Commons:Village pump/Proposals

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/02.

Please note

One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
Have you read the FAQ?

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 5 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Proposal: Improve Toolhub coverage of Commons tools by improving on-wiki tool documentation[edit]

Toolhub is a community managed catalog of software tools used in the Wikimedia movement. Technical volunteers can use Toolhub to document the tools they create or maintain. All Wikimedians can use Toolhub to search for tools to help with their workflows and to create lists of useful tools to share with others. You can read more about Toolhub in general on meta.

The Technical Engagement team is interested in talking with active contributors to Wikimedia Commons about finding more ways for the Commons community to use Toolhub. We are interested in having more tools that are helpful for workflows on Commons listed in Toolhub and for those tools to be more discoverable to folks who are contributing to Commons.

We think that updating Commons: Tools is one way to start on this problem. We are proposing a small project to build new templates and use them to make the list of tools readable by a bot.

If you are interested in discussing our proposal, or if you have your own idea to propose improving Toolhub integration with Commons, please join the conversation at Commons talk:Tools. Udehb-WMF (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silence is approval ;) Be bold, revert where needed and discuss. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we are close to the WP:BOLD stage on this, but I would like to highlight that I have posted information on a proof of concept implementation that will be the basis of my bold edits later this week. I am still very much hoping that folks will at least tell me what they do not like about the visual designs. -- BDavis (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At a first glance, that looks reasonable to me - but I'm sure we will find things to complain about as soon as you actually start doing things ;-) El Grafo (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Mobile app: Zusammenarbeit von Wikimedia Commons und OpenStreetMap / Wikimedia Commons and OpenStreetMap collaboration.[edit]

de:

Mit der Commons App einfach Bilder aufnehmen und automatisch mit Objekten in OSM verbinden.

Idee des Prozesses:

mit Commons App in OpenStreetMap Karte hinneinzoomen
Objekt auswählen
mit Commons App Foto aufnehmen
Das Foto wird veröffentlicht
anschließend wird im Knotenobjekt in OpenStreetMap unter Details der Schlüssel „wikimedia_commons“ mit dem Wert „File:Bildname“ hinterlegt

en:

Easily take pictures with the Commons app and automatically connect them to objects in OSM.

Idea of the process:

zoom into OpenStreetMap map with Commons app.
Select object
take a photo with Commons App
photo will be published
then the key "wikimedia_commons" with the value "File:Image name" is stored in the node object in OpenStreetMap under Details

see also: Commons:Mobile app/Feedback – Wikimedia Commons Molgreen (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Write from Commons directly into OSM dataset[edit]

Or another idea: would it be conceivable to write from Commons directly to the OSM database. Assuming you know the OSM object ID of a mapped object, you could add it like a category to the properties of the image --Molgreen (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect the better route would be through Wikidata. Each Commons picture or category for which there is a WD item should have a link to that item, and each WD item that has a corresponding OSM object ID should link to that. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, linking from Wikidata to OSM elements has one major problem: OSM's object IDs are not permanent and can change when the map is edited. El Grafo (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same problem is when you try to use OSM object id as properties of image. In any case currently proper way is to add wikidata items to Openstreetmap. (and if you need them in SPARQL then make federated queries through Sophox) However, this doesn't help if one need items in Lua or template code. -- Zache (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eqsily done, using https://wikishootme.toolforge.org/ -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caption edit box in File editor is small on mobile[edit]

Hi, on my mobile device the text box to add/edit a caption is only a few characters wide, making it difficult to work with. I wonder if it's possible to make it larger? P.s. thanks for all the great work! Facts707 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow user to delete botched upload[edit]

I hereby propose, that if user uploads a file and for any reason he is not happy with it, he should have 10 minutes to delete it, without needing any assistance of any other person.

Yes, he will probably just upload a new version of it, but he doesn't want to leave the old version around wasting bytes, nor does he want to waste others' time helping.

The upload form could in fact ask him "Happy?"

