Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10

Category:GHS pictograms

Uninformative name Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Вадзім Медзяноўскі: Please elaborate on your proposal to make it more informative. Josh (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Pictograms of dangerous. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 Keep This is probably the best name for this. GHS is a widely known acronym for Globally Harmonised System and 'GHS pictograms' is the name used in the CLP Regulation. The other name used in the CLP Regulation is 'hazard pictograms', but it would be ambiguous in this situation, because it may mean every hazard pictogram not only GHS pictogram. Wostr (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd never heard of GHS before, so it's not universally known, and I think we're better off avoiding acronyms. en:GHS can mean a lot of things. On the other hand, Category:Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals pictograms does seems unwieldly. I'm not sure what to suggest... - Themightyquill (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 Keep I dont't get the logic. "I have not heard of it." implies that "It is not widely known."? ??? Gee, I wish I were a quarter as self-confident. But joke aside, everyone who works with hazardous materials has to have heard of GHS at some point. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@DrTorstenHenning: I cleary said "universally known", so my statement is factual. You're suggesting that, because everyone who works with harzardous chemicals knows what it means, that it's a "widely known" acronym, which is obviously not true. Would you suggest that most people using wikimedia commons work with chemicals? By contrast, anyone who works with hazardous chemicals can surely figure out that Globally Harmonized System means GHS. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:GHS pictogramsMove to/Rename asCategory:Globally Harmonized System pictograms
@Вадзім Медзяноўскі, Wostr, Themightyquill, and DrTorstenHenning: Per COM:CAT, initialisms, acronyms and abbreviations should be avoided in favor of spelling out names. We can use short names instead of full formal official names so long as they are sufficient to identify the subject. For example, we use "United States", not "US", "USA", or "United States of America", and "United Kingdom" instead of "UK" or "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". How well known an initialism is does not change the equation, as both of these are far more well known than GHS and they still have to conform.
Josh (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "GHS pictogram" is an official name used in EU legal acts. I don't see any reason to change it, especially considering the whole series of such categories (NFPA 704, ECB, ADR, WHMIS, ...) exists, and I won't take part in this pointless discussion any longer. Wostr (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wostr: Can you provide some evidence that it's used in EU legal acts without actually spelling it out first? Come on. I don't think moving to Category:Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals pictograms makes much sense but Category:Globally Harmonized System pictograms seems fine. Even something like Category:GHS chemical hazard pictograms would give uninitiated users more context. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Wostr, Joshbaumgartner, Themightyquill, and DrTorstenHenning: whenever possible we should avoid not widely known acronyms in titles of categories. I am supporting Josh (Globally Harmonized System pictograms)--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 Keep current title per general usage of the abbreviation at GHS hazard pictograms, UNECE and Safe Work Australia, amongst others. --Minoa (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Minoa: then why not move to Category:GHS hazard pictograms, which would be much clearer? Also Pinging @Вадзім Медзяноўскі, Joshbaumgartner, Wostr, Themightyquill, Estopedist1. - Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't know why this is discussed now after 5 years. I think nothing has changed during this time and I still don't see any problem here that is worth a discussion. Wostr (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
@Wostr 'GHS pictograms' is in violation of Wikimedia Commons category naming conventions. While 'GHS' may be understood within a certain specialized community, Wikimedia Commons is not limited to one specialty. Unless there is a consensus to support an exception to WC policy, it should be renamed to comply with policy. I don't see anything here that would give a compelling reason to have an out-of-policy name here. Josh (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:FN FAL in Libyan service

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Military equipment by country.

