Category:Sleighs

The category description says "means basically the same thing as Category:Sleds" So why have two categories? If we want a category for animal-powered sleighs (to include horse drawn and reindeer drawn), let's create Category:Animal-powered sleighs or Category:Animal-drawn sleighs. Themightyquill (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a sled sits directly on the ground and is powered by either gravity (if you're sliding downhill on it) or human power (if you're dragging it on the ground, such as to transport objects). A sleigh is raised to allow for a runner assembly and is pulled by animals -- think carriages with runners instead of wheels. Is the usage different in different places? On another note, I saw a couple of things in the redlinked category Category:Sledges, so I recategorized them. When this discussion is resolved, we might want to create that category, even if only as a redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The small vs large differentiation fits partially with the description at en:Sled though I guesst there's no clear rule. There's also Category:Toboggans for those that sit flat on the ground. Sleds can work as the broadest parent category? So maybe we just need category descriptions. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've always seen toboggan used to mean a long sled that can take multiple people -- sort of a scaled-down version of a bobsled (aka bobsleigh). So to me, sled could be a parent for toboggans but not for sleighs, However, I've learned from my work on various Wikimedia projects that US usage can be different from that of other places, and that non-US usage usually prevails. I think the best we can do might be, as you say, to have good category descriptions and periodically recategorize things that go in the wrong cats. It might also be good to put a gallery on the top-level page as a guide to what goes where. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this object a sleigh (since it has runners) or a sled (since it's not pulled by animals)? Mindmatrix 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. There might be a different name for those. It might be a type of sleigh, but if so we might need to change our definition to say that they're pulled by humans or animals, to avoid upsetting those who don't want humans to be categorized as animals. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki en:sleigh is redirected to en:sled. en:Toboggan has a standalone article, although it is defined as "a simple sled"--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Season. Sleds are categorized as Winter equipment but summer toboggans are under them. Trigenibinion (talk)

Category:Straatorgel

I can maybe see keeping images that include the word in the image, but in the description? Surely that makes it redundant with Category:Dutch street organs. Themightyquill (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Konzertorgel is similarly redundant to Category:Concert organs. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Drehorgel might be similarly redundant to Category:Barrel organs. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Hi, Themightyquill. It seems a bit hard question for me at the moment, but I will try to explain as possible as I can. Surely, the English translation of a Dutch generic name "Straatorgel" may be the "Dutch street organ", however, the practical issue of what media is appropriate to categorize under the "Category:Dutch street organs", become sometimes a bit hard task due to the several reasons:
  1. Ambiguity of the usage of generic name: the media providers of the decorative mechanical organ on Wikimedia Commons seem to rarely use the name "Dutch street organ"; instead, they tend to use the more generic names or more specific names (see below table), with possibly ignoring the difference of sizes (see w:nl:Draaiorgel#Soorten_draaiorgels), or possibly avoid to determine the strict name.
in English in Dutch in German size Note
Generic names
Street organ
(on commons)
 Straatorgel
(on commons)
 n/a various sizes are coexisted generic name of organs played on the street, etc.
Barel organ
(on commons)
 nl:Draaiorgel
(on commons)
 Drehorgel
(on commons)
 various sizes are coexisted generic name of mechanical organs.
Note: English word "barrel" (i.e. cylinder) seems inappropriate for the organs using Book music mechanism instead of cylinder.
Specific names
Fairground organ
(on commons)
 nl:Kermisorgel
(on commons)
 de:Jahrmarktsorgel
(on commons)
 relatively large organs played on the fairground, etc.
Concert organ
(on commons)
 n/a de:Konzertorgel
(on commons)
 extra large organs probably used on the street concert.
Dance organ
(on commons)
 nl:Dansorgel
(on commons)
 n/a most wide and large Belgian-style organs probably installed on the dance hall
  1. Ambiguity of the definition of generic name: If we try to estimate the rough meaning of the "Dutch street organ" with the help of common sense, it may be:
    (1) a kind of mechanical organ that is:
    (2) manufactured around the Dutch culture sphere, or imitated these,
    (3) played on the places such as: streets, festival grounds, or potentially dance halls,
    (4) pretty decorated,
    (5) relatively large sized (see w:nl:Draaiorgel#Soorten draaiorgels),
    However, the above estimation is ambiguous and not work well on the purpose for categorizing media as to fit well with the conventions of the Dutch culture sphere, because the notion of the "Dutch Street organ" is merely a rough categorization in the viewpoint of the cultural import side (i.e. the English cultural sphere), and it tend to be inconsistent with the categorization and naming convention in the viewpoint of exporter side (i.e. the Dutch culture sphere).
Beyond the importer side viewpoint, if we aim to the more neutral and detailed categorization, we need to know more about the exporter side categorization, and the result of that efforts are category:straatorgel and similar categories under category:Dutch words and phrases. (The same things can be also applied to the another major exporter, German cultural sphere, and the result of that effort is exist under the category:German words and phrases)
Above my opinion is the "cultural relativism" idea based on my experience of categorizing thousands of musical instrument media on the Wikimedia Commons. If there are more appropriate manners for Wikimedia Commons, I would like to examine and follow these. --Clusternote (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Clusternote: As I mentioned elsewhere, if there are clear differences, I don't want to merge the categories, but I don't want redundancies either. If you can come up with clear but distinct descriptions for each of these categories, then let's keep them. If not, then we merge. Just as there's no need to have Category:Hats, Category:Hüte, and Category:Hoeden, there's no need to categorize by different language if the terms mean essentially the same thing. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Band organs

