Commons:Categories for discussion/2016

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

January 2016

Category:Built in Motala Municipality in 1251

[edit]

crazy overcategorization. Zoupan (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Definitely. I appreciate a lot of effort must have gone into creating this enormous (and enormously empty) category tree, but the most generous I can be is to upmerge to Category:1250s architecture in Sweden, Category:13th-century works in Östergötland County, Category:Works in Motala Municipality and Category:History of Motala Municipality.
This means delete:
...and probably many others. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going through all this, don't you think there should be a ban (a guideline) on certain categories?--Zoupan (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! I can understand your frustration, but honestly, no. I can imagine there are places where this level of categorization might be useful. Well... maybe not "by year by municipality in the 13th century" - that's really extreme - but relatively close to it. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be good to clarify where this would be plausible? Years in BC are clearly not, for example, and shouldn't there be a cap for certain sub-categories for years including at least up to the high middle ages? A guideline would certainly be a good way to start cleaning up categories such as these. I stress that at least for the early middle ages, there should be a much better way to categorize some things (do we really need to deal with "Built in 971 in former country/modern country/city/settlement" and "1031 in X"?).--Zoupan (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad idea. I'm not sure about the best way to do this. Maybe you could propose a naming scheme for "Categories by year" at Commons talk:Categories? I suppose any line we draw would be fairly arbitrary and possibly subject to later conflict, but if sufficiently advertised, it might decrease the chances of this kind of mass deletion (and the terrible waste of effort by the creator involved). - Themightyquill (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted a lot of it... still so much to go.... - Themightyquill (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, I think I got carried away last night and deleted more than was justified by this discussion. I'm going to hold off on further deletions until people have time to respond, and if there is consensus to revert, I'll fix my own mistakes. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Zoupan: I reviewed the situation, and suggestions:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vehicles with flags

[edit]

Tuvalkin has suggested a merge with Category:Flags on vehicles Themightyquill (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in which direction? Compare also Category:Vehicles carrying flags of United Kingdom‎, Category:Vehicles with flags of the United Kingdom‎. Should a distinction be made between flags painted on the body of a vehicle and vehicles carrying flags? Maybe that's what User:Pava intended. I would merge to Category:Vehicles with flags, because it's the most neutral formulation, including both cases. Cleanup within Category:Vehicles with flags, possibly creating Category:Vehicles with flags by country would be the next logical step. --rimshottalk 09:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Support That actually makes a lot of sense. One with "cloth" flags, one with flag decals or paint. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
surprisingly Category:Automobile painting is severely under-populated. car body painting/deco is such a key element of modern, everyday artistic life.
following Category:Paintings by subject, parts of cats concerned in this discussion can be put under Category:Paintings of flags. RZuo (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and when will commons finally move automobiles to cars? so that these ridiculous names Category:Automobile stickers Category:Automobile painting can rest in peace. RZuo (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RZuo You're welcome to bring it up at Commons:Village pump but based on Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Automobiles and Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Valued images of cars, you're in for a fight, and even if you win, you're in for a lot of work to move everything and adjust all the templates. Personally, I don't care. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Category:Shoulder marks

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Yefreytor shoulder straps.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Shoulder loops.

General question: How to handle this category? I created this category according to en:Shoulder mark and en:Epaulette. It could be categorized under Category:Parts of uniforms. BUT: There is also the Category:Military rank insignia. Maybe 80% or 90% of the images there are shoulder marks, other are Shoulder sleeve insignia‎ or Collar patches. But does it make sence to put all the Military rank insignia which are shoulder marks in Category:Military shoulder marks? The result will be an overgrowded category. A solution could be a subcategorization by country (Category:Military shoulder marks by country). But with Category:Military rank insignia by country we have then 2 nearly similar trees!? (see also: Category:Badges of rank) W like wiki (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear W like wiki! My offer: Category:Shoulder marks → (redirect) → Category:Shoulder straps. Please see classification: ja:肩章 (Shoulder knot, Shoulder board, Shoulder cord and ect.). —Niklitov (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Niklitov, thank you for your proposal, as I understand shoulder straps and shoulder marks are two different things (A shoulder mark is a flat cloth sleeve worn on the shoulder strap en-wiki) I changed it in the japanese artikel, hope it s correkt.
I think the solution of the problem above could be to keep just real photos of Shoulder marks in this category (aspect of beeing part of a uniform) and the symbols under the Category:Military rank insignia. What you think? --W like wiki (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear W like wiki: I renamed Category:Gefreiter_shoulder_straps to Category:Gefreiter shoulder mark. Right? — Niklitov (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear W like wiki and JuTa! I ask to the professionals of uniformology for help me and support our discussion. I was answered by Alexey Borisovich Stepanov, Deputy Chief Editor of Old Zeughaus (magazine). New name for the category: Shoulder boards. Can I create Category:Shoulder boards for Special:ListFiles/Polygon_v, etc.? Оffer: Category:Shoulder straps → (redirect) → Category:Shoulder boards. Good? — Niklitov (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea of shoulder marks, boards, straps, whatever.... --JuTa 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found on the site Shoulder straps. I think so: Category:Shoulder boards → (redirect) → Category:Shoulder straps. "Shoulder mark" we don't use. Ok? Can we close the discussion? — Niklitov (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx you all! My conclusion and proposal:

Category:shoulder insignia:

What do you think? I allready started with recategorization but you can change again if you disagree. --W like wiki good to know 06:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The splitting into

is maybe too much? --W like wiki good to know 08:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W like wiki, thank you very much for your answers! This is a great and interesting analysis! I need some time to think and consult with uniformologists.) — Niklitov (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Niklitov: Any further thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult issue. I will try to give examples:
  • ‘Epaulette’ (ru: '‘эполет’), components and structure
    ‘Epaulette’ (ru: '‘эполет’), components and structure
  • ‘Shoulder straps’ (?) for Junior Unteroffizier of rowing crew of Russian Life Guards Keksholm Regiment (re-enlistee 2nd category)
    ‘Shoulder straps’ (?) for Junior Unteroffizier of rowing crew of Russian Life Guards Keksholm Regiment (re-enlistee 2nd category)
  • '‘'Civil braided shoulder marks’ (?) (ru: ‘плетёный погон’) of the Russian Empire (1876—1885). District secretary (Gubernsky sekretar) shoulder board (?) of Foresters' Corps (Foresters' Dept, Ministry of State Property) (1898—1904).
    '‘'Civil braided shoulder marks’ (?) (ru: ‘плетёный погон’) of the Russian Empire (1876—1885). District secretary (Gubernsky sekretar) shoulder board (?) of Foresters' Corps (Foresters' Dept, Ministry of State Property) (1898—1904).
  • C — ‘shoulder braids’ (ru: наплечные плетёнки) for boad crew of Chinese Eastern Railway Shipping Company
    C — ‘shoulder braids’ (ru: наплечные плетёнки) for boad crew of Chinese Eastern Railway Shipping Company
  • ‘Toggle’ (?) (little shoulder straps) or ‘pogonchik’ (ru: ‘погончик’) for Red Navy man (Krasnoflotets) of Caspian Flotilla Coastal Services
    ‘Toggle’ (?) (little shoulder straps) or ‘pogonchik’ (ru: ‘погончик’) for Red Navy man (Krasnoflotets) of Caspian Flotilla Coastal Services
  • ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’, контр-погон?)
    ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’, контр-погон?)
  • ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’, контр-погон?)
    ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’, контр-погон?)
  • ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: Поперечный погон или ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’)
    ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: Поперечный погон или ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’)
  • ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: Поперечный погон или ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’)
    ‘Shoulder mark’ (?) or ‘Сounter-rank slide’ / ‘attentes’ (?) (ru: Поперечный погон или ‘наплечное отличие’ или ‘наплечник’)
  • A ‘vitushka’ / coil / curl (?) (ru: Витушка) of an Aiguillette on the right shoulder of the ceremonial form of an artillery conductor. On the left shoulder - shoulder strap (ru:Витушка аксельбанта на правом плече парадной формы артиллерийского кондуктора. На левом плече-погон.)
    A ‘vitushka’ / coil / curl (?) (ru: Витушка) of an Aiguillette on the right shoulder of the ceremonial form of an artillery conductor. On the left shoulder - shoulder strap (ru:Витушка аксельбанта на правом плече парадной формы артиллерийского кондуктора. На левом плече-погон.)

