, in discussions concerning typhography oddities such as this one, one’s peculiar writing style cannot be ignored. How can others take serioulsy RZuo’s opinion that using "x" for "×" doesn’t warrant specific categorization when RZuo’s own writing adheres to another such oddity?
By the way, no-caps itself deserves to be categorized as such, with Category:E. E. Cummings being a subcat candidate — see also “en:Letter case#All_lowercase”. I will not create a category for it at this time, though, as it would be seen as a provocation against RZuo in the context of this dicussion. That’s me being civil.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that RZuos writing style makes their opinions on typography irrelevant. However, category discussions are not about somebodies writing style, so any points he rises (or otherwise come to mind) should be met seriously. And for borderline trolling: trolls should be ignored. Let's see what substance there is and discuss that. LPfi (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My hostility started on March 28th at 13:27, when I said all RZuo’s o.p. points are wrong, meaning that this whole CfD is a pointless waste of everybody’s time. I was a bit too blunt, and would normally regret it, but RZuo’s reaction seems to confirm my first impression. So, no, I’m not attempting to forge anything: Just wanted to keep the threading here according to common practice, undoing RZuo’s reversion in a way that doesn’t constitute edit warring, by means of reinserting a further comment of mine later on. As for personal attacks, RZuo made enough of them against me in this CfD to be at AN/U if I were to be bothered with such nonsense; what bugs me, though, is that RZuo is wrong, not that RZuo is impolite or unpleasant. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the category says little to me. Could you please add a description to the category page, so that also I understand what it is about. –LPfi (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: I just noticed this edit, thanks for that — I had misunderstood your question as a rhetorical quip as it seemed to refer to me ("namer", instead of "name") and was originally nested as a follow-up to RZuo’s hostile reply. I will add the requested clarification. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

normally for this kind of cats that probably only suit the creators' own obsession, i'd first communicate with them on their user talk pages, but i know from past observations that nothing constructive would come out of this user. see special:diff/643970340, this user disregarded a legitimate appeal for a simple explanation. more than a week after LPfi asked, the category page still has nothing useful at all.--RZuo (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this is about «past observations». I’ll have to look up my past interactions with this user to see what is meant here, but this seems to be an unabashed admission of COM:POINTiness. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nothing above is worth spending your time reading.--RZuo (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for other users: i'd like to reiterate the purpose of this cfd--is it necessary to have a category for "usage of asterisk as multiplication sign"? you can ignore the quibble and mockery above.--RZuo (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly necessary. The question is whether there are use cases. I assume there are, but a few examples would be nice to have. Regarding the scope of the category:
"This category is meant to gather examples of the common practice of representing the multiplication sign as an asterisk especially in cases where there is no technical justification for that choice — namely anything later than about 1995 and not related to coding."
It seems the category isn't meant to be exhaustive. That is uncommon for Commons categories. Would perhaps a gallery suit the purpose better? The category can be flooded with examples of a single kind (a problem for Commons categories in general, but especially here, where there is no reason to be able to find all of the files).
I think there indeed may be technical reasons for avoiding the multiplication sign in non-coding context even today. I still tend to avoid the multiplication sign in informal context, such as in plain-text e-mail, while taking notes and in rough drafting of articles. I don't see that as a typographical error. A one-byte ASCII-compatible encoding can be managed even in situations where few tools are available. The multiplication sign is not on the keyboard of my smartphone, and my impression is that the Finnish multilingual keyboard layout is quite alone with providing easy access to it (alt-gr x). I assume there are compose sequences for it, but Windows does not have a compose key.
The cut-off year of 1995 is odd, as at that time ISO-8859 was the dominating standard in the West, while other encodings were dominating in Russia and much of Asia. Anything beyond ASCII was problematic in environments where several scripts were used. When did Unicode become standard in Windows and Unix? Add half a dozen years to cater for old systems. Now any mainstream system supports Unicode, but there are still legacy systems around, which may be a concern for some.
–LPfi (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: The explanation is tentative (operational words: "about" and "especially") and this cat, as any other, is rather defined (or inferred/implied) by its name and parent cats. As for 1995 it is arbitrary and porous: I chose it because that’s when Windows first offered some measure of Unicode support. As for ISO-8859, I remember it well enough to know that some of it most popular flavours (such as Latin-1 and Latin-15) did include "×" (I just checked: they all did, at 0xD8, directly preceding Unicode’s U+00D8), so I’m not sure what the matter is even being discussed here. What about keyboard coverage? Does it even make sense in a world of virtual keybords (you even mentiond a smartphone — and I’m sure you do not mean a Blackberry), infinitely interchangeable and modifiable? In a world where millions of emojis are being transmitted every second, do we worry whether "×" is too fancy? Is anyone staying there’s not media files in Commons to populate this category, when in a few minutes of unrelated work 4 were found? (That’s why I thought this category was a good idea in the first place.) I really fail to see the point of this discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for Latin-1: I thought I checked, but somehow missed it. Anyway, I didn't know it was there at the time. About keyboards: few users modify their keyboard layouts, which means that if a character cannot be found on default keyboards, people have to resort to the ALT-keypad codes or menu browsing. In most organisations this would mean that for productivity and consistency, people would be recommended to just use "*" or whatever, and typesetters would replace it with "·" or "×" where good typography is wanted. Do default Windows keyboards even today have the key (except in Finland, where it is on the national standard keyboard)? I don't know how to modify my smartphone's virtual keyboard, I assume I at the very least would have to enable root access, and either do a mad search in the file tree to find the tables, or download and study the source code. Now, the problem about the category isn't whether there are example files, but whether there is a use case. I can imagine some, but I am not sure a category is needed. Is there a community using the categories in the tree, or are people just putting things there? I would very much like some rationale in Category:Typographic errors, which would perhaps cover also this one. –LPfi (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to say other than that critique can be made about each and any category. We’d be spending more time justifying their mere existence to each other than actually populating them: Not a game I’d like to play.
There’s a lot of categories I don’t think should even exist, or at least for which I have no use for. I mostly leave them alone, just don’t make populating them a priority of mine. Should I initiate CfDs for them all instead? (RhQ)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3.1 kilometers tunnels

