Category:Sheikh of the Egyptian Quran Reciters

Totally unnecessary. Of course we have also a Category:Qur'an reciters from Egypt which has been kept apart from this cat. Probably we should make a separate exclusive Commons for Egyptian issues. E4024 (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Sheikh means head in this job title and official Rank. The Quran reciters are a specific group of scholars withs specific education. In Arabic شيخ المقارئ المصرية. It's an official job title. It's a high rank. It's present in Egypt and in other muslim countries. At any point of time there is one Sheikh of Quran reciter in each country. His job involves being the reference in all reciters and supervision of Quran recitation schools (12,000 official schools plus maybe same number non official schools allover Egypt).--Ashashyou (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked the category to the Arabic WP page. https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/مشيخة_عموم_المقارئ_المصرية. Regards. --Ashashyou (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regards regards. Certainly you have an explanation also for why you added it to Category:Qur'an reciters and not Category:Qur'an reciters from Egypt, which is also under Category:Sheikhs from Egypt, even after I attracted attention to this issue upwards. The idea is making "more visible" anything Egyptian, right? Continue opening parallel cats, please. --E4024 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a valid category to have 'leaders' of a profession as a subcat of that profession. Seems some recatting is required, but easily done. Perhaps it should be renamed Category:Sheikhs of the Egyptian Quran Reciters as there are more than one. Josh (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of the Americas

Proposing deletion of the following categories relating to the supercontinent "the Americas":

Reason: The only content in these categories is subcategories for North America and South America. There is no need to have these categories for the supercontinent when the only content is specific to its component continents. I believe these categories were created when a user decided that "the Americas" should be considered a continent instead of North and South America separately, so this request is part of cleaning that up. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are there because they have a parent category where they should be located and found as expected. They don't add any irrelevant classification, are small, and avoid leaving files orphans in a less relevant category. So they immediately link to the North/South subpages where appropriate, and the fil upload wizards find their correct way to properly subclassify the pages.
They don't take space except a few entries, and require no maintenance. There are contents that are relevant to all the Americas and not just to one part of them and it would be unsuitable to classifiy them in just one or some of these parts.
If contents can then be subclassified in only one part, of course they can be moved there, just like all other parent categories in Commons.
It has nothing to do with your "considered a continent" argument. You probably still don't understand how upload wizards are trying to find relevant the most categories: they progress from any parent to find if there are child categories. Many users don't know how to properly subclassify contents manuyally, they just use the upload wizard which is then stuck and cannot subclassify correctly if there's no relevant parent category. This automatica classification is based on the description texts, which is often defective: if we provide at least a parent category, the uploader will also see candidate children categories and know where to place their content, and then can also adapt the descriptions. Suhc parent categories with little content (except subcategories, where apporopriate) really help the maintenance verdy_p (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't always need to make parent categories for every possible geographic level where a topic could be located. Categorizing by supercontinent isn't meaningful in most cases, because 1) most things are not specific to a supercontinent as a whole (they are specific to a smaller area), and 2) people don't tend to search by supercontinent. Most people probably don't give supercontinents any thought at all.
Note that I'm not nominating every "Americas" category: The specific categories I've nominated here don't have any individual files, and wouldn't need them because any given image would be specific to a smaller area. By the logic you describe, we would also need categories in every topic for progressively larger areas such as hemisphere and even planet. Those make sense for some things, but not for everything. Commons has standardized its continent boundaries so that all land is included in a continent, so most things, especially physical things, don't need to be categorized at any higher level. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I also think it's unnecessary and unhelpful. And its deletion would make its parent category, Category:Images by region, also unnecessary. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I would keep the parent category, America is a continent and therefore as we have it for Asia, Afrca, Europe and Oceania it makes sense. What it does not make sense in my view is the category "Images by region" where you have only Americas in it. That one should be deleted. Desyman (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Desyman: There are several ways of looking at where divisions between continents are, and some of them consider the Americas to be one continent, as you say. However, Wikimedia Commons uses a model where America is not a continent, but a supercontinent, and North America and South America are continents. The graphic on Category:Continents illustrates this. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion.  Delete. Redundant clutter in the parent Category:Images of the Americas--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Al-Shafi‘i Fiqh

The other "fiqh" cats -probably opened by the same user- do not have the Al- article. I'm sure there is an "Arabic" explanation to this; but Commons is in English. E4024 (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Category:Fiqh is a subcat of Category:Sharia, as "Fiqh" is the human understanding of "Sharia" (roughly equivalent to the concept of jurisprudence in other cultures), so "Al-Shafi'i" (the Sharia) seems superflous, and it would seem that "Fiqh" and "Al-Shafi'i Fiqh" would basically mean the same thing. Am I missing somthing or are these two equivalent? Josh (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The cat(s) opener has tried to create subcats for different schools of belief in Islam; but like in other cases, a bit disorderly, one begins with an "al" article, the other does not etc. (Maybe I am obsessed with order, that is another possibility. :) --E4024 (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: I get it, but since Commons is in English, it should really be "Sharia Fiqh", but as I said, this seems quite redundant as I am not aware of the idea of non-Sharia Fiqh existing. I would defer to one more expert on this question though. In any case, if we keep the category, it should be renamed. Josh (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SVG buildings in Russia