All of the shown rifles are used by rebells, s oas long as we don't have pics of gouvermental use, I'd suggest to delete this cat and move the files to the FN FAL parent cat. Sanandros (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Neutral No problem to delete this category. I prefered to have the rifles sorted by user but I unsterstand your remark.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 Keep Not sure this category should be deleted. "In Libyan service" can mean any Libyan operator of a weapon--assuming it only means official government use is an unwarranted leap. Sub-cats can group these by specific named operators if need be. Take Category:Aircraft in Australian service, there sub-cats for airlines, government, military, police, and executive operators, as well as media of aircraft of private Australian operators. If any Libyan operator uses the FN FAL, then this category is warranted. Josh (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The Small Arms Survery p. 49 says it's impossible to trace the origins of these rifles. So they could be from anywhere. Furthermore this cat is conncecete to Gouverment of Lybia over the Cats Military Eqiment of Lybia -> Military of Lybia -> Gouverment of Lybia. But we can't say that these weapons are linked to the gouvement of Lybia.--Sanandros (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
They may soon be seen in service with Libyan "governmental armies" (GNA or LNA), cf this tweet.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Soon is not at time of photography. And Twitter is not a reliable source.--Sanandros (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not the purpose of Commons categories to maintain the current service status of military equipment. Who has what is something that is constantly evolving and is not always publicly known with authority. Category assignments are not referenced with sources, so they cannot function as such. They only serve to ease user access to files maintained by the repository. Whether or not the FN FAL is officially part of the Libyan government's inventory or not is completely irrelevant to our category scheme. If we have a file depicting the FN FAL being used by a Libyan operator, then it belongs here or in a sub-cat of this one. I 100% agree that the overall tree is far too misleading, as pointed to by Sanandros (talk · contribs). If the category were Category:FN FAL in Libyan government service then it would be more restrictive. The entire category structure of weapons 'in Foo service' should be reviewed, but as it is currently implemented, this category is correct to have files of Libyan rebels with FN FAL rifles. Josh (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want to change the category tree, you are free to do so. But if you want to include non govermental organisations, then you need to define how they are, in this case, Lybian, as Tuareg from Mali fought in the Lybian War. So are these Lybian or Malian usage of a firearm?--Sanandros (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a deep rabbit hole, Sanandros (talk · contribs), when a South African working for an American organization is operating on behalf of the Iraqi government, who exactly is their weapon serving? If we want to restrict 'in Fooian service' to mean exclusively weapons in the official inventory of government agencies, there is nothing wrong with that per se. Apparently some users approach these categories with this exact presumption. However, it is not explicitly stated and thus there are also many users who do not apply this presumption. Hence, situations like this. If you want to set on overaching precedent for 'in service' categories, that would really need to be discussed at a much higher level (Category:Military equipment by country perhaps). But until that is decided on, the fact that this category does not meet a restrictive definition that has not been broadly adopted does not constitute sufficient cause to delete the category. Josh (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: OK I started another discussion ant the miltary eqipment cat which u linked.--Sanandros (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Photographs of the Union flag by civil parish

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Union Jack.

Unnecessary depth, and this could grow to be both huge and pointless as few people know about civil parishes, let alone care. County then maybe town level is adequate. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose This is a UK term for a fourth level administrative level division. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Category:Photographs of the Union flag by civil parishMove to/Rename asCategory:Photographs of the Union Jack by civil parish
Main parent cat for the flag is Category:Union Jack. These categories are valid so long as there are sufficient files to support them.
Josh (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose The Union flag is only a jack when it is flown on a jackstaff. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Union Jack, your assertion is a matter of debate. It also misses the point that subs of Category:Union Jack should be named consistently. If you feel "Union flag" is a better name for the parent category, by all means make that case on its CfD, but so long as it is "Union Jack", its subs should match. Josh (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Districts in the United Kingdom

Misleading title. Districts are of towns and cities, not counties or constituent countries of the UK. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose This is a UK term for a third level administrative level division. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
District itself is too vague. There are, e.g. districts of Liverpool that are parts of the Metropolitan District (and City) of Liverpool but they are not Districts within the meaning of this category. Split into Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Districts and let the cities have their (separate) districts. Also, there are no statutory districts in Scotland or Wales. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This makes sense to me. Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that Category:Metropolitan boroughs of England already exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Possibly use Local government districts for the administrative areas and suburbs for areas of larger settlements. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Superficially attractive, but e.g. Ropewalks, Baltic Triangle and Cultural Quarter in Liverpool are not suburbs, they're in the City Centre. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
At least suburbs (and similar) shouldn't be mixed with local government districts since there two different things and Category:Districts of cities in England should probably be removed from Category:Districts in England (and the same for the likes of Category:Districts of Dundee). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:She holds the baby