— Niklitov (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next week we’ll try to discuss here: Unoformology Forum → Uniformological concepts and terms. — Niklitov (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Niklitov: did you get some answers? I made some reworks of my older conclusion obove and added this to Category:Shoulder insignia as a kind of introduction:
  • orientation from shoulder to neck
  • orientation from rear to front
Attentes
  • around the shoulder
Schwalbennester, soft material, are derived from Spaulders

PS.: I think here we can see attentes, but not sure sure.(see next post)
Cheers --W like wiki good to know 06:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complete review has to be done! I found some better and official sources:

PS.: So according to US Army (page 190/191) here we can see shoulder straps. --W like wiki good to know 12:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military sleeve insignia

[edit]

This Category is for the lowest part or end of the sleeve. English is not my mother tongue, so please find a better name to make a difference to Category:Shoulder sleeve insignia (for the upper part). Some ideas:

See also: Category:Sleeve insignia Thx! --W like wiki (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just learned that lowest part or end of the sleeve is called cuff, so I propose to separate the Category:Military sleeve insignia into:
Cheers! --W like wiki good to know 05:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rest just one "problem": Some sleeve insignia are near the elbow and neither on the shoulder nor the cuff. (→File:Капитан ВВС РККА у СБ.jpg) --W like wiki good to know 06:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about keeping Category:Military sleeve insignia with Category:Military shoulder sleeve insignia and Category:Military sleeve cuff insignia as subcategories. Other things like the image above could just go in Category:Military sleeve insignia? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jezero (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

[edit]

There has been a category move (including files) from Category:Jezero (Republika Srpska). I cannot evaluate if that's ok. Pinging Zoupan. Achim (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jezero is a municipality in Republika Srpska, an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina (see Jezero, Jajce). It was created from pre-war Serb-inhabited villages of the Jajce municipality, which is today part of the Federation of BiH, the other entity. "Jezero (Republika Srpska)" is more appropriate since there are at least four other Jezero in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cheers.--Zoupan (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoupan: could you do disambiguation page category:Jezero and fix problems if there are? --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Graphics

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:Illustrations by work.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/08/Category:Engraved illustrations of people.

The category description points to en:Graphics which defines graphics as "visual images or designs on some surface, such as a wall, canvas, screen, paper, or stone to inform, illustrate, or entertain. (...) Examples are photographs, drawings, line art, graphs, diagrams, typography, numbers, symbols, geometric designs, maps, engineering drawings, or other images." Unless I've missed something, that's all images. This category, however, is a sub-category of both Category:Illustrations and Category:Images. I'd either like a more specific definition, or a redirect to Category:Images. Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, but the description you give is not there. I interpret "Graphics" much more narrowly than the definition you quote (which is effectively for all images but not for all graphics).
Anyway, as it is hard to draw a deadline for graphics, my opinion is that this category should be directly merged into Images (but there's a lot of images stored directly here that should rather go to "Uncategorized images". But the subcategories listed here (Charts) are pertinent for inclusion in "Images", with some adjustments (and there should be differences between computer generated graphics, including most charts, and artistic creations, which may be computer-aided but finalized by lot of artistic choices, and handrawn graphics, which in fact can be recategorized as paintings, caligraphy...).
This category is currently a real mess mixing in fact almost all types of contents we can find on Commons (except audio files, but including PDFs and scanned images, photos, and animations). Its pertinence is really extremely low the way it is structured now and used (because many people have very different visions about how they understand the term). verdy_p (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the CFD template to Category:Visualization and Category:Illustrations as they seem similarly ambiguous. Images of illustrations taken from books is clear enough, but does anything that illustrates (or could illustrate) an idea fit in Category:Illustrations ? en:Visualizations is just a disambiguation page. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying graphics are not images, or photographs are not graphics? The proposal was to potentially do away with Category:Graphics and replace it with Category:Images. That wouldn't put photographs in Category:Graphics but it would but graphics in Category:Images. Any photographs should all be sub-categories of Category:Photographs anyway, so they wouldn't be directly affected. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Images (24 C, 15 F)
Images by date (4 C)
Images by file format (14 C)
Images by genre (5 C)
Images by language (10 C, 2 F)
Images by location (10 C)
Images by source (86 C, 3 F)
Images by technical criteria (26 C, 1 F)
Images by usage (15 C)
Images by color (2 C)
Images by medium (18 C)
Images by topic (3 C)
Categories by image (28 C)
Featured pictures (26 C, 106 P)
Quality images (22 C, 104 P, 380634 F)
Valued images (24 C, 73 P, 2113 F)
Imaging (34 C, 97 F)
Censored images (6 C, 36 F)
Images on Wikipedia (2 C, 38 F)
Information graphics (39 C, 1577 F)
Josef Vinecký (4 F)
Images with objects to indicate scale (22 C, 61 F)
Image sources (152 C, 3 F)
Изображение (text) (1 C, 1 F)
Images from UAE in Lens Competition (651 F)

 Oppose I was writing off the cuff, sorry. Looking deeper, these two categories are 11+ years old. They and their descendants combined contain the majority of our files. Before we impose the mess that is Category:Graphics on Category:Images and insult all the graphic artists, I think we should have a wider announcement of this Cfd at COM:VP.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better definition of "Graphics" would be to exclude photographs... AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Jeff G., Verdy p, and AnonMoos:
  • "Graphics" are visual presentations which are on a surface. (en:Graphics)
  • Photographs are graphics. The very word photograph is "photo" (light) + "graph" (graphic). A photograph is created by light on a surface.
  • Videos likewise are graphics, in that they consist of a visual presentation on a surface.
  • "Images" are artifacts relying on visual perceptions. (en:Images)
  • Sculptures are images rendered in three dimensions, not necessarily depicted on a surface, and so therefore are an image that is not a graphic.
  • Images formed without use of a surface, such as mental or holographic images, would likewise not be graphics.
  • As far as I can figure, all "graphics" are "images", but not all "images" are "graphics".
  • For the purposes of categorizing by media type, there is no discernable difference between the two...i.e. I cannot think of a media type that we can host on Commons that would qualify as one and not the other, since Commons files which display visual information are artifacts and are displayed on a surface.
  • For the purposes of categorizing by topic, we may indeed have graphics which depict images that are not graphics. For instance, a photograph of a statue would be a graphic (photograph) of an image that not a graphic (statue).
  • In common modern colloquial usage, "graphic" has a more restictive connotation, as being an image in which the contents are artificial, such as a drawing, information graphic, or computer-generated image of some sort. Photographs and videos are not commonly considered "graphics" in this context.
  • In common modern colloquial usage, "image" is also more restrictive as generally being understood as a 'snap shot' single frame presentation such as a photograph or picture (or even a still from a video). Sculpture and videos are not generally referred to as an "image" in non-technical usage.
It strikes me that would first need to decide whether we are going to go by the technically correct definitions of "graphic" and "image" or the modern colloquial usage of these terms, as that has a big impact on how we should determine the content and structure of both categories. The technically correct definitions lead to a much clearer structure and definition, but I think the vast majority of users will approach these categories with a colloquial context, so I really am not sure which is the right path. Thoughts on which would be better to implement? Josh (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: What about a new Category:Visual files, for all files with a visual aspect (not audio)?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books to be categorised by country

[edit]