Delete. Not a useful subcategorization. It currently has only one file, and no obvious parent like Category:SVG architecture in Russia. Themightyquill (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not okay. I don't think it's a fundamentally useful category structure, but instead of engaging in discussion first, you've instead potentially made someone more work to delete all these new categories you've just created. These are "SVG buildings" (whatever that would be) -- they are SVG images that contain icons of buildings, floorplans of specific buildings or rooms in those buildings, generic floorplans of building types from a given country, 3d renderings of buildings, all with the most tenuous link of national boundaries. Over half of the sub-categories you've created still have only one or two images. I simply don't see the benefit of subdividing Category:Buildings in Turkey to Category:SVG buildings in Turkey or Category:SVG buildings to Category:SVG buildings in Turkey. It also contributes to the further intersection of content category tree with format category tree, which I think is a bad idea all around. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is working with SVG files not important for users? These are especially valued image. I created categories according to the pattern: Category:SVG Wikimedia logos (intersection of content category tree with format category tree). That's why I created these categories, because it is scientifically convenient to find the right building in vector format by country. Perhaps you have even better suggestions? Yours faithfully, — Niklitov (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scientifically convenient to find SVG images from some building, any building, in a country? How so? It doesn't follow the pattern Category:SVG Wikimedia logos - dividing logos (art) into the way they were created makes far more sense than dividing "buildings" into SVG images, much less subdividing that by country. Moreover, that category also would have an enormous amount of images if it wasn't sudivided, whereas Category:SVG buildings (already a problem in my view) would not even 200. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Niklitov: No, absolutely not. We create categories to organize what we have in a logical and useful way, or perhaps to mirror content on wikidata. Neither of these is true of this category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an explanation of where to place files, not how to create categories. Otherwise, we should create a category specific to each file. In that case, we could put File:Solikamsk dom voevody VL Plan.svg in a new Category:2010 black and white SVG images of the facade of Voivode House, Solikamsk.
:-), Yours faithfully, — Niklitov (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer, this applies equally to Category:SVG buildings by country and all subcategories. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Niklitov: Obviously no consensus to delete and Category:SVG buildings in Russia is not empty. I personally suggest to retain SVG categories only up to WikiProjects level: in this case category:SVG architecture, because we have Category:WikiProject Architecture; and some SVG Russia cat. In future there will be {{Catsbyfiletype}} anyway.--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was consensus at the end? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am out of this discussion. Just wanted to discourage not to make long category trees when dealing with file types--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars by religion

Category with a single subcat or "Category:Christian scholars", consisting of Category:Catholic clergy scientists and another cat. Although the people in there seem to be "religious people" I have my reserves against this kind of classification, except for "men of religion" like rabbis, imams, bishops etc. I also do not like so much similar categorization in other religions; -for example- "Category:Muslim scholars of Islam" although it has some reasoning (people who study their own religion).

BTW I may understand -not approve- cats like "Jewish actors" because "Jew" both refers to religion and ethnicity; at least this is the generally accepted view, and this people is dispersed all over the world.

In summary. I propose to get rid of categorization based on religion like Islamic doctors or Catholic scientists for civilian careers. Let us use the religion factor only for men/women of religion. E4024 (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we should not include the religion of a person (even where such religious affiliation is well established) except for those cases where it is specifically relevant. The religion of scholars in general is not relevant. If I am a scholar of military science, it is irrelevant what church I attend. If I am a scholar of religious studies, it IS relevant what religion I specialize in studying, but again, it is irrelevant what my personal faith may be. So it is fair to have a category of "scholars of Christian theology", but not relevant to have a category of "Christian scholars". Certainly, categorizing doctors or scientists or tax attorneys by their religious affiliation is completely pointless even if it could be verifiable (which is dubious). I agree with E4024 to rid ourselves of these categories. Josh (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Muslim scholars. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Desyman (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Here-lived plaques in Vienna

Any reason all the subcategories here are in German? I would propose a move to Category:Plaque for X (Vienna, location). GuentherZ, you made many of these, so your thoughts are welcome. Similar categories at Category:Here-died plaques in Vienna, Category:Here-was-born plaques in Vienna‎, and a few other spots. Themightyquill (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should be in English and correctly formatted ("Category:Plaque for Name at Location"). This would apply to all similar categories. Josh (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Josh. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Auntof6: translation into English sounds reasonable, but seeing the details, it may be really challenging, eg "Category:Gedenktafel für NS-Opfer (Wien, Lainzer Straße 74, Familie Szeczi)", "Category:Hoepner-Gedenktafel", "Category:Karl-Lueger-Gedenktafel, TU" (the latter is also indexed in a public art catalogue of Vienna (Austria) under the number: 94744, hence the well-established-English-name question?)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Certainly challenging, at least for me. My German isn't good enough for me to be confident in translating these. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 and Auntof6: Even if we don't get all of them perfect, a mass move from Category:Gedenktafel für * (Wien, *) to Category:Plaque for * (Vienna, *) would be a big improvement. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: True. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim religious workers