The name of this category seems odd and, moreover, the intended content seems to double the Category:Women holding babies hundred procent. Therefore I suggest to place the current content to the latter and remove this category. Eissink (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment: Apparently this category intends to include "women holding babies while breastfeeding". Strakhov (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment these other cats need some "renaming work" too. Strakhov (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, @Strakhov, you might very well be right – I didn't see it that way before. So yes, renaming might be a solution. Still, I leave the discussion open, and let the community decide. Thanks. Eissink (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC).
  •  Comment: As Strakhov comments, this category is associated with the phenomenon of breastfeeding ...as the two categories to which it is anchored explain and reveal. It is also complementary to: "She pinches the breast", and other categories contained in: Category:Breastfeeding by posture... All of them make up a set of visual galleries related to catalogs initiated by art critical scholars such as Max Friedlander or later scholars of the Madonna col Bambino as a hagiographic theme. Personally, I don't see the need to change any of these names in the referred categories. They are clear and explicit, and allow grouping more current examples of this classification. But if after a thorough analysis and review of the related iconography, they get more 'appropriate' categorization titles, go ahead with the work.--Latemplanza (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see, as related also to Commons:Naming categories, is that 'She', 'The baby', or 'He' (see Category:He embraces the breast) are not plurals and that the titles are not describing what they intend to describe. F.i. "He embraces the breast" is really categorizing Breastfeeding male babies holding mother's breast, or maybe Paintings of baby Jesus holding Mary's breast – depending on whatever you really want to categorize. Eissink (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC).
 Comment:Nicely summed up Eissink. I too have been troubled by these sub categories of Category:Breastfeeding by posture. Categories need to stand reasonably alone in their description. If we don't change the name, Category:He pinches the breast might attract all sorts of images that have nothing to so with breastfeeding and surely not the intent of the creator of the Category!--Headlock0225 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Headlock0225 and Eissink. If we really need this cat at least it has to be renamed. Can one imagine breastfeeding without holding, so Madonna lactans categories are sufficient.--Oursana (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Birgitta of Hohenzollern

Name change of Category as no such Person as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ existing, though the individual here named as so is and should be renamed as ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’, a Swedish Princess who is only married to a Prince of the Noble Princely House of HohenzollernImperialArchivesRU (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Her legal married German name i Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern. Sweden (Schweden) is not mentioned. "von Hohenzollern" translates as of Hohenzollern. That's sufficient in this context. Unnecessary moves are not appropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This category was improperly moved to Category:Princess Birgitta of Sweden by Rereader1996 (talk · contribs) without proper conclusion of this CfD. Since SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) has offered objection and it has not been answered, I do not believe we can close this in favor of a move yet. I have reversed the move pending completion of this CfD. Josh (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: , @SergeWoodzing: Princess Birgitta’s official name and title as well as the title of which she is always referred to by the Swedish Royal court and news outlets (the majority which base their articles on factual information) is: ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ as at no point in her entire life has she ever been, ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinzessin Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinsessan Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or even ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’; furthermore, her English Wikipedia page (which is always the go-to, for the majority of readers) is named en:Princess Birgitta of Sweden in addition to the German one, de:Birgitta Ingeborg Alice von Schweden.

The category category:Birgitta of Hohenzollern was most probably made due to the lack of factual information and assumption that due to her marriage to a Hohenzollern Prince, that she immediately becomes known as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ which isn’t the case in the slightest.