20,000+ images that are not Books but only uncategorized images. 15,000+ book categories are already there to be worked on. I wish to delete all single images as they are already connected to subcategories and won't be affected. I have already contacted the Cat creator and User:Fae whose images are mostly his, there. WayneRay (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These files didn't have categorisation by country and don't have such categorisation in the moment: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] etc --Butko (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not quite sure what you mean? I am going through all the book related files and categories for the past year and they will be looked at, probably in Book covers which is what they look like. The Category here is or seems to be for complete book pages not just covers of pdf or djvu. So do you mean I should or should not delete files that are not books but just book images here?? WayneRay (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meat that you wrote "they are already connected to subcategories and won't be affected" but as you can see they aren't --Butko (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see. I looked through those and more and found they were connected to something in most of them. As I am going through Cat Books by year I find many of the images duplicated here. I spent some time and tried to clean out the DJVU and PDF files so they won't be affected. Thanks for your input. I will try and double check as I delete or just cleanup. I just went through 600 files of single titles and pdf and djvu files and connected what was necessary and deleted the rest as they were in Books by year or had a Cat.WayneRay (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through Cat Books by year I find many of the images duplicated here - please don't forget that categorisation by year and categorisation by country are different branches and can't duplicate each other --Butko (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will delete the duplicates, however, am I wrong in , for example, putting the book categories in say, 1754 books from Germany instead of Books from Germany? that way they don't appear duplicated in 1754 books and Books from Germany and 1754 books from Germany? I see someone has already connected Books from Russia by year in some of the books by year subcategories so it appears that thinning out is best to avoid duplication? Does this make sense. I have just mastered Cat-a-lot and want to plow ahead. Happy Valentines Day. WayneRay (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
putting the book categories in say, 1754 books from Germany instead of Books from Germany - 1754 books from Germany is best way because we can categorise by year and by country category instead single images. Please use template {{Books from Germany by year|175|4}} when you create new category --Butko (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kool! that's great. I must learn better coding. I will have to go back and do that for all the new Cats. I just use the Hot Cat link. Ok I will put the categories in this Main Cat in books by year by country which is wht I think I was originally doing. I am checking each 200 image page before delting photos. Thanks so much WayneRay (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK I had just created Category:Books in PDF by year So what is the coding to put the Years panel in the pages? Thanks WayneRay (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{Books in PDF by year|192|9}} --Butko (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I updated all the PDF books by year with the new coding and am updating Book covers by year right now. Thanks so much. WayneRay (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WayneRay: I'm definitely not sure about this. I can understand why it might make sense to sub-categorize "by year" and "by country" with "by year by country" but it seems to be it was, at least to some degree, a conscious decision not to do so. Like Category:Deaths by year. Achim and Zoupan may know more about this - I don't know. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:1896 books in Bohemia (1867-1918) for a similar category that was recently deleted. I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed, but I'd recommend waiting for further discussion before expanding the tree, unless you want to risk having all your work undone. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking at the result of only putting Books by year by country as everything appears after this is done. The Cat list includes, Books by year and books by year by country as well, the books by year by country automatically appears in each Books by year category. It's quite amazing what one code can do. I am doing this for now and going back to cleaning up all the misc Books categories. YOu said "but it seems to be it was, at least to some degree, a conscious decision not to do so" but it seems to work quite well. WayneRay (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I looked at the link and see the difficulties that were there. I only came upon this Category:Books to be categorised by country by accident and then noticed the notices on all the other book files I was sorting. I came upon many already as "by year by country" so I thought that was the new system My feeling is that 80% of the files are really scanned images of pictures in books and not really books. So the books by country by year would be in the Books by year Cats along with PDF and djvu book files as they are complete and actual books. It would cleanup a lot there. I will wait as you say and see what others have to say. Right now I still think all the single images in Category:Books to be categorised by country need to be deleted because I will find them in Books by year as I go through them. I am still in the 1500's right now and a bit of 1700's. WayneRay (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been going through each group of images and seeing if they have a sub category or putting them in ones that were incomplete and needed Cats and sub cats. I will start cleaning up this group of Books as soon as the individual images are deleted. As per instructions above I will put Category:Books_to_be_categorised_by_country in Books by year & Books by country by year. NOT Books by country. WayneRay (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of a recent discussion with a major uploader to this Category

Copied from User talk:Fæ#Deletion of images in a Category

Category:Books to be categorised by country has about 22,000 images that are already connected to other subcategories. These individual images are not books. The actual Book Categories 15,214 total are already there for reassignment to Books by country by year and are being processed as are all the previous ones we have discussed now in Category:Books by year which I am spending most of my time on. I finished the seed catalogs etc from when we first met and talked.. I will be deleting all the images in the above Cat as they are not books. Let me know what you think. I already contacted the original creator and he agrees. WayneRay (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category appears empty. If this is a categorization decision, that sounds fine. If you are deleting files, then I'd appreciate some examples to look at. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not empty here is the block and copy of the list of images. Don't know where you were looking? WayneRay (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media in category "Books to be categorised by country"

The following 200 files are in this category, out of 20,409 total. (previous page) (next page)[8]

Thanks, I was just looking at Books by year. I have no issue with improving categories, so my assumption is that we are not talking about mass file deletion for the reason that the categorization is not optimal. --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It is an optimal new category. Just not the images included. Should I go to Commons:Categories for discussion or just go ahead with the cleanup. What do you think of the partial cleanup in Books by year? I have started in the 1700's area and the change is noticable. WayneRay (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go ahead. I doubt anyone would object to your tidying these up. Thanks for your work, it does have a significant impact for any member of the public looking for relevant archive materials. :-) --Fæ (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WayneRay (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued?

[edit]

@WayneRay and Fæ: and others. Last comment in 2016. What is the situation here?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand it looks like a lot of the books in this category are already categorized by year. So, I find myself wondering what exactly the point in this case category is. If there is none then I say delete it. It's not like organizing books by country can't be done without a category to dump random books (which again a lot of already have country categories added to them) into. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category does not contribute to maintanance. it is itself suffering from lack of maintainance. So, please delete.--Havang(nl) (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no note what to do with its entries, however it is self-explaining. That means to go through and categorize those file by country. There is plenty of material which can be put in categories which are sorting books by language. I came to this discussion through Category:Beschreibung des Oberamts Ravensburg which is a subcategory of Category:De Wikisource book. However that does not mean to be a categorization by country. But the mentioned category is part of Category:Books about Ravensburg which at the end should be indirectly part of Category:Books about Germany. So this subcategory should not be part of the category in discussion. But there might be other cases, even in German language, of books about U.S. cities for example which are not part of Category:Books about the United States or its sub-categories yet but should be. That is the meaning of this category. As with most maintenance categories on Commons there is a lack of users maintaining it. In a nutshell: the entries should be verified if they're part of the country subcategorization and if so removed from the category, otherwise put in such a country subcategorization and removed from the category. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But simply removing them without checking wether they're included to the books by country categories and if needed putting them there ist just a bad move.
And of course, those pages should go into subcategories for all of them referring to the same book, like in Category:Beschreibung des Oberamts Ravensburg.
For what I see single images have been removed with no further action what is bad. Why you guys are discussing topics you obviously do not understand? And, why did you not ask local Wikisource communities? Matthiasb (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Telegraph instruments illustrations

[edit]

This is Commons. Everything's an "illustration". Upmerge to Category:Telegraph instruments Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The word "illustration" is widely used for category that are not photographs, and continnent engraving, drawings and diagrams. You're right to semantics, but this abuse is handy and useful to avoid overcrowded categories. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Andy Dingley. While it might be useful to add the category Telegraph instruments illustrations as an additional category, in my view it is incorrect to use this category in place of its parent - Category:Telegraph instruments. If you wish to reduce the clutter on the page "Category:Telegraph instruments", then you should do so by classifying the images by instrument type, not by image origin - after all readers who want to use the files to illustrate their artciles are more interested the intrument type than the image's origin. For example, if I want an image of an early telegraph and come across this image, I don't really care whether it is a drawing or a photograph, nor do I care who loaded it - what I really want is find an illustration for my article with a minimum of searching together with a guarantee that I can use the image without paying a royalty to anybody. Martinvl (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: I actually think sub-dividing by photographs and drawings would make perfect sense, but that's not what "illustration" means according to Category:Illustrations. I'd be fine with a move to Category:Drawings of telegraph instruments, for instance, alongside sub-categories for specific instrument type. (I'd rather not try to guess what people are looking for when browsing commons.) That said, I think Andy Dingley's nomination here probably applies to most of the categories in Category:Illustrations by subject. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books in PDF by year

[edit]

We have already Category:Books by year and Category:Books by country by year. Do we really need Books by file type by year? Achim (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Yes we do, those Categories that you mention are not books really, they are the images from books not the whole book, text and images. PDF files and DJVU files are the complete and real books. The pdf files go back to the 1500's and there are hundreds of them. Category:Books by country by year contains the files of images as well. User:Fae has uploaded tens of thousands of files he labels as and puts in these "book" categopries but if you really look they are only the images from the books and plugging up Commons. PDF books are the whole thing and should be kept. Same as books in djvu file format. There are Book covers by year as well that I am cleaning up. Most were actually Title pages and sample pages not covers. I think there is little confusion in all the Book Cats. I am doing most of my work cleaning up all the book related Cats. My vote as creater is Keep. WayneRay (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Wayne, now I see your intention. But might it perhaps be better to differ Complete books and Extracts of books or Single pages of books? If a complete book is provided as a .PDF or .DJVU or .EPUB or what else file format plays a minor role in my opinion. --Achim (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right but relabelling all the Books Categories Complete books and Extracts of books or Single pages of books would be massive and searchers and researchers would probably be looking for just Books type categories. As far as single pages I have already instituted that sub cat in just about every journal, catalog, and book category from zoology books all the way down. Eventually I could recategorize Book cats into the areas you mention. I just got the coding for Books by year and Books by country by year and pdf by year so how do you propose I do things.

