Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05

< Commons:Categories for discussion | 2020
This page is for open CFD discussions started in May 2020.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/05.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2020-05.
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:Chapelle Saint-Cyr et Sainte-Julite (Semur-en-Auxois)

edit
 See also: Category talk:Chapelle Saint-Cyr et Sainte-Julite (Semur-en-Auxois).

Problematic and old (over 3 weeks) requested move:
Nominator's (user:Daniel VILLAFRUELA) rational: this category to be moved to category:Chapelle Saint-Cyr et Sainte-Julitte, collégiale de Semur-en-Auxois, because: "comme sur fr:Julitte de Tarse". Date: 2020-03-29 -- Estopedist1 (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could any French users help, eg @Yann, VIGNERON, and Thibaut120094: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name should be in English, so it is better to rename it to "Saint-Cyr and Sainte-Julite chapel (Semur-en-Auxois)". Yann (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kadıköy (neighbourhood)

edit

There is no neighbourhood with this name in Kadıköy. Please delete this and do not invent things that do not exist. E4024 (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can see the names of the 21 neighbourhoods (mahalle) of Kadıköy, a district of Istanbul. Can you see any "Kadıköy" among them? I cannot. --E4024 (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all neighbourhoods are identical to a Mahalle. The Category:Kadıköy (neighbourhood) relates to the historical center of the modern day borough, which spans several Mahalles in the western part of the borough. --MB-one (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been to Germany countless times (I guess more than a hundred visits) but never tried to impose my criteria on any human settlement there. If Commons is trying to help an encyclopedia project it has to be systematic. Kadıköy has 21 mahalles (neighbourhoods) and if we are not going to impose Orientalism (i.e. the Westerner knows more than the local) to whereever we wish then we will follow the official nomenclature. By the way Kadıköy also has places like İskele, Meydan ("Kadıköy Meydanı" for people who are not "Kadıköylü"), Altıyol, Bahariye, Çarşı, moving a bit away from the center-center Çukurbostan, Yoğurtçu, Mühürdar... Have you ever heard of "Küçük Moda"? Maybe not many people did so, but it exists. In the future they all will receive the attention they deserve, without arbitrary classification. IMHO you should avoid stirring a soup you know little. (BTW I imagined a few such problems years ago when I first saw a tourist in Kadıköy but never thought they would dare teach us our city... Note: I am one of those people who say "I am going to Istanbul" when we cross the Strait, something that I have not done since many years; my last 15-20 stays in Kadıköy began and ended there except whenever I had to take a plane out of Sabiha Gökçen. Notice that Pendik may also be called Kadıköy. :) --E4024 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Moda is a great example. Because that is also a neighbourhood, that is not identical to Mahalle. --MB-one (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archbishops of the Archdiocese of Armagh

edit

Are the Catholic Archdiocese of Armagh and the Diocese of Armagh (Church of Ireland) two different things? If so, this should be a disambiguation category. Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Following the Reformation, there were parallel successions to the see in the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: What is parallel succession? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
During the Reformation the Pope appointed Archbishops and the King of England apointed Archbishops in defiance of the Pope. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native Americans of Alaska

edit

This appears to be yet another attempt to use the 50 U.S. states as venues to promote a one-size-fits-all categorization scheme. In this case, it's redundant to Category:Alaska Natives, a commonly-accepted term for the topic and a category which existed for over a decade by the time this category was created. There are some indigenous people in Alaska who originate from outside the state, mostly commonly Navajo and Sioux, but they're not prevalent enough to warrant the additional level of categorization. RadioKAOS (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This appears to be yet another attempt to use the 50 U.S. states as venues to [standardize category names to facilitate users finding the media for which they are searching, while recognizing that promote a one-size-fits-all categorization scheme [does not work in all situations]."
Prior to the creation of this category, Alaska Natives was listed as a subcategory of Native American tribes of the United States by state – a parent category in which is was included for "over a decade". However, "Alaska Natives" is not a tribe, so the Alaska Natives was elevated to the yet-to-be-created Native Americans of Alaska category.
There is no argument that Alaska Natives is "a commonly-accepted term for the topic and a category which existed for over a decade", which is why it was not deleted in favor of this category. Notwithstanding, the argument that since something has always been so for a long time means that it cannot be improved upon is contrary to the goals of Wikimedia.
While the native people of the administrative area now known as the State of Alaska, are often not traditionally known as "Native Americans", they are included in that category for two main reasons:
1) They are native to what is now part of the United States (America) and
2) The United States Census Bureau defines "Native Americans" to include "Alaska Natives".
It is furthermore acknowledged there does exist a certain level of redundancy (though, as indicated in the original comment, not entirely so), the best balance is to change this category to a category redirect to the Alaska Natives category and include the navigation template on the Alaska Natives category). That way it will still show up in relevant searches, but reduce the redundancy. (In the future the might be reversed, if and when there is sufficient media to "warrant the additional level of categorization".) An Errant Knight (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The prior suggestion is not a valid option either because this category also contains the subcategory "Native American tribes in Alaska". An Errant Knight (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Seems that   keep. Has subcategories and nested well into Category:Native Americans in the United States by state.--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PDF files