According to en:Fairground organ, "band organ" is just another name for fairground organ. Upmerge content and delete. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fairground organ (Jahrmarktsorgel) temporally exhibited at jarmarkt in Germany.
Band organ installed as a role of "concert organ", on the amusement park in the United States.
Note: large percussion parts behind the wings on both side are distinctive.
Band organ installed as a role of "carousel organ", on the amusement park in the United States.
Please stop trying to merge the individual specific categories (having distinctive cultural backgrounds), to more rough generic categories (possibly having another cultural background).
The band organ from the United States is probably a derivative of the fairground organ (and possibly the orchestrion) originate from the European culture, however it had been individually evolved in the United States, and finally got its specific niche at the central position of carousels, as the "carousel organ".

European origin fairground organ and American origin band organ should be distinguished. --Clusternote (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Clusternote: I don't want to merge anything that isn't redundant, but we need to make the differences clear so that images don't get jumbled together or placed in the wrong category. Can you clarify the difference between an American fairground organ and an American band organ, excluding its use as a carousel organ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Browning HP derivatives

This cat leads to overcat as the cat:FN BDA is in the cat FN Pistols and also this cat is over the Cat Browning HP also in cat FN Pistols. Further more the cat leads to wrong categorization as it categorizes the pistols in diffrent countries (once in Beglum and once in an other country). Sanandros (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the category itself, but its caption and certain entries you've just mentioned. (since the AK family and RPG series exist, I've figured that HP also deserves a category, which would contain its spring-offs, modifications, copies, etc.) ВоенТех (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Sanandros and ВоенТех: I guess you can implement your improvements. It is unlike that someone opposes--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I'd like to delete it.--Sanandros (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tian Gong Lu

Wikimedia.Commons already has separate category for "zh:天公爐"(see: Category:Incense burners in Taiwan) and I am not sure what his idea to create "Category:Tian Gong Lu" is. I asked him at his talk page but he seems unable to explain it well. If there is no difference between the two, then should delete Category:Tian Gong Lu.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be specifically for incense burners used in worship of the Jade Emperor. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: The real problem is...It looks no different from other incense burners, how do we know if it is "Tian Gong Lu"? If it only appears in the temple of worshipping the Jade Emperor, then I personally think this category is meaningless. I have asked him about what does "Tian Gong Lu" mean, here is what his reply was: "Please refer to zh:天公爐". I have already notified him on his talk page, but he does not seem to care about what I am saying.--Kai3952 (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no visible or practical difference, I agree it doesn't make much sense to have a separate category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dquai: Would you care to comment further? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Several files in the nominated category have the name part "Tian Gong Lu". Because there are 54 files, maybe we should add {{Fact disputed}} at the nominated category?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Justicia carthagenensis