Here is a complete Books by year listing as I see the rest of them becoming. It includes all the main subcats. Category:1727 books . Perhaps a disclaimer like you are saying could be put on the main Cats that these are book extracts etc. I have put one in the Discussion pages of a few already. WayneRay (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concerns as Achim about sub-dividing content categories by filetype categories. I'm really not sure it's a good idea. Even if it has already been done. Should we also have Category:1727 books JPG files and Category:1727 books GIF files for those uploaded in their totality, but page by page? Nor am I a big fan of the category name "YearX books single pages, etc.‎" what does the etc mean? I'm not sure if any of that type category is necessary at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created the books single pages, etc for all the uploads of images that were not books or covers. but parts of books, as you mentioned, the jpg and gif etc files are the ones that go in there. I bet 90% of all the images in Books by year are just the images from books and not the complete books. I am putting them in their appropriate sub cat titles so all that remains is single pages, etc. I couldn't think of a simpler title. If we decide to delete that one, then each Books by year Cat will be full of misc. images and not honed down to just the titles of books. I can leave it alone for now but feel the Books in PDF and Books in djvu should stay as they are actual complete books (by year). Thanks WayneRay (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WayneRay: But if the reason for categorizing PDFs and DJvu files separately is because they are actual complete books, then why not give them a category title that indicates that, instead of discussing the file format? If I upload a a single page of a 1810 book in PDF format, would go in both Category:1810 PDF books and Category:1810 books single pages, etc.? Could you explain what the "etc" refers to, aside from single pages?
I also notice that you've put, as an example, Category:The Domestic Encyclopædia in Category:1802 books djvu files, even though the category contains .png files as well. At very least, I don't imagine any of the "YearX books file format" categories should have any sub-categories, because those sub-categories could always contain files of various file formats.- Themightyquill (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the png files, they should go in 1802 books single pages, sorry for the oversight. They shouldn't have sub cats. I will fix it and any others I find. Thanks again. WayneRay (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going back over the various Book Categories and renaming and removing the XXX books single pages, etc and they will be your suggestion of XXX books single pages Thanks for the input WayneRay (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WayneRay: What? No. If the pages are from The Domestic Encyclopædia, they should definitely be in the category Category:The Domestic Encyclopædia. My point was that Category:The Domestic Encyclopædia should not be in Category:1802 books djvu files. Categories for specific books should not be in categories for specific file formats, because they could contain a huge variety of sub-topics (film adaptations) and file formats (illustrations, other images, audio files, etc) Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you mean. That particular book is in 4 other connected Cats even though I may have found it in 1802 books it should be left alone in its own book Cat? OK but if it is an 1802 book collection, how would someone find the Domestic Encyclopedia if they are only looking through 1802 books? and not by the title alone. Does that negate all that I have done to categorize the Real books in DJVU and PDF? Let me know please. I found a similar tit;le with duplicated djvu files Category:The domestic encyclopaedia - or, A dictionary of facts, and useful knowledge- comprehending a concise view of the latest discoveries, inventions, and improvements and temporarily put it in there. Should it be the other way around and all left in 1802 books?WayneRay (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of what you are talking about. Category:Works by Jean-Jacques Rousseau which all seem to be in DJVU format. So you are saying it shouldn't be connected to Cat:Books DJVU file or Books by year djvu files? WayneRay (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So help me out here = What would you do with this DJVU Cat? Category:1803 books djvu files WayneRay (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WayneRay: For the Domestic Encyclopedia case: The files themselves can still be in Category:1802 books djvu files and in Category:The Domestic Encyclopædia (which would, in turn, be in Category:1802 books).
For Category:Works by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the individual files in that category should be placed in a djvu category, but the category itself should not. Hypothetically, if there are only two pictures of a certain species of bird on commons, you put both files in the category for that species Category:Birdus specialis. If both pictures happen to show the bird sitting in an apple tree, you might put both pictures in Category:Birds sitting in apple trees but you don't put the category for that species (Category:Birdus specialus) in Category:Birds sitting in apple trees.
Remove Category:Marie-Nicolas-Silvestre Guillon from Category:1803 books djvu files, and add it to Category:French authors or some equivalent, along with Category:1760 births and Category:1847 deaths. It's a category for a person, not his books. Copy the contained djvu files to Category:1803 books djvu files - Themightyquill (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it's getting more logical now. I'll need a Barnstar if I can get it all worked out in all the Books by year Categories LOL Thanks. Keep checking up on me if you have the time. 170,000 edits in 1.5 years I need a break, maybe go for a beer and a burger. WayneRay (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one for your possible cleanup deletion etc.

What is this? Category:Theses There is no definition at the top of the Cat page? Most know its meaning. NOT BOOKS NOT THESES they are all just images of drawings? How are these from someones Theses? No Text, no University connection. This is a redundant Cat that should be deleted maybe. I bet they are dumps from User:Faes Bot Script ?? OPinion needed? WayneRay (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've create a new discussion for this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Theses - Themightyquill (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The usual book category contains every file which contains book content of the book. You could add page by page the whole book and additionally add a PDF-File and a djvu file without changing the name of the category. Therefore "single pages" is not the correct name for these categories. Sorting this by file type is not a solution for the reader who wants to find full books. PDF is not the only file type containing full books, there are djvu files too.

I am not absolutely shure what is a good name for categories of files containing full books, Category:Files containing full texts of books? Kersti (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single pages is there for all the extra stuff like title pages, photos from pages, etc. Perhaps a sub cat called Full texts of books as you say is best then I could put djvu and pdf categories in there. This would be less clutter on a main file. I just reorganized 20-30 Books by subject and Books by country so it is all coming together.WayneRay (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

now five years later. WayneRay was globally banned in april 2016.

i skimmed thru the long texts. @Achim55, Themightyquill, and Kersti Nebelsiek: it seems none of you supports keeping the "yyyy books PDF files"? in my opinion, these cats are useless. if anyone wants to sieve out the pdfs in a certain "Category:Books by year", that can be easily done with incategory or deepcategory search.

i suggest deleting this category tree Category:Books in PDF by year.--RZuo (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bot work

[edit]

This will take a while due to the scale, I have created a BRFA at Commons:Bots/Requests/MatrixBot 2. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got distracted by other stuff. Will need toolforge access to do this though. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 12:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of the politics of Serbia

[edit]

Merge into Category:Political maps of Serbia. Zoupan (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree because contents of these two categories are very different. While category "Political maps of Serbia" shows maps of actual territory of Serbia, category "Maps of the politics of Serbia" is rather focused on political life in Serbia, i.e. elections, proposed territorial units, etc. PANONIAN (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Election maps of Serbia‎ is a sub-category, and there are several subdivisions-cats. The other articles all use Political maps, see Category:Political maps by country.--Zoupan (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But look subcategories in "Category:Political maps by country". All maps there are actual political maps, not maps of proposed territorial units. If you want to change name of category "Maps of the politics of Serbia" there is no problem, but in that case you have to come up with new category where maps which showing proposed administrative unit would fit. They do not fit in category with name "Political maps of Serbia". PANONIAN (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A sub-category of proposed units could easily be created.--Zoupan (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anemone pulsatilla

[edit]