  • The Royal Website of the Swedish Royal Family refers to her as: Princess Birgitta
  • The Top leading Royal news outlet refer to her as ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ Royal Central

Therefore I suggest for the category to be correctly reverted to ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’ to comply with accurate and factual information rather than misleading based on ones own opinions of how she should be legally titled when the evidence outweighs the opinions.Rereader1996 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What is her legal married name? Does anybody care? Like a genealogy site, Wikipedia always uses the maiden names of royal women, regardlesss of what their actual legal married names are. "Royal Central" has no official standing & is not a reliable source as evidenced by errors (bs) about the Swedish constitution in that very article. The Swedish royal court has never used "of Sweden" about Birgitta since she got married. In Germany, where Birgitta has lived for many years and where she gave birth to all her German-born children, policy since the abolishion of the Germany monarchies in 1918 has been to add the formerly valid titles legally to the surnames of the ex-royalty. Thus her name would be Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern as married. Alleging that she has never been known as "of Hohenzollern" or the like ignores her marriage and is just not accurate. Without seeing her passort, no Wikipedian call tell what's right or wrong. Nevertheless, this could easily have been solved by a redirect rather than a move. Much tadoo about nothing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: Depending on the country and it’s laws of registration, Imperials Royals and those members of ruling families don’t have married names as their name-title is what they’re registered under; Birgitta may have resided in Germany in addition to currently residing in Spain, however that does not mean her title changes even due to marriage; her current and only title of which she is known as and is officially referred to is ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’, not ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’, the Former also taking precedence over the two latter examples; if say she was ever known as ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or even ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’, the Swedish Royal Court has never referred to her as such as they only refer to her as ‘Princess Birgitta’ as they do with all Princes and Princesses in the family as you will see in this link , her elder sister has been referred to with her official and legal title and style ‘Princess Margaretha, Mrs Ambler‘ and their cousin has been referred to as just ‘Princess Benedikte’ though she is also officially ‘Princess Benedikte of Denmark’, infact even her nephew and niece as ‘Princess Madeleine’ and ‘Prince Carl Philip’ which itself proves that if Birgitta’s official and legal name was ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollenrn’ (like her husband has as you will see in the same link listed as ‘H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern‘) then she would literally be listed as such! @Joshbaumgartner: . Rereader1996 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Why discuss this any further? Just to try to prove that one is wrong and the other right? It could easily be solved by a redirect rather than a move. Unnecessary category moves, just to satisfy one user's personal opinions or another's about format, are never appropriate. Birgitta married a titular prince of Hohenzollern and then became a titular princess of Hohenzollern. She is often called that & it is not incorrect to refer to her as such. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: Because there is literally no such person as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’ to exists. Technically Prince Johannes was never and has never been a titular Prince, he by descent and legitimacy has been a Prince as are his children however due to the implicated naming laws in Germany forced German Royals and aristocrats to have a family name however Birgitta being married to a Hohenzollern Prince doesn’t necessarily mean she is a Hohenzollern Princess as Princesses don’t just assume the titles of their husband unless changes have been made. @Joshbaumgartner: . Rereader1996 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We may be having a language problem, and/or what I've written here may have been mostly ignored, including the link to one of Sweden's major magazines which writes about "Prinsessan Birgitta av Hohenzollern". In any case some of the terminology makes no sense to me at all, and some of the statements are definitely conjecture. Seems like there is a wish to deny that a woman gets her husband's title when they are married. I've never heard of such a bizarre idea. There is a difference between Wikipedia's maiden-name-only policy for royal women and what actually goes on the real world. And Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia anyway. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Leave this alone and let a redirect cover her maiden name & status. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support since she is known by both names and the category move is not necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: As has been stated a few times, there is literally no such person as ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’ to exist and nor is Princess Birgitta referred to or known as such and very rarely is she ever called as such by media, if it is that much of an issue then first of all I would suggest to change the names of the Wikipedia Pages en:Princess Birgitta of Sweden, es:Brígida de Suecia (1937), fr:Birgitte de Suède, it:Brigitta di Svezia, nl:Birgitta van Zweden (1937), ro:Prințesa Birgitta a Suediei, pt:Brígida da Suécia, sl:Brigita Švedska (1937), no:Birgitta av Sverige and cs:Birgitta Švédská to this apparent ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta Prinzessin von Hohenzollern’ or whatever new name title she apparently and assumingly has because of being married to a Hohenzollern Prince. Rereader1996 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