Sure he is supposed to plan ahead, but sometimes mistakes happen. Jidanni (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In those circumstances, {{speedydelete|G7}} would never be declined. I strongly suspect it would be very difficult to implement what Jidanni is proposing. It also would probably really complicated the process of checking new uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well OK. But on File:19940722epoplar.jpg how does one mark only the middle crooked version for deletion? All there is is a revert button. There is no handy mark for deletion button. Also your template says "This template is to mark pages that can be speedy deleted." I bet I will end up getting the whole page deleted! Jidanni (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You save no bytes by "deleting" a file or file version on Commons, as the only thing deleting does is hide them from public view. Admins can delete a version ("revisiondelete") of the file, but that should be done only in the case of legal or privacy problems, not because it was "botched" like this. No problem having it in the history. And as Jmabel says, allowing a normal user to do this is convoluted: you need to assign such a right ("delete" or "deleterevision") to a process running on the user's behalf, and it is very easy to do some mistake in the coding such that the feature can be used for unintended effects. –LPfi (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please somebody delete just this version: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3e/20230304033700%2119940722epoplar.jpg Jidanni (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you see it was simply 90° off and just a big mistake so no point in leaving it sitting around. Yeah I know the next time I could just ask them to rotate it for me but never mind that... I'lI already rotated it myself. Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is that such mistakes are supposed to be left in the history, like, you don't revision delete Wikipedia pages because of a spelling error that got fixed in the next version. The page or file will remain on WMF's hard disks, so you won't save any space, deletion is just an extra hassle. –LPfi (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an example of a deletion that wouldn't even be granted by an admin, so certainly not one where someone should be allowed to circumvent process. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose There is zero ability to give people any sort of temporary deletion right so the proposal is dead on its face. I don't know why it would be so difficult for someone in the small chance that they uploaded something and changed their mind to ask for people to help them. The fact that one editor uploaded an image incorrectly and is annoyed that they didn't look at the preview of their upload and now has to ask for help is not a reason to make a major change to the function of this website. Further, the last thing people need is vandals being able to upload files, post them and then delete them with no one able to know what is going on unless an admin looks at the deleted revisions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - A) Depending on circumstance we do allow recent uploads to be either speedy deleted or DR'd (Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7)

B) The file in question (File:19940722epoplar.jpg) was uploaded in 2007 so therefore cannot be speedy deleted and even if this proposal passed the file still couldn't be deleted anyway as it's not a recent upload so I'm confused by this proposal?

If we're talking about revision deleting then no unless there's an actual reason (gratuitous, privacy etc etc) then no we don't revdel/suppress the history/files.

This proposal achieves nothing and as noted above we shouldn't change the functionality all for one person. –Davey2010^Talk 12:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was talking about the 90 degree tilted middle version. It was only current for a couple minutes before I straightened it and uploaded again. Anyway one day someone is going to upload something so embarrassing by accident, too embarrassing to even leave for a minute, or ask and admin, that a final last chance should be given once they see what they did. Jidanni (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People do that all the time and they don't always figure it out within 10 minutes. We don't allow for universal self-deletion and I don't think it is technically possible anyways. Why is it so embarrassing to ask an admin? I mean you can email many of the admins if you want it to be (semi) anonymous. You are asking for a major change to the website's functionality for a completely abstract hypothetical. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add Like Button[edit]

All other websites on the planet it seems have Like buttons next to each picture. In fact they even have a choice of six emotions. So it seems Commons should get on the bandwagon, even if it is the road to ruin. Yup: simple logic: keep up with trends.

Sure, there are various contests. But under my proposal even the lowliest photo of a #3 wrench set would have a Like button people could press.

So what will people do with their "Likes"? I don't know. That's for the next generation to decide.

And what if I liked version 1 but then the user uploaded version 2? I'll leave that to the tech team.

Well then not only Commons, but Wikipedia articles too need Like buttons? OK, sure.