Should we abide by Wikispecies' definition and move this cat to Category:Pulsatilla vulgaris? Josve05a (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think there is no need to do that, for a) it doesn't matter which way round the redirect goes and b) most of the main lists say A. pulsatilla: Tropicos, GRIN, Plant List, ITIS. Just NCBI is the only one which prefers P. vulgaris. --Achim (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Will find the link later tonight) There is a guideline of some sort that says we should follow Wikisepcies naming convention, in order to follow uniformity, or something like that. Josve05a (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what a guideline says, it is not a helpful guideline. Wikispecies is much more volatile than the sources that are edited by professional taxonomists, so Commons would be forced to thrash in response. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I remembered that I'd read it somewhere, but it wasn't a guideline per se, but on Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life#Overview. I'm dropping a note on that WIkiProjects' talk page for input. Josve05a (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter, what wikispecies or databases say, but only what taxonomists say about the classification. In "Hoot, S.B. in Hoot, S.B., Meyer, K.M. & Manning, J.C. 2012: Phylogeny and Reclassification of Anemone (Ranunculaceae), with an Emphasis on Austral Species. Systematic Botany 37(1): 139-152.", p.151., the accepted name is Anemone pulsatilla. So it's up to wikispecies, Catalogue of Life, and NCBI, to update their classification. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the history of the wikispecies page, I saw it was already updated since Mai 2013. But on 2 Feb 2016, a user moved the page to Pulsatilla and removed the informations. I will correct the wikispeces page and add the reference. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Anemone pulsatilla should be used here, based on the references sited here. I don't know why the user changed Wikispecies, but that was not in line with most modern taxonomic resoults. Uleli (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pulsatilla vulgaris seems preferred by BioLib & Catalogue of Life & IUCN & NCBI, Anemone pulsatilla seems preferred by GRIN & ITIS & The Plant List & Tropicos
But important thing is: On wikicommons, we don't rename categories. Except perhaps when there are few pictures, or when all source prefer the same name.
But sources should be provided on both categories + {{Synonym taxon category redirect}}
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Category:Pulsatilla vulgaris redirects to Category:Anemone pulsatilla. --Achim (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liné1: @Thiotrix: @Josve05a: @Sminthopsis84: @Uleli: @Achim55: (hope I've got everyone there!) - reopening this, as I've only just seen it now. The matter is rather more complex than just the majority view among all those online databases (many of which just copy each other anyway); particularly more important in respect of the related wikispecies pages. The Hoot et al. paper demonstrated that the genus Pulsatilla is embedded in Anemone sensu lato, so they created an enormous, unwieldy "Anemone sensu latissimo" to include it and other genera like Hepatica. But in doing so, they did not rename all of the taxa in Pulsatilla etc.; many of these, still in Pulsatilla etc., at wikispecies, do not have validly published combinations in Anemone. Therefore, wikispecies, and some of the other databases, retain Pulsatilla etc. as separate genera. As it stands now, Pulsatilla at wikispecies has been left excluding its type species, not a tenable circumscription - this move should therefore be reversed (I'll do so in the next day or two). Attaining reciprocal monophyly among Anemone and related genera would also, contra Hoot et al., have been far better done by splitting Anemone sensu lato into multiple genera (corresponding to the subgenera and sections in Hoot et al.), but this too still awaits the formal publication of many new combinations. It is a tricky situation, but probably best resolved for the time being by maintaining the genera in their traditional circumscriptions (even though this leaves Anemone polyphyletic) until such time as either Anemone sensu lato is formally broken up, or a full listing of all taxa in Anemone sensu latissimo is completed. PS to Liné1 "On wikicommons, we don't rename categories" - yes, we can (and should!) rename categories to update them, where needed. Granted it's tedious work, but perfectly doable. - MPF (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came by to volunteer to help English wikipedia, if they need it, to use wikidata instead of needing to rename things here....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. Currently, Commons and enwiki solutions differ: en:Pulsatilla vulgaris is main article and en:Anemone pulsatilla is a redirect. I rather think that we can close this stale CFD, and wait further developments in other Wikiprojects, and scientific literature. If something is settled we will implement it in Commons--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Category:De Wikisource book

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:Italian Wikisource books.

Category:German Wikisource books and Category:De Wikisource book; one using the language name and the other using the language code. Merge to Category:German Wikisource books? Riley Huntley (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on s:de:Wikisource:Skriptorium. --Achim (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "De Wikisource" refers to the project de.wikisource.org
  2. "German" to a language de.wikisource.org is dedicated to.
  3. there are projects with multiple languages (that are related to each other) and "Old Wikicource" with many languages.
So the question is:
  • is it a project-related category (--> Category:De Wikisource book) or a language related category (--> Category:German Wikisource books)?
  • are language related categories really necessary? (apart from project-related categories, that may sometimes be language related and sometimes multilanguage related)?
  • are language related categories correct, when there are multilingual pages and multilingual books in these projects? (see also s:de:Kategorie:Sprache)
  • If you are categorising by language, wouldn't it be necessary to differ "German texts"? (see also s:de:Kategorie:Deutsch)
Delete Category:German Wikisource books and do move content to Category:De Wikisource book (by project), Category:Literature of Germany (some of it, others may be Category:Literature of Austria, Category:Literature of Switzerland, Category:Literature of Belgium, ...) and Category:Scanned German texts or Category:Books in German
--Anika (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
maybe Category:Books at de Wikisource, Category:Books from de Wikisource or Category:Books on de Wikisource is even better (don't know, which is the proper noun)
or if it makes someone happy: Category:Books at German Wikisource, Category:Books from German Wikisource or Category:Books on German Wikisource --Anika (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reader ist not interested in the project itself but he wants to find books by language. --Kersti (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why they should be double categorized in Category:Books by language and Category:Books by WS-project. These Wikisource-book-categories were created as maintenance-categories for those odd people, who are active in WS-projects.... Books by language are to be found by readers in general in Category:Books by language (that is not limited to WS-books). --Anika (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think WikiAnika makes a valid point. Categorizing by project makes sense, avoids duplication, and allows for language variety within a project. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G-CVIX (aircraft)

[edit]

IMO it should be a redirect to category:XP924 (aircraft) (which is a super category as for now). Both categories mean the same single aircraft (serial XP924, receiving later a civilian registration), and reasons for being in one or another are unclear. For some time it flew with Red bull livery, but it seems, that luckily it was later repainted into military colors again, still retaining its civilian registration (albeit non visible). Red Bull photos could go into category:De Havilland Sea Vixen (Red Bull livery), which could be nested in XP294 category. Pibwl (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to standard conventions, "G-CVIX (aircraft)" should be the main category with "XP924 (aircraft)" nested inside it, since the civilian registry is the current iteration. The images should always be categorised by the specific registry, if they are categorised by one at all. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what category:XP924 is for, if it is the same aircraft? I won't oppose to leave G-CVIX only, but military (factory) designation makes more sense in this case. Actually, for all its life it's been XP924, and only recently G-CVIX, but I don't know since when and if we have any pre-G-CVIX photos. Pibwl (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this situation is more confusing that I originally thought. I now understand it received the registry exemption to display XP924 on 24 January 2013, but some of the images in G-CVIX category say that it was flying with XP924 colours well before that date. Do you know when it stopped being XP924 and formally changed registration to G-CVIX? Any photos from before that date should be in the XP924 category (if any). If it turns out there are zero images from when it was XP924, then that category can be easily redirected to the civilian registry category. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but isn't XP924 a serial number? Anyway, now it flies with original warbird colors (and I assume XP924 number as a part of original look), but I can't see G-CVIX registration on it (although I know, that it formally carries one). Pibwl (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm badly mistaken, XP924 would be its military registration, just as something like "56-01234" might be the military registration of a U.S. warplane. Indeed, our plane is currently registered as G-CVIX, but does not display it under the registry exemption. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pibwl and Huntster: Any resolution to this problem? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know :) I'd still remove this category as redundant. Still reasons for being in one or another are unclear. Pibwl (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill, I dunno. The discussion stalled there, and I still stand by my statement of G-CVIX being the prime, since that is the aircraft's current legal registration. Commons convention is that old registrations are subcategorised under the current registration. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic deaneries in Diocese of Pelplin

[edit]

The subcats are German Polish spelled Dekanat and should be renamed using deanery following the cat naming scheme of other Polish deaneries. Achim (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, should be renamed anyway. --Achim (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I wouldn't say these are proper names. Move them to "X Deanery" or "Deanery of X" as you would. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill, I'm wavering now, because in the meantime many cats have been created newly, so we should unify either in one direction or the other. A different point that requires rewiew are the assignments of deaneries to their dioceses (that's ok) but also to the superior archdioceses as well (that's not ok). --Achim (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Category:Folk art by nations

[edit]