We must rely more on Svensk Damtidning in this matter than on the personal opinions of any Wikipedian. Ignoring the link I provided to that magazine, as an example of where she is called "Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern", is not helpful. Nor is repeating the same conjecture over and over. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: since when has Svensk Damtidning taken precedence of the Swedish Royal Court in facts? As I had literally posted a link above from the royal website explaining the difference in how Princess Birgitta and her husband were presented:“H.R.H. Princess Birgitta and H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern” whereas if she was realistically ever ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinzessin Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Prinsessan Birgitta av Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ or even ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ then the Royal website would literally write it as such, as they did with her husband whose Princely title wasn’t even mentioned before his name but was written as a surname (German law of naming conventions). Rereader1996 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
She is still a princess of Sweden, and (and) she is a titular princess of Honenzollern. The magazine knows that. So does the royal court. What the royal court chooses to call her is not decisive. If she is known as both, which she is, this move is not needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: As has already been explained before, if she were truly ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’ then the royal website would have referred to her as such (H.R.H Birgitta, Princess von Hohenzollern) as they did with her husband (“H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern”) whereas she was stated: “H.R.H. Princess Birgitta“, just as her nephew and niece were: “H.R.H. Princess Madeleine/H.R.H. Prince Carl Philip” in addition to her sisters being referred with their full title: “Princess Margaretha, Mrs Ambler/Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld/Princess Christina, Mrs Magnuson“ which in itself proves that she is officially not even referred to and known with ‘Hohenzollern’ in her title. Rereader1996 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Considering the fact that if she were to be titled as a Hohenzollern then she would literally be officially referred to as any of the examples: ‘Birgitta of Hohenzollern’, ‘Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern’, ‘Birgitta, Princess von Hohenzollern’ etc... (like her husband has: “H.H. Dr Johann Georg, Prince von Hohenzollern”) just as her sisters have been referred to with their official titles: “Princess Margaretha, Mrs Ambler/Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld/Princess Christina, Mrs Magnuson“ whereas Princess Birgitta of Sweden has been referred to in the same style as a Princess of Sweden just as her niece and nephew have “H.R.H. Princess Madeleine/H.R.H. Prince Carl Philip”.[1] Rereader1996 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
None of that is relevant to the fact that she is known by both names, her maiden name and her married name, as clearly has been shown. Thus the move is not necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: In what sense is it not relevant? As I have previously stated, if the Royal website itself states her as ‘HRH Princess Birgitta’ like they do with the other Swedish Princes and Princesses rather than referring to her as ‘HRH Birgitta Princess von Hohenzollern’ or ‘Birgitta von Hohenzollern’ or whatever you believe she is titled as, that in itself presents the argument of her being officially known as ‘Princess Birgitta of Sweden’, as I have mentioned earlier in another page name change discussion, I understand that you want to take control of Swedish Royal Category Pages, however incorrect names/titles are pretty pointless and confusing. Thus I put forward the reiteration to Princess Birgitta of Sweden. Rereader1996 (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no constructive reason to respond input by any user who makes intentionally rude fantasy accusations like " I understand that you want to take control of Swedish Royal Category Pages". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: ‘intentionally rude fantasy’ according to yourself however evidently we can see this in other edits and CFD’s; as it is, I still stand by my statement on the basis of your not following factual information, rather, basing your edits and reverts on your assumptions. Rereader1996 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 Strong oppose The official name used by the Swedish royal house and the press generally is "Princess Birgitta of Sweden." And more...