Justicia carthagenensis is not an accepted name. You mean Justicia carthaginensis? Some links on this category page lead to Justicia carthaginensis. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your link of The Plant List refers to "Justicia carthagenensis Willd. ex Nees", a name for a fern, which is a later homonym and not accepted. The category means Justicia carthagenensis Jacq., which is accepted by Biolib, Catalogue of Life, ITIS, NCBI, and Tropicos. The Plant List and GRIN are a bit out of date using the orthographical variant "carthaginensis". Justicia carthagenensis Jacq. is the oldest name, see IPNI for homonyms. --Thiotrix (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Blechum linnaei is not a fern. Blechum linnaei is a flowering plant like Ruellia. Blechnum is a fern. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discusssion. Can we move on with this discussion and do necessary redirect(s), @Arnaud Palastowicz and Thiotrix: ? Categories in question:

Category:Justicia carthagenensis (not even mentioned in POWO)
Category:Justicia carthaginensis (accepted by POWO)

--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today I saw the wikispecies entry (J. carthagenensis). I don't see any chance for a renaming. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astore City

There is also Category:Astore (village). Both categories are about the same place. en-WP calls Astore a city without providing information about population etc. It's probably bigger than a village, but city - I don't know... Nevertheless, it is the "capital" of the district Astore. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astore City in Spring.jpg was the only element of this category. For the time being, I moved it to the "village" cat --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
now created Category:Astore (disambiguation) and Category:Astore (town, Gilgit-Baltistan). There are more locations/towns named Astore, so "town, Gilgit-Baltistan" seems the best suffix. For villages/towns I usually avoid the simple suffix "Pakistan" on Commons, because there is too much confusion especially with districts of the same name. --2003:E5:3706:1500:D101:2C0B:E757:A6FD 00:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change Category:Funeral chapels to Category:Sepulchral chapels in line with the Wikidata item from which it is linked (and the articles in various languages to which it is thereby linked). The item is specific to a combination chapel and burial place. Note that we already have a distinct Category:Funeral homes and Category:Cemetery chapels. - Jmabel ! talk 06:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the same process, I think we should revisit several other categories. Right now, Category:Cemetery chapels is specifically Christian, because it is a subcategory of Category:Cemetery churches. However, Category:Jewish funeral chapels is entirely cemetery chapels, not sepulchral chapels, and ought to be a child of Category:Cemetery chapels, were the latter not specifically Christian. It think Category:Jewish funeral chapels should be renamed as Category:Jewish cemetery chapels and Category:Christian cemetery chapels should be separated out from Category:Cemetery chapels in general, with Category:Cemetery churches becoming a parent of Category:Christian cemetery chapels rather than of Category:Cemetery chapels.

It is possible that some other changes should happen in this area as well, and I'm open to further suggestions. - Jmabel ! talk 06:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about 3 more days without further comment. I'm going to do my best to go ahead based on this & sort it out. - Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually quite difficult. I have introduced Category:Chapels in funeral homes, but found few such cases. I've removed the specifically Christian parent category from Category:Cemetery chapels. I'm not going to particularly take apart the existing generic Category:Funeral chapels, but I'm (at least for now) delinking it from the Wikidata item that essentially means sepulchral chapels and introducing a new Category:Sepulchral chapels and sitelinking that from Wikidata. So Category:Funeral chapels will now explicitly be more generic. - Jmabel ! talk 03:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: We don't have a clear written definition for Category:Cemetery chapels, which risks creating a redundanc with Category:Sepulchral chapels (which, I assume, are usually also in cemeteries.) You're thinking of "cemetery chapels" has public chapels for use in multiple funerals at a cemetery, correct? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Yes. I'll add a description. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service: Funeral chapels = Rooms or separate structures devoted to funeral services in funeral homes. For chapels intended to permanently contain individual or family tombs, use "sepulchral chapels." (Art & Architeture Thesaurus Online) --Bohème (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Twin tires

Misdefined or misnamed category. Almost all of the examples here are twin wheels, not twin tyres. There are also many here, of an excessively large category for a very common device, that are poor illustrations of it.