Duplicated Folk art by country - every entry was a duplicate S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, upon closer inspection, Category:Armenian folk art has a sub-category Category:Armenian folk art in Armenia, which suggests Category:Armenian folk art was created for the folk art of the Armenian nation, not just folk art of Armenia. (Incidentally, this is why you try to avoid moving categories first and then proposing discussion.) There are however, only two images of one man in Category:Armenian folk art, and only one in Category:Armenian folk art in Armenia - neither are properly organized as child categories of Armenia. Maybe we can just merge the two into Category:Armenian folk art (and place them in Category:Art of Armenia) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Allforrous (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allforrous - You redirected the category while a discussion was underway, and then added your comment? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate. --Allforrous (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a broader problem. It seems to me very few people understand the purpose of categorization here. Category "Folk art by nations" and category "Folk art by country" should not be merged, because these are not synonymous, and they largely overlap.
For example, there are millions of Serbs, Croats, and Hungarians in the USA, and they all have their own Folklore in there, regardless of their American citizenship. Their national ethnic folklore is distinctively different, developed at will over time and space – that is why it is called folk-lore.
Same in Europe. Almost all countries of Europe have mixtures of nations. It is absurd to call the folklore of Hungarian minority in Vojvodina "Folklore of Serbia" or more specifically they cannot be put neither in the category "National costumes of Serbia‎" neither in the category "National costumes of Hungary", simply because they are category of their own, despite of country and administrative borders. Folklore is more a historic thing than a "national" thing. It is as if I created a category: "Animals by country"... (?) I could not even create a category endemic animals by country – their range crosses country borders.
E.g. I would also be incorrect if I placed the Hungarian folk costumes from Vojvodina to folk costumes in Hungary. Much the same, if I placed them in Serbia, the Serbs would question why there are hungarian folk costumes mixed with their folk costumes??
But I have no idea how would you place ANY folklore of the USA even, meaningfully and purposefully into the category "Folk art by country"? It's a big no can do. Not to mention that ethnography is scientific discipline also, so with this categorization we are being unrespectful of that. Why mix chemistry subjects with math, or biology subjects with mechanics? Who needs categories then? Then it's a meaningless mess.
It is more purposeful at large, to have the "Folk art by nations" category, or maybe even this is not enough by its own. Any ethnographers here?–Jozefsu (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jozefsu: Firstly, I don't think it's absurd to call the folklore of the Hungarian minority of Vojvodina "Folklore of Serbia." Vojvodina is in Serbia. It would be problematic to call the same folklore "Serbian folklore" because they aren't ethnic Serbian, but they are undeniably in Serbia. I think it would also be problematic to call, for instance, Category:Traditional clothes in Plášťovce the "National dress of Plášťovce" or "Palóc National Dress" since they, much like the Hungarians in Vojvodina, aren't generally considered a nation. This isn't an argument that Category:Folk art by nations shouldn't be kept, that categorizing folk art by country is perfectly legitimate, especially as most national borders have been fixed for some time and folk art continues to live and change locally. I don't understand your point about mixing disciplines. Ethnography doesn't ever consider state borders? That's demonstrably untrue. And for the record, there's plenty of folk art being produced in the United States, and plenty that originated there.
Second, a small word of friendly advice: Before you give hypothetical examples to show how ridiculous something is, you may want to check to make sure that your ridiculous hypothetical doesn't exist: Category:Animals by country. =) If do feel strongly that it's ridiculous, I urge you to comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/04/Category:Sounds of birds by country and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/02/Category:Ginkgo biloba by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given second thought to it, because English isn't my mother language it is hard for me to distinguish the difference between "nation" and "country" – is there a difference? Country is of course a geographical place defined with political borders, but I think nation may be something of a broader sense. This (may) caused suspicion with me, and possibly with others in this discussion.

Nation is used many times meaning a country, but in more broader use it means the people, or the citizens of given country, at least in the languages I understand (for e.g. in slavic "narod"). But is there a difference in English, at least some? - Jozefsu (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated. In day-to-day speech, the two terms are generally used interchangeably since most (western) states/countries are nation states, but academics will often make a distinction. For instance, was there a Slovak nation (a relatively culturally homogeneous body of people who believe themselves to have a shared biological ancestry) before the Slovak Republic became an independent country? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Jozefsu, Themightyquill, and Allforrous: When searching Commons database, I found that the category's name part <by nations> is unique. All <by nation> categories are redirected to <by country>, eg Category:Gravestones by nation. Currently the nominated category is a redirect. I think it is better to delete it or to substitute by Category:Folk art by nation which itself should be a redirect --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The category was redirected to Category:Folk art by country in 2016, so we can probably just close discussion. But we do have Category:Art by culture if anyone wants to to follow that pattern instead. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I ended discussing four years ago (glad we are still here and alive and hopefully well) because there was no interest by a broader group of users to clarify the subject. As in all connected projects – since we are open for public edit – you can create virtually any named category (according to your best intention and knowledge) that will be disliked and removed the next day no matter how meaningful it was. There is basically no control – present case is a school demonstration of this discouraging and unmotivating fact. With that thougt in line, I should say that the offered solution is still far from the perfect solution. Why I think so I already explained four years ago and I still think that forceful merging of slightly different categories (especially in futile effort to match certain "official" rule) is not a valid thing to do... but people will just do that, no matter of reasonable advice. Again, I gave up, people that are more agile act against good reasoning anyway. Of course, it is understandable since this is a volunteer project, and somebody got to do the job. Good luck in doing so – keep the good work, do your best. Less categories may mean simpler/cleaner project (or not?) –Jozefsu (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I will never undestand why the [[Category:Folk art by nation]] was in way? It hurt nobody. (And it could happen that it be replaced the next day with another category that will be redirected to some another? Who is in control of this?)
E.g. somehow folk items from Transsylvania end up in the [[Category:Folk art in Hungary]] which is a random instance, but maybe, just maybe the merging&redirecting contributs to this kind of confusion.
Folk art by country is explicitly different from Folk art by a national group – so far most categories reflect that fact and I hope reason will continue to prevail in the categorization. – Jozefsu (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Planned obsolescence

[edit]

This is not a request to delete this category but to decide what it should be included. In my opinion including photos of damaged instruments is not o.k. and at least identified brands can be problematic. Unless we have a proof that the damage is a planned obsolescence it should not include in it. -- Geagea (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about photos of damaged objects. Even if we knew for sure they were consciously designed to be cheap and easily breakable, I'm not sure that meets the definition of planned obsolescence anyway. I would actually lean towards deleting the category altogether. It seems too likely to be used as pejorative. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Planned obsolescence is a valid concept and there are at least two files that are within scope. But the photos of things that are merely broken, with no identifiable intention of planned obsolescence, shouldn't be in this category; it would be better to move those to Category:Broken objects instead. There is also Category:Shoddy workmanship, but that category should probably be limited to obvious examples that can be explained for educational purposes, not merely for anything that is broken. --Closeapple (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closeapple could you please point to the two files that are within scope of Planned obsolescence? Thanks, Sima shimony (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:London (1932) Ending the depression through planned obsolescence.pdf for sure. At first glance, I though that File:Cost of a washing machine.png was directly related; but now that I've examined it, I'd say that it's not related. File:Google’s First Production Server.jpg appears to be related, however — it shows parallel computing as a response to planned obsolescence. I'll add the category to it for now. --Closeapple (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closeapple excuse me but what about File:Torn_nylon_sock.jpg? please see this documentary from minute 26 on. Sima shimony (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Closeapple: Firstly, that whole documentary was really interesting, so thanks for the suggestion! That said, I think it's hard to prove that specific nylon sock tear was the result of planned obsolescence. It's not as though nylons were absolutely indestructible before companies altered their quality. The image would be worth including the photo in a wikipedia article on planned obsolescence to talk about nylons in general, but somehow that strikes me as different than labelling this particular sock planned obsolescence. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Category:Release

[edit]

Recently created and populated disambig cat. Naming to be discussed as it seems to be a one-word-several-meanings cat. I'm somewhat at a loss about that. Achim (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: : Thank you for your call of discussion. As for the naming issue, probably Category:Release (disambiguation), Category:Releases (noun), Category:Release (verb), etc. may be more appropriate. Unfortunately, I'm not a native English speaker (of course!), thus I have not the enough idea on it. I'm glad if you suggested better idea. best, --Clusternote (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've grouped some together into Category:Product releases (and sub-category Category:Software releases) and Category:Animal releases but it's not an easy problem to solve. I don't know if there's any need for the verb category. Can anyone think of a word/phrase to link Category:Cable releases, Category:Quick release knot, Category:Quick release skewers and possibly Category:Hydrostatic release units and Category:Camera releases? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages should be empty, so I turned it into a category for a word and we can  Keep it. BartekChom (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion, participants: @Achim55, Clusternote, Themightyquill, and BartekChom: . At the moment I rather think we should better delete this mixed stuff category. In future, it definitely must be a disambiguation page--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Brooks

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Rivers.