Jidanni (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a "Fave" button you can enable in your settings (section Interface: Files and categories). Stores your favorite files in a personal gallery at Special:MyPage/Favorites. Regarding the proposal: your only argument is "keep up with trends". Why should we? El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The commercial websites have those buttons as a means to maximise advertising revenue, and their effects is one of the reasons why social media and smartphones are seen as a social problem. Unless you want to keep some people's attention on this site more than what is healthy, you need to explain what you are trying to accomplish and how the adverse effects could be avoided. –LPfi (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose if WMF thought there was anything to be gained from it, they'd have shoehorned some buttons into Commons a decade ago. But we're not a "social" platform like Youtube, Instagram, etc. where the users are the product and "engagement" is more important than content. El Grafo (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El Grafo To be fair Commons would certainly be bottom on a very long list, I sometimes wonder if WMF actually realises they're hosting Commons at all!.

As for the proposal - there's no need to keep up with trends as we're not a social networking site, That's my 2p anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, there was a time when they were pushing all kinds of features in order to engage more "casual" users. Remember the mobile uploads debacle? Or the whole drama around Flow? Early MediaViewer and UploadWizard? Oh, the outrage ... good times ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should have a simple rating feature for photos as the QI process does not scale for the amount of files uploaded every day. GPSLeo (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a thank button for edits that are appreciated. I don't know what publicly happens with them but I think it's more important that we focus on edits than mere media. We have discussions where people put in their likes. It seems like you just want to do it with single button for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what publicly happens with them

Special:Log/thanks tracks the thanks that have been given. See mw:Extension:Thanks and w:en:Help:Notifications/Thanks for more about the feature. -- BDavis (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I see that it doesn't identify the specific edit. That could be a sort of like. If someone got twenty "thanks" for the upload edit of an image, isn't that the same as twenty "likes" for the image itself? I get thanks for edits all the time which are appreciated. I don't do a lot of amazing uploads so I can't compare it to what Jidanni is looking for. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about no. We are not a social media site. If you enjoy an image there is a favorites tool which I believe notifies the uploader. We do not need to turn WMC into a popularity contest. Dronebogus (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, let me disagree. Popularity of an image could be a good factor for finding them and illustrating articles. I know that we have "quality images of..." categories, but folksonomy is also a good way to find images. Theklan (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it isn’t. Popularity indicates nothing useful educationally. Dronebogus (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How could we make SVG Translate easier to find?[edit]

I've been using SVG Translate for a while and is not optimal but is still good for translating simple SVGs. The problem I see is that is not findable. The description files still comment that SVG files can be translated with InkScape or text editors, but there isn't a single link to SVG Translate. Also, the language dropdown when there are translations is not very evident. Can we discuss this? Thanks! Theklan (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SVG files that use text elements are often marked in the {{Information}} |other fields= parameter or just below the Information box. They are marked with either

{{Igen}} with one of |%= (text editor), |%v= (embedded text), |%s= (translated using switch)
{{Translate}} with the parameter |switch= (says embedded text can be translated with text editor, SVG editor, or SVG Translate; it links SVG Translate)

Igen is the most prevalent, so one will not usually see a link to SVG Translate.

These marks do not indicate whether SVG Translate will work. SVG Translate requires a restricted syntax. There are switch-translated files that SVG Translate will mangle.

In addition, using SVG Translate may not be welcome for a variety of reasons. For me, the most significant reason is that SVG Translate may prevent subsequent graphical editing. For example, an SVG file made with Adobe Illustrator may not be able to edit the translated file without losing information. AFAIK, Inkscape is the only editor that can be used, but Inkscape users must know what they can and cannot do. For example, File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg is often translated with SVG Translate, but only a few Inkscape users know how to use Inkscape on it. See File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg#Common issue: Skill needed to edit the map.