The subcats clearly show this is a wrong categorization. Since when are poets (and the people under the other two subcats) "workers"? I would delete this cat, because the only people I could add there are imams, muezzins (who make the call to prayer) and "vaiz" (preachers by office) which would make none of them happy. "Worker" normally refers to people who work "physically", like making a wall. "Religious leaders"? Islam does not have such a hierarchy; Muslims do not need anybody to make their prayers. Delete the cat and let's all hope the cat-opener follows -at least, as they never participate in discussions- these CfDs opened continuously. E4024 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see just removing this category from the poets subcat, but maybe moving the missionaries and scholars up to Category:Muslims by occupation. By the way, I disagree with your definition of worker: not all work is physical. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muslim religious workers should include all who conduct activities (as a professional occupation or even on a voluteer basis) on behalf of the religion. I am not terribly familiar with the structure of the religion so I can't speak to particular jobs that may exist or not within it (imams, muezzins, etc.) However, it does seems that this category has cats like 'poets' and 'scholars' that do not belong here and yet is missing cats such as 'chaplains', 'imams', etc. Being an adherent of the religion, and even reflecting it in your work does not make one a 'religious worker', so even if a poet writes beautiful pieces centered on Muslim faith, they are not a Muslim religious worker. Josh (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could be worried that next step would be adding terrorists here, but then s/he can be accused of not believing in the good faith of people. I personally prefer "life experience" to naive internet rules. Whatever. Go on Josh, I like your contributions. (Oh sorry, I'm subjective again. Kudos! :) --E4024 (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added category:Muezzins here; but there is no obligation to be a Muslim, at least in secular countries, to sing the "ezan". It is a "job". Indeed fastly disappearing because today ezan is mostly given from recorded singing. --E4024 (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Moneychanger and His Wife - Marinus van Reymerswale (Musée d'Arts de Nantes)

Category too precise: condemned a priori to contain only one file. Braaark (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. No one else can take a photo of that piece of art? There are 52 images in Category:Mona Lisa in the Louvre. Please return the image to the category while it's under discussion here. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
condemned a priori to contain only one file - just as Category:The Moneychanger and His Wife - Marinus van Reymerswaele (Museo del Prado), Category:The Money Changers - follower of Marinus van Reymerswaele (Bilbao Fine Arts Museum, 69/175), and Category:The Tax Collector and His Wife - Marinus van Reymerswaele (Alte Pinakothek). So there's four categories to delete. Sammyday (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sammyday's observation. It will always be time to recreate these categories if one day they become useful. For the moment, Themightyquill, nothing justifies that this work is treated differently from the others: very few are those which have a category entirely dedicated.--Braaark (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are most definitely not condemned a priori to contain only one file. You can certainly propose deletion the the grounds that they currently contain only one file, but surely they could contain more files. See Category:Two tax collectors by Marinus van Reymerswale (National Museum in Warsaw). If you delete them, your proposal is what? Upmerge the images to Category:The Money Changers by Marinus van Reymerswale even though they aren't all called that? Or upmerge to Category:Marinus van Reymerswale? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to Category:The Money Changers by Marinus van Reymerswale. The closer one. Sammyday (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to put paintings called "The money changer and his wife" or "The tax collectors" in a folder called "The Moneychangers." We could have Category:Paintings of money changers by Marinus van Reymerswale, but the tax collectors painting should not be a subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Do we really need to create these 1-2-members categories for the concrete painting in concrete location. I would upmerge the subcategories in Category:The Money Changers by Marinus van Reymerswale. Sidenotice: a gallery page may be possible: ca "Foo painting in art museums"--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep the one with multiple files. I'd also keep the one that's after van Reymerswale, just to emphasize that it isn't by the primary artist. And, outside the scope of this discussion, I'd put a gallery on the page to show each different one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raw beef dishes of Chile

Does another raw beef dish from Chile exist? Upmerge Category:Crudo to the parent categories. Themightyquill (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. Nevertheless if upmerged, it should be "Crudo of Chile", since there are crudos in other places, and with diferent preparations and variations.3BRBS (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@3BRBS: I can't find any references to dishes called crudo elsewhere, though it does mean "raw" in Italian, which could lead to confusion. Perhaps we could move to Category:Crudo alemán? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That category proposed wouldn't be accurate, since it means in Spanish "German crudo", which implies is German, and the Chilean version is obviously not German but Chilean, eventhough it seems to have roots in the German traditions from the German immigrants to Chile. Also, no body calls it that way either, making it unclear (To clarify, "crudo" in Spanish just means "raw," and in this context is the "raw meat dish"). Moreover is it hard for me to believe that German immigrants would not accquire this tradition somewhere else, and if so, they probably have their own particular local names, and yet, it is also hard to believe that this receipe is not common to Austria, Poland and other close countries. So therefore the question. Why is so important this category in particular to you?3BRBS (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be fairly commonly used, and even if it's just a name that people recognize in Chile, it's clear enough. Just "crudo" is obviously ambiguous since, as you say, it just means raw. Category:Crudo alemán could stay in Category:Meat dishes of Chile. If the dish exists elsewhere, I can't find any references to it under that name. Variants might well exist in Central Europe but I doubt they would call it Category:Crudo alemán. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Category:Crudo chileno could be a good compromise, if needed at all. Cheers! 3BRBS (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and 3BRBS: enwiki article title is en:Crudos (Commons equivalent Category:Crudos)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles explain what they are about far better than commons categories do, so moments of ambiguity are a bad time to rely on wikipedia. And besides, wikipedia also has en:Crudo and en:Crudo (disambiguation). -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ship stations in Hungary