Additionally, some are neither - there are some here, mostly on the heavy-haulage equipment, which are twin bogies, not even simple twin wheels. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost all" ? Is there such a thing as a twin tire (as opposed to twin wheel) and do we have any images of it? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see two tyres on the same rim as "twin tyres".
Two tyres on two wheel rims on the same hub would be "twin wheels" (very common on trucks).
Tyres on two wheels, on separate hubs, would be some sort of bogie. That's not common, but is used for heavy lift equipment.
Putting two tyres onto the same rim depends on how they're mounted. For solid tyres this used to be easy, hence we already have Twin solid tyres. It's done with modern wheels for some designs, such as Forklift trucks with twin tires – some of these might be twin wheels, but there are also plenty where they are solid or semi-solid tyres mounted on a single rim. There are even pneumatic tyres mounted two (or three!) to a rim – some off-road bicycles do this, for snow tyres.
In the most common case though, trucks use twin wheels, not twin tyres. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andy Dingley Then Category:Twin tires could contain Category:Twin solid tyres and perhaps Category:Forklift trucks with twin tires (or some of its images)? Much of the content from Category:Twin solid tyres should be moved, but it doesn't need to be deleted? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with Twin solid tyres. But pretty much everything under Twin tires should be moved to Twin wheels. There might be some which still belong in Twin tires. There are also some (the bogies) which belong in neither, but we've nowhere better to put them as yet.
I would also question whether all of these even need categorisation - many are very incidental views of trucks which do have twin wheels, but they're not usefully illustrative views of it. There is no point in categorising these - categorisation should be there to highlight the useful, not to attach as many categories to each image as possible. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with the category, then. Recategorize images as you see fit, and if there's a problem, you can deal with it (and you can always point to this discussion to indicate that you tried to invite comment from others before acting). - Themightyquill (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Can we close this discussion? -- Themightyquill (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are still hundreds of miscategorised images, but we seem to have a conclusion here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battle rifles

The cat is missing a definiotn. Sanandros (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But linked to several wikipedia articles. I've added as description: "'Battle rifle' is a post-World War II term for military service rifles that are fed ammunition via detachable magazines and fire a full-powered rifle cartridge." - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now u introduced a new undefined term "full-powered rifle cartridge". And from where do u have that definition?--Sanandros (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the English wikipedia article that links directly to that category: en:Battle rifle. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't found it in the ref.--Sanandros (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanandros: I believe the description is sufficient to resolve this. If you have a problem with the attribution of that term, you should raise it at enwiki. BMacZero (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On en wp discussion they already raised the concern that it is heavy to define a battle rifle. en:Talk:Battle_rifle#Any_References? says "From what it says though, there is a lot of confusion over the term". Further we have en:Talk:Battle_rifle#Definition_Problems.--Sanandros (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK I raised now the issue on en wp but didn't got any answer. I also checked other literature to get a definition but didn't find any.--Sanandros (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Sanandros: definition in Commons and definition in en:battle rifle don't match. If we copy here the definition from enwiki, are we at least partly satisfied here, and can close this stale CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still like to delete it because literature doesen't provide a clear definition.--Sanandros (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Torez vs. Chystiakove and Krasnodon vs. Sorokyne

In May 2016, Supreme Council of Ukraine, applying law about decommunization in Ukraine, renamed (besides other) cities of Torez and Krasnodon to their historical names Chystiakove and Sorokyne. A little problem is that these two cities are in the area of Donbass, administered really by two internationally unrecognized republics, DNR and LNR.