edit

@Leonel Sohns: almost all subcategories to be renamed to "PDF by Foo" instead of "PDF files by Foo". Same system already used in category:SVG files Estopedist1 (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also we should follow the word order: category:Business PDF files is wrong, should be "category:PDF business"--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"PDF by subject" is perhaps consistent with the SVG scheme, but I find it to be grammatically awkward. I would suggest "PDFs by subject". Category:PDF business is even more awkward; Category:Business PDFs or another option would be better. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: the word order "PDF Foo" (eg "PDF geography") is easy to remember and to use. And already systematically used in SVG system, see category:SVG by subject. Your comments are against SVG, but it is already discussed and agreed--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Was there a discussion, or is this just how it's always been? It would be a good idea to find and link any previous related discussion. The closest thing I could find was this discussion, in which the consensus seemed to be dissatisfaction with the current scheme, but users were unable to agree on an alternative. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: I also found this: Help:SVG#Category_naming_conventions--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete this category and all its subcategories. Categorisation by file type is unnessescary, Special:Search using "filetype:PDF" is totally sufficent. TheImaCow (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seals of the Government of Washington (state)

edit

Can someone explain the intended relationship between this category and Category:State seals of Washington (state)? I think that one is intended for the (singular) State Seal, and this is intended for other seals of the government but (1) that hasn't been followed consistently and (2) if that is the intent, the parent-child relationship is backward. Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the intention of the category. But I have to disagree that the parent-child relationship is backwards. The state seal represents all sovereign authority of the state, whilst various governmental seals represent various sub-authorities. Fry1989 eh? 17:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not how our category system works. It isn't about power relationships: Category:State seals of Washington (state) is for the (singular) seal of the state, which is an instance of the (plural) seals represented by Category:Seals of the Government of Washington (state). - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages and municipalities in Slovakia by region

edit

I just created this category to group together the contained subcategories, but I think they should all be renamed "Populated places in X", along with district subcategories. Themightyquill (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: we have 85 categories named like <villages and municipalities>. Probably all of them are in Category:Villages and municipalities in Slovakia by region. So it seems to be an unique category tree in Commons Estopedist1 (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest redoing the category tree in the same way as it exists in the Czechia (Category:Villages in the Czech Republic by region). Both countries have similar history and they share same approach to the administrative division (districts, municipalities, villages). @ŠJů: could add more on this topic. — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Draceane: Just this Czech category tree is problematic and should not be followed. The Czech categories "villages" are really intended for "small municipalities that are not town nor city". However, there is a discrepancy with cs:Wikipedia, which distinguishes village categories from municipality categories. Distinguishing municipalities from individual villages (escpecially core villages of municipalities) is a task that is still ahead of us in the Commons.
As regards these Slovak "villages and municipalities" categories, they contain apparently all municipalities, including cities, but I'm not sure whether villages which have not their own self-government should be categorized there only through their municipality, or also directly. "Municipalities in Slovakia" would be more systematical category tree, to be consistent and avoid overcategorization – and the category "municipalities in…" can have its subcategories by type of the municipality, or can remain flat. "Populated places" is quite different concept than the administrative division. --ŠJů (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep this as Municipalities in Slovakia by region. I do not think we have or need to have categories for all the "populated places" and also "villages". These are unclear categories. Municipalities are official administrative units, clearly defined by the state.--Jetam2 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Municipalities in Slovakia by region should definitely be created, so no argument there. I should think "populated places" would be a good place to join municipalities and cities. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we divide this category to other subcategories? What would be the purpose? This way we have all populated places (with own administration) in the County/District, why should we divide it to cities and villages? Why should we include places without administration (majors should go under the village where they are located). I don't understand the problem, this categories are functioning well. If there is a problem in terminology, than it should be easy to solve (just renaming the categories, nothing else). Taz (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victims of Islamism

edit
 See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Victims of religion.

This should be moved to Category:Victims of Islamic terrorism, as a subcat of Category:Victims of terrorism; all victims are due to individual terrorist acts. There are no Moslem Hitlers or Stalins here to speak of "ideology". (Note that I do reject the words "Islam" and terrorism brought together, but against all rules of objectivity and political correctness, terrorists on the one hand and some politicians, some part of the press and some Wikipedians on the other have already brought them together and I can only protest this blasphemy.) BTW Category:Islamic terrorism is a subcat of Category:Religious persecution. Why should we make the categorization tree differently in the case of victims? E4024 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've misunderstood, I think Joshbaumgartner also proposed deletion of this category in the previous discussion (linked above). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did not misunderstand, I supported upmerging into Category:Victims of religious persecution, and still do. Josh (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024, Themightyquill, and Joshbaumgartner: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superheroes by name

edit
What's with this "and her [or his] cast" bit?

I was putting stuff into what I thought was a Wonder Woman supercat, for later subcatting.

It turns out Category:Wonder Woman redirects Category:Wonder Woman and her cast.