[edit]

This and all the many similarly named categories should be renamed to avoid the broken English (adjective noun in plural), at least. I’d suggest a simpler schema: "Category:n.m km tunnels". However, since these are many affected categories and there’s at least one affected template ({{Tunnels by length}}), a discussion is advisable. Maybe this whole tree could be instead renamed to match what’s done about bridges. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panoramic views of Kyiv

[edit]
see also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Panorama buildings and Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Panoramics by country

Is there a reason we need both Category:Panoramic views of Kyiv and Category:Panoramics in Kyiv? If there is, by all means keep both. Geo Swan (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: There is no difference between panoramic views, panoramics, and panoramas. Category:Panoramic views and Category:Panoramics are both redirects to Category:Panoramas, thus:

Merge Category:Panoramic views of Kyiv into Category:Panoramas of Kyiv

  1. Rename Category:Panoramics in Kyiv to Category:Panoramas in Kyiv
These may still warrant merging, but there is a potential difference between 'of' and 'in'. I suppose any panorama depicting Kyiv is 'of Kyiv' and a subset of those which are specifically taken within Kyiv's borders are 'in Kyiv'. Anyway, I can say for sure that 'panoramas' should be used in place of the other terms regardless of whether these remain separate or are merged. Josh (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Race and Ethnicity by Eric Fischer (2010 Census data)

[edit]

The author appears to now be known by a different name (Erica Fischer) as evident in the Flickr account linked in the summaries of the constituent images. That account in turn links to other social media that confirm the author no longer goes by "Eric Fischer", which appears to be a deadname. Fischer is not a public figure, so there is no compelling rationale to retain her previously used name. The category (and related ones) should be moved, and the individual files updated. Opening this discussion out of an abundance of caution as I am unfamiliar with relevant norms/operating procedures in Commons. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/03&oldid=897309739"