There doesn't seem to be a category tree at Category:Ship stations and it's not a term I'm familiar with. Is this redundant with Category:Passenger ship terminals? Or is there another category tree we could be joining? This applies to sub-categories too. Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a direct translation of "Hajóállomás" but it doesn't work in english (see en:Ship station). It could be translated as "port" or "harbour" but in this case, I think passenger ship terminals seems accurate. Globetrotter19 Do you have any better ideas? Category:Ship station in Vác would become Category:Passenger ship terminal in Vác unless Category:Ferry terminal in Vác (see Category:Ferry terminals in Hungary) would make more sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is problem. Also problem, there are varied type of "Hajóállomás" can be found in Hungary. The 'Passenger ship terminal' does not pass to it because is a subcat of the buildings (Transport buildings) and "Hajóállomás" is usually without building. Maybe the simply port or Passenger port will be better. The "Hajóállomás" mostly a simply 'móló', these are just a couple floating barrels or cylindrical containers covered with planks, however the Lake Balaton ports also have a part which call also 'móló' but those are allways stone/concrete structures.
About the Category:Ship station in Vác (GPS 47.780396, 19.122595) maybe the Category:Passenger port in Vác can be right, the Category:Ferry terminal in Vác an other 'institution' see here Category:Vác-Tahitótfalu ferry (Hungary) (GPS 47.777147, 19.125133). By the way a 'real' ferry terminal in Hungary,-in my interpretation,-can be only Tihany-Szántód ferry. I hope it could be helped. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Globetrotter19: I can see your concern, though I don't think Category:Passenger ship terminals is strictly only for buildings. Many ferry terminals don't have buildings per se, but not all have a pier (móló) either. Those can be categorized separately. We can upmerge to Category:Ports and harbours in Hungary but that's a much broader category. We also don't have Category:Docks in Hungary for Category:Docks by country. Could that work? And if things don't translate well, we should keep them in Hungarian. What about Category:Docks in Vác with Category:Váci Hajóállomás as a sub-category, and images of the Vac side of the Category:Vác-Tahitótfalu ferry (Hungary) either free images or in a new sub-category Category:Ferry terminal in Vác? Or could "Váci Hajóállomás" be confused for the ferry terminal? - Themightyquill (talk)
Category:Landigs in Hungary can be also fit to "Hajóállomás" based The two ferry landings, Tihany and to the southwest, Tihany rév. Source: Let's Go Eastern Europe ISBN 0-333-65281-9. Or Category:Piers in Hungary can be also fit based what Lonely planet wrote about "Nemzetközi Hajóállomás" (Budapest) Boats depart from the International Ferry Pier on Belgrade rakpart,... And Category:Ferry stops in Budapest can be also fit based ...passenger ferries depart from Boráros tér...head to Pünkösd Fűrdő...The ferry stops closest to the Castle District is Battyány tér,... For both source: Lonely planet 2001 Eastern Europe ISBN 1-86450-149-9. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Globetrotter19: Yes, but we don't have Category:Landings by country, or Category:Ferry stops, and not all hajóállomás stick out into the water like a pier does. Are you okay with docks? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Docks seems not so good, so I asked help from hu.wikipedia transport community. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: So, We decided Category:Piers in Hungary probably the good for Hungarian ship stations. So if it is OK for You I will move there those and rename to "Hajóállomás" these like 'Keszthelyi hajóállomás' indeed Ship stations in Keszthely etc. The 'station'/pier building like Ship stations in Fonyód to Fonyódi hajóállomás épülete. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Globetrotter19: That works in some cases, but not in all. Category:Ship station (Kelemen László park, Ráckeve) is definitely not a en:pier, for instance. It might be a en:Wharf. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Category:Ship station (Kelemen László park, Ráckeve) changed to en:Wharf (by the way no Wharf,-and many other port infrastructure releated,-article in Hungarian).
I know the en:pier not perfect for all...I have questions too. Example if Category:Fonyód pier used for the Fonyód port 'móló' where to do the other pontoon like Fonyód piers? and if the Fonyód ship station is a pier what means the Fonyód pier?.
Sadly, I don't know too well water transport (not even in Hungarian), and I got answer only from two 'bus experts' from hu.wikipedia transport community. If someone could help, I(We) would thank you - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Móló and pier are definitely the same. (Similarly with the Badacsony móló.) Smaller floating infrasture where boats might tie up would, in my opinion, be considered just wharfs, or docks. If, by "Fonyód ship station" you mean Category:Fonyódi hajóállomás épülete, I think it should be renamed Category:Fonyódi hajóállomás building or Category:Fonyódi passenger ship terminal. If by "Fonyód ship station" you mean the pier where ships stop, then Category:Fonyód pier. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Currently the category is empty. So I guess we can close this CFD? Besides, the parent Category:Ports and harbours in Hungary consist of subcategories named in English language and in Hungarian language--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content seems to have been moved to Category:Wharves and quays in Hungary. This category and Category:Passenger ship terminals in Hungary are now empty. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University teachers