Maybe it's my ignorance, but I don't get this "and her cast" bit.

It turns out this is the case for these too:

Category:Superman redirects to Category:Superman and his cast
Category:Batman redirects to Category:Batman and his cast
Category:Spiderman redirects to Category:Spider-Man and his cast
Category:Captain America redirects to Category:Captain America and his cast
Category:Iron Man redirects to Category:Iron Man and his cast
Category:Thor (Marvel Comics) redirects to Category:Thor (Marvel Comics) and his cast

If someone has a drawing, a pic of someone in a costume, or the like, of a superhero, why not put into a general superhero cat—like the first of each of these couplings, likely for latter subcatting?

Have Category:Superman, Category:Batman, Category:Spiderman, and Category:Thor (Marvel Comics) as the main cats, then subcat into things, including whatever movies and TV series, and maybe subcats of other media too—plays, indie movies, videos, et al, and then have "and her/his cast" cats for whatever characters, actors, producers, directors, financiers, soundtrack musicians, etc.

DMBFFF (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMBFFF: seems to be strange. Redirects were done by one anonym, user:Torsch and user:Nightscream--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The general cat name is intended to convey that it is for material pertaining not only to the character in question, but also its supporting cast, such as supporting characters, closely associated villains, etc. This way Thor on his cast, for example is the category in which you'd also put material on Loki, Sif, Balder, Heimdal, Jane Foster, the Absorbing Man, etc. Nightscream (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Common years by ending day of week

edit

This request is for the metacategories Category:Common years by ending day of week and Category:Leap years by ending day of week. Categories like these would be expected to have subcategories based on the day of the week that years end on. However, they instead contain subcategories based on the day of the week that years start on. So you have a structure like this:

I understand that knowing the type (common or leap) and starting day of a year will tell you the ending day. However, it doesn't make sense to me to have categories for starting day in a metacategory for ending days. I had removed the subcategories and requested deletion, but this was contested so I am bringing it to CFD. Auntof6 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The member subcategories are not just "Common years starting on Monday", they also mean "ending on Monday" (note that for now they only contain Gregorian years even if this is not indicated in their current titles).
And note that "common" and "leap" years are distinguished. There are other categories for other non-Gregorian years.
Such deletion just forbids managing other contents that will be added in each of them. For now these Gregorian members clearly all have clear starting *and* ending days, and removing these members agressively without thinking about it would make no-sense. You are just fooled by the current names of subcategoies that are abbreviated (but the names in Wikidata, shown in infoboxes) give additional precision. But it you still don't understand that, I'll have to rename members so they they explicitly indicate they are "Gregorian" years, and that they indicate BOTH the starting and ending days (and not just the starting day).
All these years have precise definition in year types They all follow the arithmetic rule (see Dominical letter).
They are complete at least for the Gregorian calendar (sorting dates for other calendars still in use today, not just historically, is still needed as there are lot of confusion of dates in Commons where different calendar systems are implied but mixed together: having clear weekdays allow asserting that these dates are correct, within their kwown precision where the precision is relevant). verdy_p (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What if there were another level of category in between? The structure could look like this:
  • <categories for common years ending on the other days of the week>
  • any other needed categories
  • <categories for leap years ending on other days of the week>
  • any other needed categories
With this structure, the contents of the metacategories would not appear to be mismatched. The issue is that with a metacategory, the subcats should reference the same sort criterion as the metacat itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's another solution (and your schema does not work: where to you place the categories for each year number?): we could just rename the 14 subcategories so that they explicitly indicate both the starting and ending weekday (just as they are named in Wikidata, whose label is already shown in the infobox and makes this explicit, even if this is not explicit but just implied by the local subcategory names). This would avoids categorizing every year in both
(but a double categorization is also possible for each year, taking also into account if they are common or leap, one categorization by starting weekday, the other by ending weekday, this would allow adding entries for other calendars, notably the Julian calendar, possibly others like the Swedish calendar, or the Republican Roman calendar).
In all cases, there's no need to delete the categories by ending weekday, they are still relevant with their existing members (even if they are renamed explicitly).
You are just confused by the local subcategory names (the 14 subcategories were created and named initially by another user without considering this obvious fact). The 14 categories are for the 14 year types existing in the Gregorian calendar, conventionally named G to A, or AG, GF, FE, ED, DC, CB, or BA (the same 14 dominical categories are used also in the Julian calendar, but they do not contain the same set of years and their internal dates are different: unqualified years numbers in categroies for this wiki are only valid for the Gregorian calendar, possibly proleptic). verdy_p (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Can anyone explain to me the purpose of categorizing years by their starting/ending day of the week? As a Wikidata property, sure, but on Commons I just don't see how this helps us categorize images or what kind of person would ever search for pictures related to years ending on a Tuesday. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They have never been intended to categorize categories for persons or events which are still sorted by year number. They only sort/group years on criterias that were already used (leap or common, starting or ending day of the week, and there are few categories (Calendars) that are related to them. These categories exist just like there are categories for decennials/centuries (millenia?). And they allow checking dates for any content (are the indicated day of the month or year number correct? Do they match the expected day of the week, which is one of the best, most stable indicator that the correct calendar was used: Julian, Gregorian or other? Days of the week, with a 7-day week, match across different calendars since several millenia and have always matched everywhere in the Christian era and for a few centuries before, including in the Hebrew calendar, one of the oldest calendars still in use today). Days of the week are really international, universal since long (except for short periods of history, like a few years in the French Republican calendar that used 10-day weeks; 8- or 9-day weeks were used in the very old Roman Republic whose calendar was completely different, but were most dates are hard to assert precisely today with a 1-day precision; the same is true for the earliest Chinese calendars using multiple eras whose start is not known precisely, with possible errors of 1 or several years, or lunar months). verdy_p (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominated categories appear to have been moved and the discussion templates removed. I am putting the templates back, and adding the renamed categories here because I think they also should be discussed. The renamed categories include:
These new category names seem even less helpful than the original ones, because when you know the day of the week that a year starts on and which type of year it is (leap or common), you can find the end day. I would ask User:Verdy p not to change the categories under discussion until the discussion is resolved. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the proposal was to remove the ending categories, that's what I did, by merging them with the starting ones (which match and don't need any duplication). You proposed to suppress the ending categories, this is what I did by merging them to categories that were not discussed to be removed.
Those categories make sense as they explicitly indicate both the starting and ending day (clearly defined when we know they are either common or leap).
Years are still categorized only once (depending if they leap or common, and on the starting OR ending day that are correlated, so 14 categories instead of 28 and double categorization of years). (This scheme was the alternative that I spoke earlier above, there was no comment for 2 weeks after that, so the talk had stalled, we could advance on it). I had accepted your arguments (you wanted to suppress the ending categories, that's what I did with the merge). And this scheme requires only 14 categories (none of them overpopulated), not 28, and not 56 like what you proposed 2 weeks ago which would have required multiplying the categorization of every year: now each year is categorized only once for these criteria (and the criteria are the wellknown "dominical letters" of the year, used in many traditional computes). Note that there's still no classification by Easter dates (there are many computes for Easter, and this has consequences today on the determination of public holidays still varying a lot across places in the world, or depending on local religious traditions).
you said "These new category names seem even less helpful than the original ones" but the redirects with the shorter names are still there, so the older names can still be found (including for image import agents that process category redirects). Optionally we could change soft redirects by placing a hard redirect on top of the soft redirect box (to avoid one click on a second link).
But I've not "removed" any box: they were not present in the target categories since the beginning. You placed these only on the specific categories for ending days only which you criticized (and are effectively not needed: I agreed with you, so they are merged now like what you suggested). You've changed the nature of the debate (or your arguments are now self-contradicting their goals)...
Yes this is evident (for some, but not for the initiator of this talk, i.e. you Aunt6) that once you know the starting day and if the year if leap or not (in the Gregorian calendar only), you know the ending day. And I've seen incorrect categorization of images where this was confused). Wikidata also has the same classification of years by "dominical letters" (1 or 2; 1 for common years, 2 for leap years, and note that these categories are relevant only for Gregorian years, or proleptic Gregorian years, the starting year of adoption of the Gregorian calendar varying across countries and still not for all usages, it's not possible to sort non-Gregorian dates in the same categories by year, just named with a single number). Every information is preserved, less categories are used, names are relevant and avoid all confusions. verdy_p (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Handbooks and manuals

edit

What is the difference to Category:Manuals? Either up- or downmerge. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: it seems to be a container category which follows en:Category:Handbooks and manuals--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems these are being categorized by their titles, rather than their content. The same goes for Category:Instruction manuals, Category:Operation manuals, Category:User guides, Category:User's manuals, and Category:Owner's manuals, of which the difference is rarely if ever substantial. What about redirecting everything to Category:Instructional books or something equally generic, but not often used in titles? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Company nameplates

edit

This appears to be for en:Builder's plates (redirect: en:Name plaques) rather than en:Nameplates. Propose to re-name this to Category:Builder's plates and connect it to Builder's plate (Q4986418) to align it with Wikipedia and the whole Rail vehicle builder's plates subtree. El Grafo (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Grafo nameplate (Q2713450) seems to be quite the same as Builder's plate (Q4986418): better merge en:Nameplate into en:Name plaque. or disambig more precise into "builder's plate" (just a name sign) and "data plate" (de:Typenschild: core data of product, including name of manufacturer), linked to Category:Manufacturing tablets: always tidy en:wp, before you move commons-cats. this category "builder's plate" should be part of "manufacturing tablet" W!B: (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the category should be redirected to Category:Nameplates. Nameplates, builder's plates and company plates are three different things. But: The images should be moved to the suitable category. Most images in Category:Company nameplates are builder's plates. As first step I'll move the images to a suitable category. --XRay 💬 05:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit images (and categories) moved. IMO the deletion request is no longer necessary. --XRay 💬 05:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tongue soup