Consequently, we could have a special template or parameter that says it is OK to use SVG Translate on a file. That template could provide an SVG Translate link for the actual SVG such as:

https://svgtranslate.toolforge.org/File:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg

Glrx (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. A link in {{Igen}} to SVG Translate may work. Abou the issues raised: yes, SVG Translate is not optimal, but is way more easy for contributors than downloading, translating and uploading a new file. For current events is not the best, as the file will be edited in the future, but there are some schemas that will hardly change, and I think that those are the majority. Theklan (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a “NWS” subsection to the Upload Wizard[edit]

There is a lot of images that are uploaded to the commons produced by the National Weather Service (NWS). The NWS is a branch of the United States federal government, which means all their products (and images uploaded to their website) are automatically public domain. With the Upload Wizard, on the section about an image’s Release rights, a user can click the This work was made by the United States government tab and then click the Original work of the US Federal Government button. Doing so will add the generic Template:PD-USGov for the copyright license. However, there is a special copyright template, Template:PD-NWS, for products from NWS and images uploaded to their servers. This is a unique template because NWS allows anyone to submit an image to them, which then releases the rights of that image under public domain. The NWS template explains that.

Currently, any user uploading an image from NWS to the commons via Upload Wizard has to click the federal government button, then after uploading the image, manually switch it to the NWS copyright template. Due to this extra step (which has occurred for thousands of images), I am proposing that a sub-copyright release button be added under the Original work of the US Federal Government button. My proposal would look similar to the following, with the bullet points replaced with the clickable buttons:

This work was made by the United States government (This is a dropdown in Upload Wizard for the other options)

Original work of the US Federal Government

Work from or released to the National Weather Service

Original work of NASA

—

Elijahandskip (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think a subdrop down at Special:Upload is feasible. Wouldn't be equal to US Federal government, NASA and military which are the current options? So people have some numbers, Category:PD US Government is about 719k files while Category:PD US NOAA is roughly 66k. PD-Government has about 70 subcategories. Category:PD NASA has like 4.3 million images, Category:PD US Military has about 260k and some others have a lot more images. I'm neutral about whether we should add it. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will note, NOAA and the US Military aren’t options in the dropdown. The only options for US Gov is the US Gov template and the NASA template. Chances are extremely high, there is some in the PD US Government that are suppose to be under either of those. Since the military has a lot as well as NOAA, both should be added as sub-categories. NASA is already a sub-category, so the NASA numbers are probably close to accurate. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd

Support a dropdown that included NOAA and PD-USGov-Military. Abzeronow (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Year by populated place category[edit]

Looking at Category:2021, we have Category:2021 by country‎, Category:2021 by city‎, Category:2021 by continent‎, the recently created Category:2021 by town‎, and both Category:2021 in the Northern Hemisphere‎ and Category:2021 in the Southern Hemisphere‎. The country, city, and continent are sorted by " |[name]" while town and the hemispheres aren't sorted at all. Could we shove all these into a parent Category:2021 by populated place? I don't think we need a separate hemispheres parent. I also don't know if we should sort them all together or have "C" cover country, city, continent while "H" covers hemispheres and "T" for towns but curious. We could put populated places as a topic but I think that's excessive. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ricky81682, Wouldn't "human settlement" make more sense than "populated place"? As abandoned places would still qualify. In fact, that's the title of the English-language Wikipedia article. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Donald Trung Is it? I see en:Category:Populated places by type as the parent of cities but there is no parent for en:Category:2021 by city for each year. Category:2021 is the main one if we want to consistent with English but we have a lot more categories for some reason. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Implementing global abuse filters[edit]