It seems to me that this can be perfectly divided into Category:Lecturers‎ and Category:Professors‎. We don't need this category. Roy17 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the fusion and redirection if needed. Can you make it effective?--Allforrous (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that en:University teacher does not exist, so there's no where for it to link to. I don't think it would be hard to merge. I wonder if Category:Lecturers might be better off at Category:Academic lecturers for clarity, but that's a separate issue, I suppose. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to redirect to Category:University and college faculty by country and rename the contents accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Currently enwiki en:university teacher is redirected to academic personnel. User:Themightyquill's suggestion (redirect to "Category:University and college faculty by country") seems a bit suspicious, but we haven't Category:University and college faculty or ;Category:Academic personnel--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using the word "educators" as an umbrella term for all employees (not only professors but also lecturers, teachers, counsellors, librarians, lab technicians...) involved in education at an institution (not only unis but also colleges, institutes, high/secondary schools, vocational training schools, primary schools...).
Proposed cat tree would be
Educators
Educators by country
Educators of the United Kingdom
Educators of the United Kingdom by university or college
Educators of the University of Cambridge
Professors of the University of Cambridge
Lecturers ..
Research scientists ..
...
Educators by educational institution
Educators by university or college
Professors by university or college
Professors of the University of Cambridge
Educators by high school or secondary school
Educators by primary school
University teachers redirects to Educators by university or college. Roy17 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: A nice idea, but not all professors are educators, since "Research professors" exist, so you'd still need university and college faculty as a parallel (and mostly redundant) tree. I don't think it's worthwhile. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "research professors", being employed in educational organisations and engaging in academic research, are educators. Roy17 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New idea. "Employees of educational institutions". How about that? Roy17 (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sonderkraftfahrzeug 111

Redirect to Category:Munitionsschlepper I. Sd.Kfz.111 is just another designation for the same vehicle. Josh (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

 ; Munitionsschlepper auf Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.A:Gerät 35 (Sd.Kfz.111)
 : Ammunition carrier based on Ausf.A chassis.
 ; Munitionsschlepper auf Pz.Kpfw.Ia:
 ; Munitionsschlepper auf Pz.Kpfw.Ib:

the name, "Munitionsschlepper I" ,refers to all types of ammunition carrier variants of based on Panzer I chassis, includes factory-made or field-modification types.

on the other hand, "Sd.Kfz.111" is only refers to Gerät 35, based on Panzer I Ausf.A chassis, factory made, not field-modification types.--Brakeet (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. this is only my understanding, if my knowledge is wrong, I'm sorry, thanks--Brakeet (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Brakeet: I think you have the right understanding. The enwiki article is unfortunately missing citations for that section, but it does seem to mirror the notation used by Chamberlain and Doyle in their book where they describe 51 vehicles being made as factory modifications to Ausf. A tanks, and a later order to make field modifications under the Ia and Ib numbers. No real details are given on the detailed differences between them, and the names used to refer to them seem inconsistent as well (e.g. Chamberlain and Doyle add "Sd Kfz 111" to the title of both sections for factory and field modifications.) Unfortunately ammo carriers made from obsolete tanks were not much of a draw for World War II photographers so there are not a lot of images out there. Here on Commons our job is pretty simple though. We have a single image (a CGI model). Thus it is perfectly fine to just have it under the umbrella name "Munitionsschlepper I" and for all other names to point to that one location. If a treasure trove of imagery of these vehicles is uploaded in the future (one can hope!), we can worry about sub-categorizing at that point. Josh (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hilf Laaqat al-Damm

No category description and no link to any wikipedia article. No other references found on google. What is this category about, please? Themightyquill (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can the creator (user:Ashashyou) explains the situation? If not, then subcategories to be upmerged and this category to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Muhammad

Do we have any other such "history of" cats? Sounds out-of-place to me. I propose to delete it. E4024 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:Life and teachings of Jesus Christ‎ to deal with all the subcategories. Perhaps we could creates something equivalent for Muhammad? Perhaps something that could also include the content in Category:Diplomacy of Muhammad (currently under discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Diplomacy of Muhammad. I'm not sure where it would go other than Category:Muhammad though, since the similar categor for Jesus goes under Category:Bible stories. Perhaps Category:History of Islam (though that's maybe a little backwards...) - Themightyquill (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations along roads in Colorado

This discussion also includes all "Locations along X" subcategories.