edit

AFAICS there are no other "tongue soups", therefore I marked Category:Beef tongue soup initiated by User:Melsj for deletion. (Indeed if there were soups -or images of them in Commons- of other sorts, then this cat had to be moved to "Tongue soups", i.e. plural. As I cannot see other animals' tongue soups around, this cat may stay as it is.) OTOH, if User:Melsj will introduce us with images of "tongue soups" from cuisines other than the Turkish, I will move this cat to "Category:Tongue soup in Turkey" or to something similar, as all the files in the cat belong to a soup made, served and pictured in Turkey. I am noting this, because the same user removed the "Category:Soups of Turkey" from the cat and added it to individual files when s/he moved the cat to "Beef tongue dishes", several weeks ago. Since then I have not seen new tongue soup bowls in Commons. I opened this discussion not to enter into unnecessary edit fights. No-one has to say anything. It is just to inform the community that if other "tongue soup" images are found, then we will move this cat, but no-one should, in the mean time remove the mother cat (Soups of Turkey) from here. That's all. Tyvm. E4024 (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Per Google search, I tend to vote   keep here. If keep, then to be moved to plural: Category:Tongue soups--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of Leeuwarden by photographer

edit

Overcategorization. The intersection here is tiny Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: we have massive category:Photographs by photographer by country. But do we have same category for cities? If not, then I support upmerging--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: en:Leeuwarden is definitely not a marginal city, but generally I support your view--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Captives held at Guantanamo Bay by nationality

edit

poorly developed. Adequacy? (We usually avoid nationality categories in Commons.) To be merged and to be deleted? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an important subject. They could be renamed "People of X held captive at Guantanamo Bay" - Themightyquill (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I agree. Eg cat "People of Afghanistan held captive at Guantanamo Bay" and upper cat "Captives held at Guantanamo Bay by country"--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrestling Isn't Wrestling

edit

Empty category; the category was created by User:Tm today, in relation to a deletion discussion for files in Category:Melodie Gore; the only categorized files in this category were not related to the movie at all. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per IMDB and english Wikipedia page, this actress was part of the cast and so this are proper edits. And Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melodie Gore at Man's Ruin party 1.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melodie Gore at Man's Ruin party 2.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melodie Gore at Man's Ruin party 3.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melodie Gore at Man's Ruin party 4.jpg, it is explained why this is an attempt by an Wikidata administrator to editorialize other project. Tm (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow it does not surprise me. Cannot we leave a DR as a simple deletion request without opening a crusade for or against? She has made a short appearance in that film, I understand. Delete the cat if centered around a porn actress who is not a star. At the beginning (of the deletion discussion) I thought she could be related to Al Gore. Does she really deserve so much time of several people? How has she earned that importance? Let us do useful work. --E4024 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like what i did by creating a proper category, like this one? Yes, our time could be better employed if there wasnt so many people with a moral agenda (not the case of MisterSynergy), attempts of editorialization of other projects (like MisterSynergy), hyper deletionists that love to destroy other peoples time and work, people attempting to make this and other projects their own space for power and political fights, etc. Then we could spend more time in proper work, instead of having to be constantly interrupted by people with an agenda. Tm (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Categories about films are acceptable. Enwiki has also article en:Wrestling Isn't Wrestling. Subcategories should be also OK, because maybe too early to do Category:Films by Max Landis.--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sygnalizatory SVG

edit
 See also: Category talk:Sygnalizatory SVG.

Either leave as a set or rename to an English titile. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Polish-language help is proably needed here--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help, @Odder, Masur, and Maire: ?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landscape (environment)

edit
 See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Landscape.

Unclear, although formulated difference to the subcategory Category:Landscapes (are landscapes on a single picture even countable?); also no such differentiation on other wikis. Suggest downmerging. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose This is a result of Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Landscape. Unlike other Wikis, Commons is a collection of media files that has some diverging requirements. "Are landscapes on a single picture even countable?" is a nonsense question; categories contain more than a single picture. See Commons:Categories#Category names: "Types or groups of objects or people should generally have names in plural form". Also, downmerge to what? --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: Like in many other categories, the files were miscategorized. They should have gone to some subcategory of Category:Landscapes. So there's nothing to learn from that, other than that there are lots of users who have no clue of categorization. The subcategories combined with the category descricption should indeed give you an idea of what this category is about. If people were unable to understand the difference between a type of image (→ landscape photography/ → Landscape paintings as in Category:Landscapes) and a topic in science as in Category:Landscape (environment), maybe the category description wasn't clear enough. I've updated the description and hope it's easier to understand now. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me examples of images that would fall in Category:Landscape (environment) but not Category:Landscapes? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you categories, you'll find the images there.
Just to name a few of the most obvious cases. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4, Sitacuisses, and King of Hearts: Should we keep this category and close this discussion? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. --Sitacuisses (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kristallnacht

