Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Unusual

Category:Unusual

Category - and its similarly-named children - seems vague and subjective. And is - for example - "Unusual railway switches" really a grandchild of "Humor"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think “unusual” is actually pretty clear and subjective— it means “uncommon or atypical”. However examples of “weird” things should not be included— for example, “rare animals” are definitely unusual organisms, but there’s no reason this perfectly ordinary tree should be listed as “unusual” just because it’s slightly odd-looking. Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is "Unusual"? What for one person, or in one culture, is unusual (or eccentric), might for another be completely normal or just fun. What is now unusual architecture, may be within twenty year absolutely normal. It is better to categorize files according to what you really see (or hear) on an image (or other medium). Architecture usually is part of an art movement or style, then categorize it accordingly. JopkeB (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to “rare” or “uncommon”, if necessary. I don’t see any other category for objectively unusual things like Category:Rare animals. Or things like this Dronebogus (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rare animals is problematic itself - three of its member categories are related to rare breeds of otherwise common animals; Category:Exceptionally fluffy animals isn't rare at all. Which leads back to the inherent problem with "unusual" categories - they tend to become indiscriminate collections of things that people found interesting or surprising. Omphalographer (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A rare breed is still rare. Dronebogus (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-opened the non-admin closure of this stalled decision. I see no 'consensus' here when there are so few comments and of the only three people who expressed an opinion, one of them indicated to keep it. I will ignore "no need to keep around [with [sic]] this fussy category tree" because that surely wouldn't be someone expressing a delete !vote, then immediately closing the CfD, would it? Andy Dingley (talk)

Keep The nomination cites "vague and subjective" as the issue here. I would agree, except that would apply to the child categories of this. 'Unusual' itself is a perfectly common and familiar word. Entirely appropriate for a category and parent to other categories. Child categories of this may well be vague and subjective, with all those problems, but we'd have to discuss those per instance, we can't just blanket 'unusual' out of existence, without knowing the context. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info discussion closed without consensus by Sbb1413. Then at this stage (1 vote delete, 2 votes keep), all the categories have been removed by Sbb1413 (some of them not re-categorized) and the main category labelled for speedy deletion. Unusual process. -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Andy - this makes no sense. “Unusual” is highly subjective. And the parent category makes no sense. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not so subjective to me. Fair translation of "insolite" in French, which exactly means what it means. Example a category called "Unusual shaped sunglasses" for File:Lunettes de soleil futuristes (B).JPG is more appropriate than just "Sunglasses". And since you have already 458 files in this category, the subcategory is useful. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]