What is the benefit of these categories? Even if they were fully used, would there be a significant navigational benefit to having the I-70 category contain the categories for Rabbit Valley, Fruita, the Eisenhower Tunnel, Burlington, and Denver? A category for I-70 makes sense of course, but a category tree for "settlements, natural features, and other things along I-70" isn't particularly helpful. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Locations along X" sub-categories are a solution proposed by and, so far as is known, first used by Famartin to address a categorization problem. While the solution is not perfect, it is a really good one, as explained by the following examples:
  • In the case of the referenced Rabbit Valley (Colorado), Interstate 70 is a major feature within the valley. Therefore, according to standard practice, Interstate 70 in Colorado would be included as a subcategory within the valley's main category (just as the California Trail is a subcategory of the Western United States). However, since the vast majority of the information contained within Interstate 70 in Colorado has nothing to do with Rabbit Valley, doing so doesn't make much sense. The next alternative would be to put Rabbit Valley as a subcategory of Interstate 70 in Colorado, but this just reverses the problem, such as in the case of Denver, Colorado. While Interstate 70 is a major transportation feature within Denver, Colorado, the vast majority of the information in the Denver, Colorado category has nothing to do with Interstate 70. Furthermore, by having Denver, Colorado (and similar categories) as a direct category of Interstate 70 in Colorado adds way too many categories within the Interstate 70 in Colorado category.
  • The Locations along X categories allow for a logical connection between these categories. By having Rabbit Valley as a location along Interstate 70, users recognized that Rabbit Valley is only one feature along Interstate 70 in Colorado. Likewise, by having Denver as a location along Interstate 70 in Colorado, users recognize that Denver is also only one feature along Interstate 70 in Colorado and should expect that nearly all of the material within the Denver category will have nothing to do with Interstate 70.
  • In case of the referenced Eisenhower Tunnel, since it is an integral part of Interstate 70, it should be included as a subcategory of Interstate 70 in Colorado and not as a subcategory of Locations along Interstate 70 in Colorado.
As previously indicated, the categories are a work in progress, with the states of Utah and Virginia taking the lead. Finally, what may seem to be an exception to the Locations along X categories (but really isn't) is if the road (usually not applicable to Interstates and U.S. Routes) is located entirely within the main category. (For example, since all of Colorado State Highway 26 is located within the city limits of Denver, it should be included as a subcategory of the Roads in Denver, Colorado, rather than having Denver, Colorado included as a subcategory of Locations along Colorado State Highway 26. An Errant Knight (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:White headwear in art

If a subcat is named "Category:Females with white headgear in art", then it is totally legit to open a CfD about if the correct word for these and similar cats is "headgear" or "headwear"... E4024 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Headwear by color. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED + Hoya ND1000 filter + Hoya ND16 filter

I'm nominating this as a representative sample of countless similar categories created by User:ComputerHotline.

IMHO, the problem here is clear from the horribly bloated category title alone. This is a horribly unwieldy attempt to create a category for every potential combination of equipment. Common sense alone makes clear that this sort of thing isn't remotely workable if taken to its logical conclusion; look at the hierarchy for this category alone.

This sort of over-categorisation isn't useful. This type of thing should be handled by improved search tools, not by a futile attempt to capture every potential combination.

I've discussed this before, but never got round to taking it beyond the nominated sample cases back then:-

The question is, where do we draw the line between useful categories (e.g. Category:Taken with Nikon D7100) and ones that are obviously *not* helpful like this? I'd like to get some answers and consensus we could use as the basis for what categories to keep, and what to get rid of.

(I don't want this to come across as too critical of ComputerHotline. He's uploaded numerous images which are of a consistently high standard, making him a valuable contributor to Commons. But... I disagree with him on this specific point!)

Ubcule (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Even intersecting categories between camera and lens have already been questioned here and here. Adding multiple filters to the category is just a more extreme example. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Ah, that's interesting- thank you. Yes, the examples given in Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM still aren't as OTT as the one above. The various categories listed there are only combinations of two, which one *might* be able to argue a case for with a straight face (which isn't to say I'd agree with that).
I'd also be interested to hear what @Yann: - who deleted the category in one of the previous discussions mentioned above- thinks of this, and what should be done, if they have the time. Ubcule (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women wearing headscarves in Iran

This one and Category:Hijabs in Iran are mother and daughter at the same time. E4024 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I got confused or some change occurred in-between but I'm dizzy about all these "Islam", "female", "clothing" cats inflation in Commons. We have to find a volunteer to arrange all these without this much of expansion; "lo justo y necesario y nada más", someone who has no passions other than for Commons. (No, not me! :) --E4024 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You are right. No need Muslim women from Iran or Women of Iran categories. Jolmia (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion is needed. This is important for the people of the world. Jolmia (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Seems to be OK, the nominated category fits well into the parent Category:Women wearing headscarves by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supersport races in the Netherlands