At en:wiki, after some edit wars, a Russian-language user User:Ymblanter moved 17 January 2017‎ the page back to the revoked name with the summary: "Ukrainian government does not control the city, and therefore its decisions are irrelevant". However, at least 13 language versions of Wikipedia use as the title of the corresonding article the name used by the Ukrainian government.

At Commons, Ukrainian user Ykvach moved on 2016-07-05 the main category of the city to the new official name, but a Russian-language user Butko on 2017-03-10 requested by {{Move}} template and SteinsplitterBot 2017-07-24 realized a move back to the name used by local separatists, per request on COM:CDC arguing by the English Wikipedia article title (move requested at CDC by Hedwig in Washington).

Has WM Commons any policy to decide this problem? Local separatist authorities use the old "communistic" name and Ukrainian authorities haven't the cities under their control, but the separatist republics are not internationally recognized. Should be their used names relevant for Commons?

Ukrainian government has not the city under his control, but the rest of the world respects formally the international law and the Ukrainian sovereignty over the cities. Should be this fact relevant for Commons?

Affected categories:

--ŠJů (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose These micronations are not recognised internationally, so they do not affect Commons at all. Torez should stay Torez, and the same for Krasnodon. However, it would be useful to have category redirects from Chystiakove and Sorokyne. --Ruthven (msg) 08:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ruthven, Your opinion is a bit self-contradictory. You assert the unrecognized republics as irrelevant, but at the same time, you support the names they used and oppose the names stated by the official Ukrainian authority? What you oppose?
    And the other problem: even if we accept the official rename of the cities, should we apply their new names also for all subcategiries? Even though the coat of arms contains the word "Torez" and uk:Краснодонська міська рада uses the old name even on the Ukrainian Wikipedia? --ŠJů (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So maybe I misunderstood. What I am saying is to keep the Ukrainian names and user {{Category redirect}} for the not official ones. --Ruthven (msg) 09:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ruthven: Btw., DNR and LNR cannot be considered as "micronations" nor "microstates". They are proto-states each with ca. 2 millions of inhabitats, it's really no "micro". en:Wikipedia counts as "micro" only states with less then 0.5 mil. of inhabitantas and less then 1 km2 of area. However, even Vatican or Brunei are internationally recognized. --ŠJů (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This question is broader. Supreme Council of Ukraine also renamed populated places in Crimea, which don't controled by Ukraine at the moment. This renaming doesn't have any sense on these terriories (uncontrolled part of Donbass and Crimea) and old names are used de-facto --Butko (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit similar case is when any country calls themself "Republic of Macedonia", while UN calls it "FYROM". --ŠJů (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway old names are the most recognizable names. When I search related subcategories in parent categories I can find them, but I can't find these populated places when categories are renamed.. --Butko (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a general problem with all renamed places, objects and persons (even in cases of "normal" rename) that some (or many) people can ignore the change. It is treated by redirects.
However, here is a special problem, whether to prefer the local point of view, or the world's point of view. In case of DNR and LNR, none member of UN recognized them, but their state administratives realy works. However, what with other unrecognized states or "states"? What with Kosovo, which is recognized by half of the world? What with two Chinas or two Koreas who don't recognize each other? What with South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria? What with ISIL (ISIS) and its administrative acts? The article en:Proto-state mentions DNR and LNR as proto-states with "de facto" achieved statehood - similarly as Nagorno Karabahk, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Somaliland. --ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • * To comment on my activity on the English Wikipedia, it is irrelevant that my mothertongue is Russian (I get all the time commpaints by Russian users that I am pro-Ukrainian and/or anti-Russian and by Ukrainian users that I am pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian). What we use there is the principle of most common name in English, and there was so far the community consensus that old names of the communities in Donbass which are not controlled by the government are the most common names, and the renaming of the Verkhovna Rada does not have any effect on what the common names are. Other communities have been renamed. Commons does not have this principle, so I guess the consensus could move either way.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Maps have an interesting compromise policy: they display Torez and Krasnodon in Latin writing as English "transcriptions", and Чистякове and Сорокине in Ukrainian Cyrilic as the local names. So it displays in the Czech version of Google maps. --ŠJů (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify the situation:
    • Chystiakove and Sorokyne are historic (pre-communist) names of these cities. These names were used before 1964 and 1938 respectively. These cities were renamed back to their historic names in 2016 by the Ukrainian government
    • Torez and Krasnodon are Communist names of these cities (after Maurice Thorez and Red Army respectively) that were used by USSR. They are not official in Ukraine anymore but they remain in use by separtist "Donetsk People's Republic" and "Luhansk People's Republic".
    • This has strictly nothing to do with Crimea (no renaming in Crimea is in effect so far).
    I don't see why we should not use the official government name here. In some contexts Communist/separatist names does not even make sense at all, e.g. Category:1868 in Chystiakove (the city was named Chystiakove at that time, it is officially named Chystiakove now, why should we rename it to something else?) — NickK (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Google Ngram Viewer from the English corpus Torez vs. Chystiakove, Krasnodon vs. Sorokyne --Butko (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense. How do we get Torez for 1820 before Maurice Thorez was even born? For Krasnodon/Sorokyne this is probably a transliteration issue (transliteration rules changed a couple of times), Krasnodon vs Sorok_i_ne is more relevant, despite current spelling rules being Sorokyne — NickK (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do we get any reference to Chystiakove or Sorokyne? This names (or way of writing) don't used in English --Butko (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This census database for 2016 can be one, right? Sources are of course scarce as these names use the new 2009 transliteration, while older sources used other transliterations (as Sorokine instead of Sorokyne) — NickK (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JPEG artifacts