The only version of Wikipedia that uses "Hohenzollern" in the article title is nn:Birgitta av Sverige og Hohenzollern, anyway, Sweden is in the title and comes before Hohenzollern. There is no reason to justify this change. Minerva97 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. ↑ https://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/media/pressreleases/olderpressreleases/pressreleasesearlier/theentryoftheguestsofhonourintothecathedral.5.40e05eec12926f2630480003473.html

Category:Eglinton Country Park

redirect to deleted category Robby (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The target category does not appear to be a deleted category. It looks like you meant to close this discussion? @Robby: – BMacZero (🗩) 19:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You are right that the target category is not deleted. I wanted to ask for the deletion of the redirect page and should have marked this categary with the template bad name. Sorry for this 'black-out' moment from my part. Robby (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep. If there is any other Eglinton Country Park, this should be made into a disambiguation. Otherwise, keep the redirect, as it is what most people will type when searching for it. --rimshottalk 22:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. @BMacZero, Robby, Rimshot, and Crouch, Swale: enwiki en:Eglinton Country Park is reserved to Scotland one, but its hatnote declares that "not to be confused with Eglinton Park (Toronto)" (we also have Category:Eglinton Park). Do we use enwiki solution?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: Sounds like you mean to move Category:Eglinton Country Park, Scotland to here and hatnote Category:Eglinton Park on that page. That sounds fine to me. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The suggested solution sounds well to me. Robby (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
As noted we either need to move the Scottish one to the base name or have a DAB here, the current situation is both against item 2 of the category redirects page here given it means readers still have to click through it and against w:WP:PRECISION. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Support moving Category:Eglinton Country Park, Scotland back to Category:Eglinton Country Park and adding a hatnote to Category:Eglinton Park. Apparently Eglinton Country Park is also known as Eglinton Park, but not the other way around (cf. their website, which uses the name with and without country). --rimshottalk 22:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Kiting

same as category:Kitesurfing? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems similar, with the possible exception of the image that's on snow. I'm not sure it's kitesurfing if it isn't on water. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the one on snow isn't kitesurfing (since the verb "surf" doesn't appear to exclusively apply to water) and even if there was a difference there would be a significant overlap however if more images specifically related to other types do show up then maybe Kitesurfing should be a sub category of Kiting but I'm not sure what others could exist with defining titles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Auntof6: Given the explaination by Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs), any objection to merging at this point? Josh (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I guess I'm OK with that. It's interesting to note that the enwiki article is called kiteboarding although their category is called kitesurfing. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Photographs of dance

A great majority of dance-related files are photographs, so this category largely overlaps Category:Dance. It's unlikely that someone would search for just photos of dance when photos are by far the predominant media type. Also, this category currently covers only a tiny fraction of dance photos; it would be a monumental task to increase coverage to a useful level and there seems to be no logical reason to do so. I suggest that it be deleted. Lambtron (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of the sub-categories don't fit into a tree anyway. We have Category:19th-century photographs of dancing bears but no Category:Dancing bears in the 19th century, Category:19th-century photographs of balls (dance) but no Category:Balls (dance) in the 19th-century. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The tree includes a multitude of subcategories which are similarly problematic; these should also be deleted:

Lambtron (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment there aren't just videos too in the cat but also diagrams, photos of say dance schools, and so on so subcategorizing photos of dance where the emphasis is not on photos but on "of" seems reasonable. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Lambtron: I agree with eliminating the simply 'photographs of' categories under ballet, but not 'portrait photographs of' ones. Portrait photographs are a particular style of image that may well be sought to illustrate an article or other use, so it makes sense to have these remain. Any objection to moving forward with the rest while excluding portrait photograph categories from deletion? Josh (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Lambtron (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The 19th century is the first EVER to have photographs of dance (or any subject). This alone should be enought to justify a seperate category. It's not drawings or paintings, but real images of dance and dancers. If you want more detail, fine, but let's keep this one to hold all the old images together. I'm talking of the 19th century here, not of the category "Photographs of dance"; I agree that a category "Photographs of dance" would be a little strange.--Judithcomm (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Judithcomm and Lambtron: probably should be used system: Category:19th-century photographs of ballet to be merged into Category:19th-century ballet. This system was already stated above--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
19th-century ballet is not just photographs, but also paintings, possibly documents, etc. Also dances originating from the 19th century, but danced in the 21st --Judithcomm (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Judithcomm and Lambtron: I guess, soon we ask: do we need Category:Photographs by topic (is already under discussion). Category:Images by subject is already emptied--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Philanthropic organizations