edit

The name is euphemistic for the pogrom, better rename to "German November Pogrom" GPSLeo (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't fully understand why, but according to de:Novemberpogrome_1938#Bezeichnungen_nach_1945 the term is contentious in the German-speaking world. In the English-speaking world, it remains unquestionably the most commonly used term. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Kristallnacht" is trivializing, disrespectful and cynical. Nobody is using this term except for historical reasons. Please see de:Novemberpogrome_1938#Heutige_Bezeichnungen. Usual is (in german): Novemberpogrom(e), Pogrome 1938, … --XRay talk 09:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Kristall" refers to the many smashed windows of Jewish shops and apartments that littered the streets the morning after the pogroms, comparing the shards to cristallo glass. Kristallnacht, the "night of cristallo", may have become the commonly used term in English, but it definitely has a negative connotation in the German-speaking world. De728631 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Germany "Kristall" means "crystal", but also means "bright, shiny and grinded/polished glass". Expensive and precious wine glasses, goblets or chandeliers are called "Kristall". The cynical expression Kristallnacht was introduced by the Nazi propaganda. The meaning is, that the destruction of synagogues caused something positive. The shards of the smashed/shattered windows are referred to as "Kristall", like a chandelier. One more humilation for our murdered, and the today here living jewish citizens. Most german citizens (right wing people excluded) despise the expression "Kristallnacht" these days. The name of the category should be renamed to Novemberpogrome 1938, like the german wiki article. Dietrich Krieger (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which term would be the most appropriate? --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

edit

Please vote within 4 weeks (end December 11 2020).

  • Novemberpogrome 1938
  Support as de:Novemberpogrome 1938 --XRay 💬 09:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Support A plus is that the mentioning of the year makes it easier to classify. And a German naming is more appropriate than an English one in this context. --Хрюша ?? 10:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Support --Häferl (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Oppose should be more english like November pogroms 1938. --Migebert (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Oppose - should be more english like November pogroms 1938. --Methodios (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Categories are usually english, but in this case a german naming would be better. Kristallnacht was a german expression also and it was not a problem. Dietrich Krieger (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Oppose per Migebert and Methodios. --MB-one (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • November pogroms 1938
  Support --XRay 💬 19:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Support --MB-one (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Support --Methodios (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Support --Migebert (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...

The result: New category name is November pogroms 1938 (4 pro votes). So please rename the category and all depending with the same term. --XRay 💬 18:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of flags of France by department

edit

I don't know if we should keep this or not. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinnerLaserz: in the meantime, it is redirected to Category:Photographs of flags of France by department by region. Is this solution acceptable? Estopedist1 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National flags by fourth-level administrative country subdivision

edit

These subcategories are now considered unless. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the nominated category and its parent Category:Categories by fourth-level administrative country subdivision to be deleted. The content to be upmerged Estopedist1 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jacob Lachmann (entrepreneur)

edit

cant delete the WD item as long a this category exists 2.104.86.226 11:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This category has 3 files which might be enough to keep providing there is some sourcing? Note that you don't need to delete this first, you can just get the Wikidata item deleted since a Commons category doesn't guarantee notability, just remember to remove the Wikidata Infobox. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite hard to work towards a future where all of Wikimedia Commons' content is linked to structured data when you delete that structured data. You don't need to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines to be in Wikidata, there just has to be a meaningful connection to the Wikimedia projects. The fact that there is a category on Commons with pictures of this subject means it has that.--Vera (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale and 1Veertje: what is the situation here? Are we able to delete these three images? Seems to be not notable person. And after that Wikidata entry can be deleted?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate the 3 files for deletion, if they are deleted, this category can be deleted without discussion as empty. You could nominate the WD item for deletion now since a Commons category doesn't automatically make an item notable but it would probably be best to wait for the files and category here to be deleted first since there's then a lower chance someone will object to deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was interviewed about being an entrepreneur and invited to speak at the event these pictures are from. An even the pictures of which were used in the articles of more notable speakers. These pictures are under a free license and document the history of entrepreneurship in Denmark. It's very nice that we can document a marginal position in that history in a language independent way on wikidata. There's really no need to delete any of this. Vera (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish politicians

edit

No need for category based on ethnicity. There is no "Category:Catalan politicians" but we have Category:Politicians of Catalonia, a territory with legal, recognized borders. Likewise we also have Category:Politicians of Iraqi Kurdistan. These cats are for politicians from these two territories independently from their ethnicities. That is what we can only have here. This absurd cat was opened by a later blocked sockpuppetteer, BTW. E4024 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: because enwiki still use massively "by ethnicity" categories (eg en:Category:Catalan politicians) it seems to be difficult topic--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought here in Commons we were sovereign and not vassals of any WP; especially the one that you say, which is poisoned with nationalist bigotry. (I know many examples of my claim there.) --E4024 (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch pronunciation (wikibooks)

edit

The W should be capitalised, but I also think the title could rather be "Dutch pronunciation for Wikibooks". 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: current situation is unacceptable. Your solution is much better but maybe more consistent name is "Dutch pronunciation files for usage in Wikibooks". Actually, maybe category:Files for usage in Wikibooks should be renamed to "Files for Wikibooks"?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: @Estopedist1: I have no preference. I do think there needs to be a separate category from Dutch pronunciation, because these files are usually example phrases rather than individual words. This is why I created it in the first place. Jcwf (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcwf and Estopedist1: Let's be consistent with the current category system for now ("Dutch pronunciation files for usage in Wikibooks").