Recategorized some stuff, this is now in Category:JPG compression artifact example images and Category:JPG corruption example images. I'm not sure what to do with File:Colour degradation.jpg (not really a useful or ever used example of JPG artifacts, was only used for a Commons discussion, @Incnis Mrsi: ?), File:SignedShortLosslessBug (PNG).png and File:SignedShortLosslessBug.jpg. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • «Recategorized some stuff» means you removed off a couple hundred photos the indication they are badly compressed, leaving only a few intentional examples in this cat. Impressive work. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: Thanks for the sarcasm. I didn't leave intentional examples in this cat, I moved the intentional examples to Category:JPG compression artifact example images. I checked the others, I remember one that qualified for a {{Low quality}} template: File:Hofansicht Berliner Dach.jpg. I fixed at at least one, for logos and similar I checked if they had an appropriate template (like svg version available) before removing them from this category. For photos this doesn't fly, we tag really bad ones as {{Low quality}} but that's about it. What's the point of having a category with photos like File:Onderweg Sogndal.jpg (added by Blue Elf) or File:Chatsworth House - geograph.org.uk - 58219.jpg (added by you)? The latter doesn't even have any noticable JPEG artifacts, it just appears to have been scaled poorly. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lost from Category:JPEG artifacts:

Lost from Category:Images with JPG compression artifacts:

I may have missed some if I removed the category without using a gadget. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This Cat should be leaved as parent Cat for all this matter. There are 5 sub-Cats. -- User: Perhelion 11:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Tuvalkin and Alexis Jazz: to be kept. Any objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexis Jazz answered in enwiki as follows (from en:User_talk:Estopedist1#Response_to_ping):

Your user page pointed to enwiki. I'm fine with the category being kept as a meta category for other categories, without files. Out of the 6 files currently in the category, File:NRCSAK97002 - Alaska (134)(NRCS Photo Gallery).jpg has no obvious JPEG artifacts (but I created phab:T297065 for the funky thumbnail), File:SignedShortLosslessBug (PNG).png probably doesn't belong in category or could fit in one of the subcategories and the remaining four can be moved to "JPG compression artifact example images". In 2018 I might not have realized the possibility of a meta category. Hope this answers any questions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)}}