There's no functional difference between a brook and a stream and I can't see any reason to have a separate category for brooks; additionally, it's an overloaded term and has attracted some images that don't belong in it anyway. Upmerge to Category:Streams. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in general a few abstract terms should be preferred to multiple more concrete terms (if any). Especially in a multilanguage and multicultural project like Commons, it is difficult to base categorization on terms that are more or less exchangeable (in some languages). This said  Support --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same is equally true of Category:Creeks, no? I don't disagree with merging, but I'd think a redirect should be put in place. Perhaps we could delete Category:Brooks and create a redirect from Category:Brooks (watercourses) or something? Incidentally, if we're going by definition instead of by name, Category:Arroyos‎ seems to be redundant with Category:Ramblas (watercourses). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So when does a stream become a river? All these terms are a bit ambiguous. I'd be content to keep the Brooks category but rename it Category:Brooks (watercourses) as Themightyquill suggests. Sionk (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion closed? OK if I make categories for 'Brooks in Massachusetts' with at least 15 entries, and 'Brooks in Connecticut' with at least 18 entries? Faolin42 (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documents from Archivio Pietro Pensa by name

[edit]

The category name implies that this category is organized by name of document, but it is not. It appears to be organized by person, but I can't tell if it's by owner, author, or something else. Whatever it is, the name should be "by name of owner", "by name of author", or something similar. Can anyone tell what it should be? Auntof6 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertomos and Auntof6: old comment. Seems to be unique case? Maybe "by name of creator"--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
actually the following category's name parts (<by name of creator>, <by name of owner>, <by name of author>) all are unique in Commons database. Dead end situation?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Torii at Ueno Tōshō-gū

[edit]

Since we also have other(another?) torii, such as small red one seen on file: File:Wongwt 上野東照宮 (17258260576).jpg,

1. we should rename/move this category named like "Category:Large stone torii at Ueno Tōshō-gū",

which is English translation of meaning from the official naming "

大石鳥居

" as on http://www.uenotoshogu.com/spot/ (ja)

2. or, we could, simply create and add new specific category named that way under this category as: Category:Ueno Tōshō-gū > Category:Torii at Ueno Tōshō-gū > Category:Large stone torii at Ueno Tōshō-gū, however, since the official policy:com:overcat, the connections of parent and child categories, with categories such as Category:Myōjin-torii on each files, will not be simple and easy for everyone to understand.

Logically both way works, but the first one, to move this category named "Category:(The) large stone torii at Ueno Tōshō-gū", will be better, I think.

It is not in a hurry. Thank you for your time. --Tokorokoko (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tokorokoko - You make a very good point. I think it should be changed, as you suggest. And I'm sorry that I am slow in responding; I have been offline for a month. With all best wishes, Daderot (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daderot! Thanks for reply. It's ok, not in a hurry;) Then, I would like to move as above with in a few days. Thanks again! --Tokorokoko (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Tokorokoko and Daderot: what is the situation of this specific, Japan-related discussion?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings - I have nothing more to add, and will be happy with whatever takes place. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) Daderot (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Category:Paintings of the Elisabeth van Thuringen Fonds, Haarlem

[edit]

All these paintings are in the Frans Hals Museum at the moment. I don't know beforehand which paintings are from this Fonds and which aren't. Therefore this category isn't very useful. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I only put the ones in there that are from the fonds. The provenance is in the RKD. Why do you want to get rid of the category? Jane023 (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because in my opinion it makes it difficult to find images. Like I say, you have to know beforehand what is from where, which is nearly impossible. But maybe just detaching this category from Category:Paintings in the Frans Hals Museum rather than getting rid of it is enough. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand. What is wrong with having these paintings be in both categories? I would like to see all paintings of the FHM in the category Category:Paintings in the Frans Hals Museum. I see no reason why paintings that also belong in sub categories, need to be removed from that category. When people look for paintings in the FHM they expect to see them there. Jane023 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that it's a very obscure category. It is not something everyone can easily recognize, like Category:Portrait paintings in the Frans Hals Museum. And the reason I'm 'emptying' Category:Paintings in the Frans Hals Museum, is overcategorization, see Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. I think if you want to present all 467 or so paintings in the Frans Hals Museum in one go, you might want to create a gallery or a list. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the institution is certainly not obscure in Haarlem, which is where these paintings reside. I think it is an important distinction and the local institutions that formerly owned paintings in the FHM need to be able to reflect this. It's one of the main tourist attractions, that so many paintings have remained in Haarlem because they were locked in "obscure" collections, as you call them. Jane023 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that they are now part of the Frans Hals Museum. They were formerly owned and/or commissioned by the Category:St. Elisabeth Gasthuis (Haarlem), so I can understand they are in that category. But since they are not physically in that institution (obscure or not) any more, why not put them in a category like Category:History of the St. Elisabeth Gasthuis (Haarlem) or Category:Paintings formerly in the St. Elisabeth Gasthuis (Haarlem). This will make things muchclearer, I think. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK though. I regularly make categories for defunct collections, such as the collection of Jan Gildemeester. The fact that the paintings were gifted to the FHM doesn't erase their history in the Elisabeth van Thuringen Fonds. Jane023 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jane023: The alternative suggestions made by Vincent Steenberg seem quite reasonable to me. At very least, an explanatory note should be placed in the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of explanatory note are you talking about? About the fund? It sill exists. Also, I beleive they also still have paintings, so not everything went to the FHM. This is a category of paintings of the fund, whether they are still in there or not.
Well, yes, that kind of explanatory note exactly. =) But I still don't understand. Are they temporarily at the Frans Hals Museum? Or the fond has been permanently split between two institutions? If that's the case, in what way does it still exist? I misunderstood your earlier comment about categories for defunct collections to suggest this was also a defunct collection. Yet there's nothing in Category:Paintings of the Elisabeth van Thuringen Fonds, Haarlem (not the name, not the parent categories, not any description) that indicates the fonds are defunct, split or otherwise changed. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its a little bit compicated, but what I understand is that most of the paintings are now in the posession of the FHM as a gift from the Elisabeth van Thuringen Fonds. Zee also http://www.codart.nl/exhibitions/details/2524/ What I have done so far is put the paintings in this category in the appropriate subcategory of category:Paintings in the Frans Hals Museum. What I suggest is renaming this category to Category:Paintings formerly in the St. Elisabeth Gasthuis (Haarlem). I think this is the clearest. Also I found out that the Thuringen Fonds has loaned/ceded more paintings to other museums than the FHM, such as the Amsterdam Museum. This also supports separating this category from the Frans Hals Museum. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leafy buildings

[edit]

These two categories have similar but mutually exclusive scopes: both include buildings covered with plants, but "Covered" is for buildings intentionally covered by them, while "Overgrown" is for buildings where the plants just ended up covering the buildings naturally. I question, however, the usefulness of this distinction: it's often hard to know which is which (e.g. File:Eastern Facade.jpg, it's entirely possible that the plants started climbing, and the landowner liked the appearance and didn't trim them back), so proper categorisation can be difficult, and reusers looking for a picture of a plant-covered building generally won't care how a building came to be covered with plants. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just put 'Buildings covered by foliage' as a sub cat of 'Overgrown structures' ? Acabashi (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Covered" already is a subcategory of "Overgrown". The problem is that in most cases it's impossible to know whether the building fits in one or the other, and if you're trying to find such a picture, you won't need to distinguish between artificially covered buildings and naturally covered buildings. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consider File:Schuyler Christ Episcopal Church.jpg. Is it "overgrown" or "covered by foliage"? The day I saw the place (early last week) is the only time in my life that I've ever been there. How am I supposed to know where to put it? Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:Buildings covered with climbing plants? Is it related? If yes, how? Maybe there are climbing plants that do not have leaves, though I am not aware of any. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend, Renardo la vulpo, and Acabashi: Could we remove the subjective words "overgrown" and "covered" by using the name Category:Foliage on buildings or Category:Climbing plants on buildings? We could also have similar categories for structures like bridges, walls, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend, Acabashi, and Themightyquill: Doing away with “overgrown” and “covered” is fine by me. I would, however, prefer a solution which does not imply too much about the plants (leaves vs. other plant parts, climbing plants vs. plants hanging down etc.). What about Category:Plants on building walls or Category:Plants on walls? The blue colour just told me that the latter category already exists, so maybe it is too general and we should use Category:Plants covering walls – bringing us back to “cover” but it needn't mean “cover completely,” as in “covered by.” -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confused, how is "covered" subjective in this context? It doesn't imply anything except the presence of plants on the building, unlike "overgrown". I don't like mixing with "plants on walls" or "plants covering walls", because both of them sound like the focus is on the plants (i.e. they could be subcategories of "Plants by location") and would be best suited for closeups of the plants, while the categories I nominated are concentrating on the building (i.e. they could be subcategories of "Buildings by condition") and would be best suited for overall views. I'd be happy merging everything mentioned here (aside from "Plants on walls") into Category:Buildings covered with climbing plants. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I realize the category description says "covered" includes any amount of plants, but I think that's confusing, and likely the reason for the numerous similar categories. It's not surprising to me that someone wouldn't think this building or this one are "covered" with foliage, and that's why they placed it in Category:Plants on buildings not in the subcategory Category:Buildings covered by foliage‎. That said, I think Renardo la vulpo has a good point that "plants on walls" might be to general, and you have a good point that it might be for images that emphasize the plant rather than the building. I don't know if there is a perfect solution here, even if we all agree the current setup is not ideal. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Buildings with climbing plants"? The emphasis is on buildings, the ambiguity in the name removes the uncertainty over covered/notcovered, and the lack of explanation avoids the "how did it get that way" that prompted me to nominate the categories in the first place. "X with Y" often includes mere nearby-ness, e.g. Category:People with cats doesn't imply anything about the relationship between the people and the cats, but since climbing plants generally don't occur near buildings in a noticeable fashion (I doubt that someone would consider putting this category on a picture of an uncovered building next to a plant-covered telephone pole) the way cats can occur near people, I would envision this name being understood like that of "People with brown hair", which generally refers to brown-haired people, not people of any hair color sitting next to a pile of brown hair. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PNG created with Scribus