1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baranagore Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama High School annual festival by year

edit

This is nine pictures organized into two subcategories. Seems like complete overcategorization to me. Each of the categories (especially for the solo 2020 picture) can be placed within the individual pictures without those categories being overwhelmed. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: I agree that should be upmerged to category:Baranagore Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama High School annual festival. If much more files will come, we can revive this discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Julia Davis (American cinema)

edit

Delete. Not relevant to any Wikipedia entries. Noramo2021 (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Commons does not exist merely to service Wikipedia. It is a repository of freely-licensed media available to the whole world, present and future. However, it does appear that two people are sharing a category that should be split and disambiguated. I'll do it tomorrow, if I wake up. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep Per Rodhullandemu, also, there is an article on arzwiki. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Noramo2021, Rodhullandemu, and BMacZero: the name "American cinema" may be not good? What about "Julia Davis (journalist)". Also note that we haven't category:Julia Davis (vs en:Julia Davis)--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: For the person in this category, Category:Julia Davis (journalist) would be ideal. We normally disambiguate people with same name first by their occupation or role (e.g. Category:Julia Davis (journalist)); if that isn't enough, we add their nationality, e.g. Category:Julia Davis (American journalist), and if that still does not do the trick, by year of birth as in Category:Julia Davis (American journalist born 1977). If you think that's far-fetched, it happens a lot in the sporting world. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient latin scripts

edit

What is meant by "scripts"? Also, "Latin" should be capitalised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia portal icons, bitmap

edit

Category:SVG files: "In general, topical categorization by file type is not allowed. Exceptions are: SVG files and to some extent PDF files plus DJVU files, and MIDI files." The current category system differentiating between bitmap and vector icons should be replaced by one for such icons in general and one for the vector ones, where any vector icon category is a subcat of the corresponding non-file-format one. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: yes, bitmap-categories to be upmerged. Besides this category tree, we have also:
Category:Chess_bitmap_pieces
Category:FAA_Helicopter_Flying_Handbook_2012_(bitmap)
Category:GNU_license_icon_bitmaps
Category:Librsvg_bug_replaced_by_bitmap_graphic #maintenance cat?
Category:Vector_images_with_embedded_bitmap_graphics #redirect

--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavery in Islam

edit

Why slavery in Islam? All the African Americans in the huge continent of the Americas were brought there by "moslem" Spanish, Portuguese, British, Dutch etc slave hunters and traders? Why this honour for Islam but nothing for other religions? Why so much passion about Islam in the WMF projects? E4024 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery --Ashashyou (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User scripts

edit

Currently, the category seems to be designed for Commons user scripts. However, the topic is in no way exclusive to Commons and is already containing quite a few screenshots of scripts from other projects. Split the Commons ones down to a separate category? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: seems to be rational. But some problems can have with upper cat (compare enwiki en:category:Scripts and category:Scripts). One idea yet: possible upper cat: category:Commons tools)--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Category:Wikipedia scripts exists, too, so I guess it makes sense to create a similar category for Commons. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4 and Estopedist1: Category:Commons scripts already exists. I think the best solution is to move all the Commons related scripts and images to Category:Commons scripts, and the Wikipedia related script images to Category:Wikipedia scripts. Everything that doesn't have it's own project's script category can stay at Category:User scripts. Thoughts? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, though I guess this category should be recategorised after that. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though another issue that I just remembered is that there is a distinction between scripts and user scripts. There are two (main) types of scripts: user scripts and gadgets. So most of Category:Gadget scripts should probably be in Category:Commons gadget scripts. Category:Wikipedia gadget scripts and Category:Wikidata gadget scripts should probably be created also. Category:Commons user scripts should be created, and Category:Commons scripts should contain those two types of scripts plus any other scripts that are neither user scripts or gadgets.
Another thing is that a lot of scripts are not tied to a specific project. Maybe it would also be useful to create Category:Global user scripts, Category:Global gadget scripts and a Category:User scripts by project. This will probably require a lot of review and diffusion, so if you have any better suggestions please let me know. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violence between women