Category:CROWS II (RWS)

Why shouldn't Category:CROWS (RWS) have a name that can be understood at first glance, like Category:Common Remotely Operated Weapon Stations? The RWS in the current name? Shorrt for Remote Weapons S'tation.... There is another cateroty, Category:CROWS II (RWS). If we had wikipedia articles on both CROWS (RWS) and CROWS II (RWS), or if we had a local schema that explained how to distinguish which images should go in which category, I'd agree two categories made sense. Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, you can read in article CROWS, explains of both types , "M101 CROWS" and "M153 CROWS II".

for example,

if you agree those idea, I will do.--Brakeet (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Geo. in fact, I'm Japanese man, and I dont know a lot about English grammar. The reason of what I thought "this is a proper noun, so it might not be plural form" is that I saw many categories having same characteristic name, "proper noun, multiple products and images, and not plural form". for example,

if your opinion (Some item have multiple products and images, so category's name should be plural form ) is correct, mentioned these categories name should become

? ...of course my knowledges about English is poor, I want to obay to native english speaker's opinion, best regards.--Brakeet (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brakeet and Geo Swan: Can we find consensus to move here? Themightyquill (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time, Geo. my opinion is,

thanks.--Brakeet (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with using "M101 CROWS" and "M153 CROWS II", but I see no reason for a parent category here. Would there be any actual images in it? Otherwise, the two specific categories can stand on their own. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chromatic aberration

Propose renaming to "Examples of chromatic aberration". I just made {{CA cleanup}} for files that need to be fixed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may make up an subcategory with this name, but please don't change the name of the main category, as the files in Category:Chromatic aberration diagrams are not examples but diagrams wich explain how it works. Kersti (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stroszek

empty category after moving to deletion Gower (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it hurt to leave this as a redirect? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a band called Stroszek that has an image here (File:StroszekStereo.jpg). I'd suggest the category should changed to represent that band instead. BMacZero (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gower, Auntof6, and BMacZero: I think that one-member categories should be avoided whenever possible. If more files will become for en:Stroszek (band) we can re-evaluate the situation. At the moment, the redirect to Category:Stroszek-Dąbrowa Miejska seems acceptable--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Voting rights in Singapore

(1) The category is incorrectly named. If it should exist at all, it should be named "Category:Suffrage in Singapore" in line with subcategories of "Category:Suffrage". (2) However, I do not think it is worth keeping the category as it merely contains images that have been used in the English Wikipedia article "w:Voting rights in Singapore". The images make sense in the context of the article, but do not make sense grouped together in this category. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Sgconlaw.--Roy17 (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two years later. @Sgconlaw and Roy17: I guess that correct is the redirect to Category:Suffrage in Singapore, because Category:Voting rights itself is the redirect to Category:Suffrage?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: yes, just make it a redirect to “Suffrage in Singapore”, or just delete it as an empty category. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holiday in Ruka in February 2013

Whose holiday? Shouldn't this category just be called "February 2013 in Ruka, Finland" or such? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. Same with the rest of the subcats in Category:Holiday pictures in Ruka in winter. I'd also point out that 11 of the 12 months of the year are represented under Category:Holiday pictures in Ruka in winter -- does their winter really last 11 months? We should probably take these out of the winter category and just go with months. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is common problem with private persons holiday photos uploaded from Flick etc. Month year in Ruka is fine.--Htm (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest moving all the images to Category:Winter in Ruka. There's no need to subdivide 100 photos of Ruka by month and year. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Are you saying that all the months should go under winter, even August and October? (The others are all at least partly in winter.) --Auntof6 (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - all these categories are in Category:Holiday pictures in Ruka in winter so I thought they were all in winter. Anything not in winter could be moved to Category:Ruka. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, we could just creat year categories, and not worry about months. Or just move everything to Category:Ruka and sub-categorize by weather rather than season. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Mr.choppers, Auntof6, and Themightyquill: several options. 1) by year 2) by month 3) by season 4) a la Category:Winter 2002-2003 in Kiel. Anyone wants to comment for this stale discussion?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, do whatever you think is appropriate. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files that mention Photobucket