I do not think there would be only "one" file here, in this cat, if there is only one file that means there is some categorization mistake. E4024 (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just followed the rules that I observed in Commons. There is no need to search too much, you immediately realize that in Commons there are hundreds, thousands of categories with a single photo. As an example, here you have these: Category:Valerie Davis, Category:Paralympic swimmers from Austria, Category:Bowling greens in Northumberland and so on. Regards.--Montesita (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not having a one-file cat but that "having one file" shows that there is a categorization mistake. Even looking at the categorization of that single file you can see this. Lately you have been making so many categorizations (reverting yourself at many occasions) that I think by myself: Why does s/he not make a study in their own user page, find out a good categorization scheme and then apply it? Please look into some of my reverts of your categorization contributions. (I will not add the links.) You add to "one image" "Riders of this or that kind of motorcycle" while the person in the image drives one of them. I revert you and tell you (at the edit summary) that that category is for the whole cat of that person ("rider"). To no avail: You go and do the same this time with another file. It is very good to be modest in life. My philosophy: Look around and try to learn from others. Not only believe "I know everything". (Valid for myself also, as I said: "I try to learn", everything.) I tried to follow your categorization (of motorbikes and their "riders") from the beginning. I got dizzy. Did you not? Just look back, review your contributions and tell me. Whatever, someone will have to correct "some" of your contributions. Not me though, because I know so little about these bikes. I began to follow you to learn a bit but probably now I'm more confused than before. Take care. I thank you all the same for the effort. Better than not doing anything. Please solve this mess and make me ashamed. I kindly request you to make me ashamed for questioning your contributions. I will be proud of you. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, @E4024: , I see what you're trying to explain. I tried to contribute to organize a bit the topic of motorcycles, which was quite unattended. Unfortunately, I do not have as much knowledge as you do and it seems that instead of helping, I am causing a disaster. Do not worry, it's clear to me. From now on, I leave Commons and stop bothering you. I'm sure it will not be hard for you to fix all the wrongs I've caused, and if that's not the case, I apologize. I regret that I have obstructed your supervision work with my work and I hope that other wiser users continue to collaborate on the topic ... Regards.--Montesita (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no especially concerned about a category with one file, but in this case we have three categories with one file:
Couldn't this one file go in Category:Supersport racing in the Netherlands and Category:Supersport races, and we can delete the other two? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree , Montesita did a good work in my opinion: 1. "Supersport racing" is one thing (it's about the motorcycle road racing type "Supersport" categorized by country. 2. "Supersport competitions..." is another thing into the first (about the competitions of this kind of sport by country, that are a subclass of "racing"). 3. "Supersport races" is a subclass of "competitions" because the other one should be "racing series". I did't see any mistake by Montesita, but only a correct "DEEP" categorization. Deleting what you said is only to "simplify" the things but overall is not a great thing in my opinion.--Lou6977 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However i agree with other two opinions in that sense: i think it could be better categorizing that file as "2009 XXX Supersport Championship in Assen" or similar and then categorizing this cat in "2009 in XXX Supersport Championship" (now i don't know what racing series is that race part of, XXX could be "World", European", "dutch"...). Dont'you?--Lou6977 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen Revision history of "File:Kenan Sofuoglu 2009 WSS Assen.jpg"? "Riders" cats can be used for Kenan Sofuoğlu or other rider "cats", but not for their files; and I have told him/her this several times, even reverting their edits. To no avail... --E4024 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i agree with you in this sense, but i was replying to Themightquill who would delete some correct categories. The file should be categorized under the "rider", the "race" and/or the "motorcycle model" in the picture, but as you can read, that's what i added in my statement.--Lou6977 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However i don't figure out why the object of this discussion is the category Category:Supersport races in the Netherlands and not the file only--Lou6977 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lou6977: If going as "deep" as possible is correct, then this is totally incorrect. We should instead have
Moreover can you or Montesita clarify the difference beween "Superbike racing" and "Supersport racing" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I think that should be a little bit "too deep" , imho, but you're right. :D However i'm not so "technically" educated in motorcycle racing but, as i know, Superbike and Supersport are similar but can be treatened as different categories. I don't know why you asked to us, is plenty of information about that in the web. Surely Montesita can help us, but he resigned from COmmons i believe.--Lou6977 (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried researching it, and I couldn't tell the difference, aside from different organizations involved in organizing events. I think they could probably be merged. Categories are meant to make things findable, not to make hide them away through 10 different clicks. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I haven't read all of this discussion. But eg enwiki en:superbike racing is a standalone article, and en:supersport racing is redirected to DAB en:Super sport (equivalent in Commons: category:Super sport)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nature reserves in gmina Międzychód

empty, I moved all images to appropriate folders of nature reserves Pikador (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that Category:Nature reserve Dolina Kamionki‎ and Category:Nature reserve Kolno Międzychodzkie are the only nature reserves in Category:Gmina Międzychód and don't require the extra level of categorization? Is the same true for the single child category of Category:Nature reserves in Sieraków ? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pikador and Themightyquill: we probably need a Polish user to solve the question of one-member Category:Nature reserves in Sieraków--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: So, what is the point of those changes? Are you removing categories of low admininistration level like a municipality? Anyway Category:Nature reserves in Sieraków should be removed, it refers to the city of Sieraków, which doesn't have any nature reserves (Nature reserve Buki nad jeziorem Lutomskim is situated just outside the city border), but there is also „gmina Sieraków“ (municipality) which has 4 nature reserves. So you can move that only one nature reserve to Category:Gmina Sieraków or create Category:Nature in gmina Sieraków and put it in there. But as I can see, other categories with nature in municipalities have been removed too so first option remains. Pikador (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belly dancers

In another CfD I have defended to use the words "Belly dancers"; I hope we will choose the right path. OTOH, making this an RD to an alternative (IMHO bad) title but only for its "by name" subcat is quite peculiar and must be eliminated to use the "Category:Belly dancers" at the correct place. E4024 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sheikh (Head of a sufi group)

Looks like made for one person (a series of his pics, the bearded one) and with a wrong name and also as a wrong classification. Even Rumi (Mevlana) is not called "sheikh" (exceptions may exist). E4024 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the wrong capitalization (correct: "head of a group") it seems to be fitted with parent Category:Sheikh (Head of a group). At the moment it is not one-person-only category--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sheikh el-Bekri

I would like to know more about this person because the current categorization only implies he was the head of some Sufi grouping in Egypt; and as such a one-file cat may not be necessary. Do we not even know his birth and death years? What do we know about him that made us make a special cat when the only file does not even depict him?