Wikimedia Commons would be affected by an ongoing proposal on Meta-Wiki to enable global abuse filters to have local effects. A list of the global edit filters can be found here. Three filters are set to block users or block autopromotion, and a good number are set to either disallow edits or warn editors about certain sorts of edits. The proposal would allow large wikis to opt-out of global edit filters, and I would like to start a discussion around whether or not we think that implementing these global edit filters are wise for Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since we can't see the filters, it's pretty difficult to make a judgment. - Jmabel ! talk 03:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Of the three filters directly linked two seem to be pretty specific for one person each, the third blocking audio/video/multimedia, except some probably non-problematic types, from new users (documented as including other suspected copyright infringements). I didn't see any way the two personal filters could catch a good-faith edit, but patterns are difficult on multilingual projects; hopefully false positives are reported. –LPfi (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  note: blocking users / blocking autopromotion has been disabled for global filters now, global filters are only allowed to warn, disallow, tag or just log edits. Johannnes89 (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There is now a separate RFC on Meta to create a local Abuse Filter Helpers group so that local administrators can see the global filters. m:Meta:Requests for comment/Create local meta abuse filter helper and abuse filter manager role Abzeronow (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Achim55, Elcobbola, Steinsplitter as the three Admins here with the most recent interest in talking about our abuse filters on COM:FILTERT. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: I support the work of proposer Martin Urbanec as Steward and System Administrator in trying to streamline anti-vandalism work. Of course, some of our filters which were copied from global ones should be disabled if that proposal passes, but there should not be any outright conflicts. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I definitely think the discussion on whether or not Commons will opt out of global filters is worth having. I'm inclined to towards opting out and the RfC looks like it will be successful so it is probably a decision that will have to made soon. Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a huge problem with spam and vandalism and not enough people managing this, so we should use every possibility to let some jobs be done by other people that we get more time. GPSLeo (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which language should be used for categories for parties[edit]

The categories for political parties sometimes use the original name and sometimes an English translation of the name. To avoid disputes and category moves we should get a simple guideline on this.

There are two options:

Categories for political parties should always be in English with redirects from the original name(s).
- Support Most categories are in English.
- Support We do not have to decide which name to use if the region is multilingual.
- Oppose Most users search for the party will use the original name as they are from this region.
- Oppose We have to find a proper translation.
Categories for political parties should always use the original name of the party. In multilingual regions the most common name for the party is used with redirects from the other official names. There can be redirects from the English translation and transliterations.
- Support We do not have to find a proper translation.
- Support Most users looking for the party will use the original name as they are from this region.
- Oppose Most categories are in English.
- Oppose We have to decide which name to use if the region is multilingual.

GPSLeo (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting[edit]

English translation[edit]

Original name[edit]

Discussion[edit]

I believe the two choices given constitute a false dichotomy. I would propose the following:

If the official party name is in English, obviously use English. Note that even here we often need to add country name to disambiguate, e.g. Category:Democratic Party (United States)
If the party has official names in multiple languages, one of which is English, we use English. E.g. Category:Liberal Party of Canada, known equally as Parti libéral du Canada (French)
If the official party name is in a different language, but the party itself routinely uses a consistent English-language name to refer to itself in English-language communications, use that English-language name. E.g. Category:Justice and Development Party (Turkey), known in Turkish as Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, commonly abbreviated as AKP, and consistently refers to itself in English as the "AK Party" should probably be moved to Category:AK Party (which, remarkably, isn't even a redirect at time of writing). Also, this is presumably why we favor Category:Communist Party of China over Category:Chinese Communist Party (the latter being a soft redirect).
If the party itself does not consistently use a particular English-language name (e.g. if they do not routinely translate documents into English), but there is a consistent or predominant name used in English-language publications, we should use that. E.g. Category:Iron Guard for the interwar and WWII-era Romanian party officially known as the Garda de Fier and before that as the Legiunea Arhanghelul Mihail ("Legion of the Archangel Michael").
If none of these apply, and English-language sources do not translate the party name, we should use the name as normally printed in English-language sources; in particular, we should use Latin alphabet. E.g. Category:Likud, Category:Bharatiya Janata Party.

Naturally, soft redirects (using {{Category redirect}}) should be provided from other reasonable names. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further note: if there is no evidence of any significant number of mentions of a party in English, or little consistency in how it is referred to in English, then we should probably use the untranslated name, probably transliterated into the Latin alphabet. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify with redirects a meant {{Category redirect}}. You describe the current situation which results in inconstancy or if me make this an official guideline a very complex rule with many unclear cases. I would really dislike if we get categories with subcategories where all huge parties are translated and all small parties are not. GPSLeo (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]