This category is useless[1], so it should be removed along with Category:Files from Photobucket. (Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Files from Photobucket) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that this discussion is also occurring at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Files from Photobucket so I'm moving my comment there. BMacZero (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files from Photobucket

I would be willing to take (another) fine comb to this, but without Category:Files that mention Photobucket (Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Files that mention Photobucket) I will have a hard time maintaining this. So we better get rid of it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to my approach I have found several instances of vandalism or just confusing edits like [2] and [3]. But what difference does it make anyway. I don't ask for much, nobody pays me to do this shit. If people then start yelling at you because you're doing it wrong.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the problem. This category is hard for you to maintain, and therefore, we should delete it? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I created it, there are some false positives here and people were offended by that. And they don't care if I fix my errors, which I did, instead accusing me of violating policies. In the end nobody (except me) understood why Category:Files that mention Photobucket had to exist, so that should be deleted. Without it, I can't maintain or continue to fix the errors in Category:Files from Photobucket, so we'll have to delete that as well.
If this sounds batcrap insane to you, try to imagine what it sounds like to me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could create Category:Files that mention Photobucket as a your personal user category? (Category:User:Alexis Jazz/Photobucket mentions or some equivalent) It would be hidden that way, and less subject to complaint. I think it's worth discussing before going further. I can see why it would be useful in correctly categorizing Category:Files from Photobucket, so there should be some way to accomplish this task. On the other hand, you're essential categorizing these files by what they aren't which isn't how commons usually works, so that may be the source of confusion. Anyway, there's no complaint about the existence of Category:Files from Photobucket, and the fact that you created it doesn't mean you get to decide to delete it if the community feels its valuable. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Category:User:Alexis Jazz/Photobucket mentions works. That is just a category named "User:Alexis Jazz/Photobucket mentions", that's worse than "Files that mention Photobucket". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Worse how? If it's a user category (and obviously so), detached from the main commons categorization tree, and uses the HIDDEN_CAT tag, then I don't see why anyone would complain. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: it includes a fake namespace. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. The "user" ? That's not a fake name space, it just identifies you as a user. Look through Category:User categories and you'll find similar ones. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with deleting Category:Files that mention Photobucket, but I also agree with themightquill that Category:Files from Photobucket should be kept. Even if it can't be automatically populated by a keyword search, it can still be theoretically (optimistically, perhaps) populated by uploaders or manually, or by some other means. BMacZero (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bare trees

There is also the category Leafless trees which might be a more specific name for the same thing. I would merge the two categories and rename the other "bare trees" categories to "leafless trees". Guanaco (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leafless trees has the definition, "Trees that achieve dormancy by losing their leaves seasonally (chiefly deciduous varieties), and others that shed leaves through lack of water." That seems to leave out trees that are dead: are there other reasons for trees to have no leaves? I don't think we can tell just from images. Are these distinctions we want to make? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is leafless trees a botanical term as defined, or is this definition only for categorization on Commons? My thought would be to merge leafless and bare, then have subcategories Dead trees and Dormant trees. The subcategories would only be used if the tree is clearly dead, or we have some information to support it, such as from a knowledgeable uploader. Guanaco (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco and Auntof6: The discussion goes on with little interest since a half year. I checked both terms, bare and leafless trees, in the english Wikipedia. Guanaco, your proposal seems to be a good choice. Please do it. --XRay talk 06:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We might not want dead trees as a subcat of bare/leafless; occasionally leaves remain attached to dead trees. As for the merge, I favor using leafless since it's to the point. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Guanaco and Auntof6: I couldn't find terms for "bare" and "leafless tree" (only unhelpful Wikidata:Q22338152) in enwiki, as implied by user:XRay. If there is no further answer, then solution per user:Auntof6--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]