(BTW the original English text on the file prefers "el" and not "al" as Arabic definite article and I like that; regrettably here in Commons we tend to use "al". When I say "we" I mean Arabic-language users. I'm not one of them.) E4024 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose to recategorize the only file, and this one-member category about inferior person to be deleted. Category is created by user:Ashashyou--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic extremism

We have this and Category:Islamic fundamentalism also. Normal? E4024 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem strange to me since I'd instinctively see the two as the same, but reading en:Islamic extremism and en:Islamic fundamentalism suggests there may be an important difference: one can be a religious fundamentalist without supporting violence, but (by some definitions) extremism always includes a willingness to commit violence. Certainly, there's a difference between en:Christian fundamentalism and en:Christian terrorism, so I would hate to merge the two parallel categories only in the case of Islam. But perhaps Category:Islamic extremism should be deleted, with the content moved into Category:Islamic terrorism ? I'm not sure what's best. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created Category:Victims of Islamic terrorism in that Category:Islamic terrorism. Hope that is okay? Thank you foryour time. Lotje (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian Turkmen

Look at the third file here, than the only file in the mother cat, "Category:Turkmen In Israel" (sic - Turkmen is not plural of Turkman. :) We certainly have some confusion of classification here. Having added no relation to "general" Turkmen cats is another proof of that deficient categorization. E4024 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

en:Turkmen suggests the term "Turkmen" is used both in Israel and in Palestine to refer to their respective ethnic Turkish minorities. But I would suggest Category:Turks in Israel (matching en:Turks in Israel) and Category:Turks in Palestine would be clearer. Both would fit fine under Category:Turks by country‎ - Themightyquill (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Palestinian Turkmen does not necessarily live in Israel. The majority now live in Jordan; it is used to describe the community as a whole, not just Turkmen living in State of Palestine or Israel. Most have been forced to leave their homes but still identify as Palestinian Turkmen. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am not satisfied yet, when you have a clearer mind please use Category:Turkmens by country and remember to use the "s". --E4024 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the Turkmen of the Middle East (i.e. Seljuk and Ottoman descendants) with Turkmen in Turkmenistan! They are not part of a Turkmenistan diaspora. Ridiculous, you clearly haven't a clue about Turkmen in the Levant. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm a ridiculous person; sorry. These Turkmens must have come from somewhere other than where all Turks came from. Enjoy life. --E4024 (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented a category on the Turkmen people which includes "Turkmen in Iran" and "Turkmen in Afghanistan" -- these of course are part of the Turkmen people of Turkmenistan. But Turkmen/Turkoman in the Levant (Iraq, Syria, Palestine/Israel, Lebanon) do not fit in the same category. They identify mostly with the Republic of Turkey, they do not identify with Turkmenistan. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Selçuk Denizli: Could we use either Category:Turkish diaspora in X or Category:People of Turkish descent‎ in X since we have Category:Turkish diaspora and Category:People of Turkish descent‎?
@Themightyquill: , "Turkish diaspora" would also be incorrect because they are not part of the diaspora (just like Bulgarian Turks, Cypriot Turks etc.) -- they have been living there for centuries, prior to the formation of modern nation states. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Selçuk Denizli: I'm not sure that's inherent to the definition of diaspora, since "Jewish diaspora" is certainly a thing. But, would Category:People of Turkish descent‎ in X please you better? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Specific CFD. I can notice that parent is Category:Israeli Turkmen (incidentally probably should be renamed to Category:Turkmens in Israel). So logical name for the nominated category would be Category:Turkmens in Palestine--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Density of the set

According to the side-tab links (e.g. en:dense set), this category should be renamed to "Dense sets". However, I don't see why the Mandelbrot pictures belong to here (before or after category renaming). Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mathoverflow question: is-there-an-almost-dense-set-of-quadratic-polynomials-which-is-not-in-the-inte/254533#254533 - it was an inspiration to check image density. Maybe it is not strict. The "dense sets" category looks good also. --Adam majewski (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I was about to close this discussion with consensus "Rename to Category:Dense sets", but on second thought I realized that (1) trivially dense sets (like a completely black rectangle) would belong to this category, too, and (2) none of the Mandelbrot images would belong there (e.g. the lower right corner in File:Mandelbrot Cypress Underbrush.jpg is not a limit point of any sequence of non-black pixels). It seems that the limit image of the sequence shown in File:Zoom around principal Misiurewicz point for periods from 2 to 1024.gif would be the only dense set shown below this category. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose ? near dense sets ? or dense sets in computer graphic ? --Adam majewski (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam majewski: Attempting to finish this stale discussion, I suggest that the category should be deleted. Its 11 members (the number apparently hasn't increased during the last 2.5 years) are well-categorized without it, and I don't see an appropriate definition (cf. my above post of 3 June 2019). As for your suggetions of 31 Jan 2021: both "near dense sets" and "dense sets in computer graphic" would apply to a completely black rectangle. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]