edit

The cat had 3 files. I took out two. No reason to make this gender-based categorization. I propose its deletion. E4024 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can also delete Category:Violence between men. I really do not see any use on opening these cats for 3-4 images. What will be the next step? Violence between two women and one man? Violence between LGBT individuals and women? Violence between two men and one women? Violence between adolescent girls? Violence between an adolescent girl and a woman, which can be easily categorized to Category:Violence between females or Category:Violence between female humans, but we will also have to open at least one of those two latter cats. --E4024 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep Sorry I accidently logged out while undoing your descategorization (I did hide my own IP afterwards). I don't see a problem here. Please don't empty categories before sending them to deletion. Even if you don't, "media consumers" may be interested in images depicting women fighting each other. Anyway, violence between women is apparently studied by people, this thing cannot be said of most of our gendered categories... And there are many wikipedia articles written about violence in a gender-based fashion. Strakhov (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And well, it may have three files, but as you are probably aware... Commons is a work-in-progress. Strakhov (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Some food for thought, please don't take this as an ad hominem, it's only intended to pose an example on gender categories: A while ago you uploaded an image and included "Category:Women eating". How is there more "reason to make that gender-based categorization" with such concept than with "violence between women" or "between men"? Why do you think media consumers may have interest in finding files depicting women or men while eating but not while fighting between them or so? Is it "eating" a more gender-based concept? And the slippery slope argument: "What will be the next step? Category:Two men and one woman eating? Category:Female humans eating"? Strakhov (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First things first: I confess I have a "list of users to avoid interaction" and the initiator of this cat happened to be one of the few people on top of the list. I do not have the habit to look at who has done something before proposing it for deletion or smt else. It would not be politically correct. Now it will not be politically correct to avoid discussion either. So I will make an exception to my effort of trying to stay away from some users. There were three files in the cat before I decided to open this discussion. In one of them, File:Women at Fort Bliss strike back, learn to fight 120818-A-WO769-429.jpg we see two female soldiers "boxing". When I removed the cat in question I replaced it with Category:Female boxers. Maybe the two women in the image are not even amateur boxers, but they are "boxing". They do this as part of their military training. They have no violent behaviour at all. And I was reverted! (Let us see now if the person who reverted me will place all boxers, male or female, under violence cats...) The other file I removed from this cat is File:"Two women". Augsburg, Martin Engelbrecht, 1740 - 1750 circa.jpg, a painting. In the image, two women are making a "duel". Therefore I replaced the cat we are discussing with Category:Duels. It was also reverted. When I saw those reverts, with the reverting user's name erased, what I simply thought (with all my frankness) was this: It must be the work of some vandal who got mad at me because within the same day I got deleted Category:Videos of urinating women or something similar. I imagined what a peculiar user name they must have used in those edits that an admin erased the user name... No, it was not the case. These disruptive edits were made by an admin! Two women making a "duel" with pistols at hand was reverted from Category:Duels and two women "boxing" were reverted from the Category:Female boxers. I'm stunned! Look, if you are not good at categorizing you may keep away from doing that until you gain experience. Being an admin does not mean one knows everything and in this case it is crystal clear. Look at the Category:Violence between men that also you opened. Did you not see that your Category:Men was replaced with Category:Men by setting? That happened a year ago. Then you had to begin considering if you made good cats and also make some correction to the -IMHO unnecessary- female similar (the one that we are discussing here). You did not. In this discussion you remind us that "other things exist". Yes, I made the horrible mistake of adding something to Category:Women eating, a couple of years ago, a category which was opened five years before I added anything there and is full of similar images. "Other things exist", of course, but a very unlucky comparison by you, sorry. This discussion is finished for me as regards the famous cat. However, as you opened the door to "other things exist" let me tell you something also (not only one of us will go against that OTHERSTUFFEXIST thingy, I also must be given an opportunity to do that): Your wrong reverts of my correct edits to those two files, and hastily, even forgetting that you were unlogged, show that you exhibit sentimental overreactions. People who have such outbursts (myself included) should not be admins here. Admins must only come from among cold-blooded users. If I were in your place, I would abandon that status. Admin Strakhov, resign.

That's all I have to say about this discussion. For me it can be closed. --E4024 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do not know where this animosity comes from. Since you apparently missed the main point and heavily digressed, talking about my supposed temperament and ability creating cats:
1) Gender in violence is a matter of study. Categorising media about humans according to the gender depicted is usual routine. The category can just only grow.
If you think I should abandon the admin bit, feel free to propose that in the proper venue. Honestly, I never thought to hold on too much to that function, but resigning because I undid two editions (?) it may be a little much. Be well. Strakhov (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrt to the duelling image, Category:Duels is, at this moment, a subcat of Category:Violence through Category:Fights (Fighting > Violence), Category:Combat (Violence) and Category:Single combat (Combat > Violence). If you think people shooting each other to the death is not a violent thing, we can happily agree to disagree. I readded "Duels", by the way, sorry for removing that when undoing your edition.
  • Wrt to the boxing image, where I indeed kept your addition "Female boxers" (not the same as "Female boxers boxing", BTW) while undoing your edition, I guess it is more up-for-debate the 'violence' bit and if every "women fighting each other" should be categorised as "Violence between women". Anyway, "Fighting" is a direct subcategory of "Violence" after all, and those two women are indeed fighting each other.
Point is I'm pretty sure these three are not the only pictures in Commons depicting this topic. As already said "work-in-progress". Cheers. Strakhov (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now there are 9 images, not 3. To be honest, I think the category can be renamed to "Category:Women fighting women". Strakhov (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. In the meantime, the nominated category is renamed to Category:Women fighting women--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/05&oldid=928374951"