A number of problems:

  1. what's the difference between philanthropic and charitable orgs?
  2. Why is foundation underneath this? I think many foundations could be set up for advocacy of, say, political causes or business lobbyist activity, which may not be philanthropic. Roy17 (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Very good question. en:Philanthropy says "A difference commonly cited is that charity aims to relieve the pain of a particular social problem, whereas philanthropy attempts to address the root cause of the problem—the difference between the proverbial gift of a fish to a hungry person, versus teaching them how to fish." But I'm not convinced we can easily tell the difference here. I suggest merging, though I couldn't say which one to keep and which one to redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I've tagged a few more categories. I can't see the difference between Category:Charities and Category:Charitable organizations. I'm also not sure we benefit from having both Category:Charity and Category:Philanthropy. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
enwp has two cat trees w:Category:Charities and w:Category:Philanthropic organizations. Category:Charities description says See also: Category:Philanthropic organizations. This category is closely related to the Non-governmental organizations and Nonprofit organizations categories. For English-speaking countries, whether an article appears in one or the other depends primarily on local usage, which varies from one country to another. If we look at other wikis, more of them pair their cat with Charities than with Philanthropic organizations.
Maybe we should build our tree under Charitable organizations?
Is there an example of a philanthropic org that's not charitable, or the other way around?--Roy17 (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17 and Themightyquill: Sounds like for the purposes of Commons, there is no need for a breakdown between charity and philanthropy. It is only a question of naming. I have no strong preference between the two, but I would strongly suggest that the organizations category match the overall category (i.e. if we go with Category:Philanthropy we also use Category:Philanthropic organizations, or if Category:Charity use Category:Charitable organizations.) Josh (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I assume Category:Philanthropy exists because it is somewhere to put categories like Category:Philanthropists‎. Which wouldn't work in Category:Charity or Category:Charitable organizations. As philanthropists aren't charities or organizations. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add that substantial restructuring is required for the content of these categories. I am seeing a mix of images of logos, publications, and events/activities, each of which should be its own subcategory of thing. BD2412 T 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Good morning. Thanks for your contributions. Please do not merge, keep both. By the way that was not the initial question or demand but : what is the difference ? Please be aware that
charity is a christian precept (Marc 12:30-31) and virtue ;
philanthropy is the moral principle of those showing unselfish solidarity.
Both are altruistic human behaviours.
I removed Cat:Atruism from Cat:Philanthropy = Cat:Altriusm was/is already parent cat of Philanthropy.
I removed Cat:Charitable organizations and Cat:Philanthropy from Cat:Social economy = they have no economic objectives
I added : Cat:Non-profit organizations to both of them
Please revoke if you do not agree. I suggest
Cat:Foundations (organizations) should not figure under Philanthropic orgaanizations. Please remove. Thank you.
There are lots of other things to do (wikidatas need correction, interwikis have erroneous translations... ) Kind regards, --Bohème (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I support Bohème. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The word charity may have its origin in Christianity...
But nowadays there're things like Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, Category:Buddhist charities...
Here's my suggestion:
Category:Philanthropic organizations and Category:Charities redirect to Category:Charitable organizations.
Category:Charitable organizations is a subcat of Category:Social economy (Umbrella term for companies that have a social objective). Roy17 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)