[edit]

Possibly a better name for this category would be "PDF created with Scribus" or "Raster created with Scribus" as it does not only contain PNGs, it also contains PDFs and GIFs as mentioned in the description of the category. Currently on;y PDFs and JPGs are there, majority of the files are PDFs. The other formats should be moved to their own category "JPEG created with Scribus" too. AbdealiJK (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a category containing 29 files only shouldn't be split. The difference SVG/Non-SVG files seems to be sufficient. So that might be Category:Non-SVG created with Scribus or Category:Raster graphics created with Scribus or just move the files one level up to Category:Created with Scribus leaving Category:SVG created with Scribus its one and only subcat. --Achim (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Moving the files one directory up and having only one subcategory - Category:SVG created with Scribus seems more appropriate. AbdealiJK (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know about that problem. It results from the tagging of SVG files by the tools used for drawing them; with some tools like Scribus also non-SVG files can be drawn.
The category Created with Scribus contains therefore the SVG subcategory, and the other one. I discussed with other users what would be a useful name; but none of us had an idea. It seemed acceptable to put all non-SVGs into one category, and to name it "PNG created with..." knowing that there are all the files with file extensions different from SVG - including GIF, JPG, PDF etc.
Of course it is possible to care for a correct categorizing! I can do that if the commons community decides that it is in need.
In the example for Scribus the category tree may look like
  • GIF created with Scribus
  • JPG created with Scribus
  • PDF created with Scribus
  • PNG created with Scribus
  • TIF created with Scribus
It is not any problem to alter and to expand the templates, but the result will be many categories containing just one or very few files; Scribus has 2 JPG files.
I agree that the name "PNG created ..." is not satisfying, and I would like a better name ("Raster images created ..." was in discussion and did not satisfy either), but IMHO a too fine category diffusion of all the PNG created with won't help. PNG created with ArcMap comprises 4 file types!
In the meantime came up the idea of no-subcategory. It's a nice idea but does not allow the super category PNG created with, an essential grouping possibilty. sarang♥사랑 12:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your last sentence sounds a bit like a joke. About half of the content of Category:PNG created with MATLAB (240 files) are not PNGs, so why should we consider just PNG specially?. --Achim (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the super categories will get the correct names, e.g. Raster graphics created with, with possible sub categories as PDF created with and others. In the mentioned case of PNG created with MATLAB there are AFAIK also GIF and JPG. I am just seeing that lots of SVG are too in that category, because templates are used in a wrong way. I repair that. sarang♥사랑 17:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Danke dir für die Aufräumarbeit! --Achim (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Now 158 files are therein, about 103 PNG, 46 GIF and 9 JPG. Until somebody misuses again templates and adds SVG...
Do you have any suggestions about category renaming/diffusing? sarang♥사랑 07:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber

[edit]

Wouldn't Category:Jupiter Giant Columns from Hausen an der Zaber be more appropriate? It would fit with the English-language parent category. Themightyquill (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber is a proper name and should therefore not be translated.--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for keeping proper names, so maybe I simply didn't understand. I've now linked the category to the German wikipedia article. It's a single column from Hausen on der Zaber, and where it was titled "Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber." And it now exists in at least three different places as replicas? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. The column was found in Hausen, but is kept in Stuttgart. Replicas are in Hausen, Güglingen, Köngen, Stuttgart and Welzheim. I think it was a mistake to subcategorize by location. Subcategories are now reflected in the page Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber and I moved all files to category:Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber. Therefore all categories except category:Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber should be deleted.--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerd Leibrock: I see. Thanks for your response. I'm not sure removing the sub-categories by location was necessarily a good idea, but I can see your logic. Perhaps the replicas could be placed in Category:Replicas of the Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber or something like that? It would separate them from the original (which I think is a valuable distinction) and unless I'm mistaken, it would allow the use of the parent category Category:Modern copies after Roman originals in Germany. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My original objective was NOT to mix the original and all replicas in one category. But I had to realize that this would puzzle the users. Differentiation is now made on the page Jupitergigantensäule von Hausen an der Zaber, and I would prefer not to differentiate the cat any more.--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do need to make sure all these images are also categorized according to where they ARE not just where the original sculpture came from. If we separately categorize each image from Köngen with Category:Sculptures in Köngen, it's not inconceivable that someone will come along and group them together in a new sub-category. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lokalbahn railway lines in Lower Austria

[edit]

The aim of this CFD is to establish a naming scheme for categories of Lokalbahn railway lines in Lower Austria. Per Commons' language policy, category names generally must be in English, except for proper nouns.

My standpoint is that while the term Lokalbahn itself may be used in English as well to refer to this specific kind of railway line, the broader Commons-wide type designation term railway line should be used instead of the local term Lokalbahn given the international nature of Commons. An exception should be made for railway lines having proper nouns sufficiently used in relevant literature, like Badner Bahn. Otherwise – since at least in my opinion, Lokalbahn [relation] as a whole certainly can't be a proper noun –, in order to comply with English grammar rules, a Lokalbahn type designation would have to be appended to the relation, like Retz–Drosendorf Lokalbahn (see also Vienna S-Bahn).

Please share your thoughts and ideas – pinging My Friend, Priwo, Herbert Ortner, Wolfgang glock, Steindy, Karl Gruber, Gürbetaler and ŠJů. A previous discussion (in German) with Karl Gruber and Herzi Pinki has taken place on my talkpage.

German summary: Dieses CFD betrifft die Benennung o.g. Kategorien. Kategorienamen müssen grundsätzlich in englischer Sprache sein, sofern sie keine Eigennamen darstellen. Es wird vorgeschlagen, das allgemeine Schema '[Relation] railway line' bzw. sofern vorhanden die jeweiligen Eigennamen zu verwenden.

   FDMS  4    22:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striktes  Oppose Wenn man keine Probleme hat, dann macht man sich eben welche. Eine Lokalbahn, in manchen Fällen auch als Sekundärbahn oder Kleinbahn bezeichnet, ist ebenso wie die Landesbahn ein Typus einer Bahnstrecke, der sich in wesentlichen Punkten von einer Hauptbahn unterscheidet. Für Lokalbahnen galten aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen wesentliche Erleichterungen beim Bau und Betrieb (wie Achslasten, Spurweiten, Vorschriften, Signalisierungen u.a.m.), damit eine solche überhaupt gebaut und betrieben werden konnte. Ich wüsste keinen Grund weshalb diese Eigennamen, die schon seit der Konzessionierung bestehen, geändert werden sollten/müssten. Schon mal Die österreichischen Lokalbahnen oder Lokalbahnen der Donaumonarchie gelesen? Den Schneeberg taufen wir ja wegen commons auch nicht in „Snowmountain“ um, weil man sich dort einbildet, dass alles in englisch sein muss. Was soll also dieser Humbug? --Steindy (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn Lokalbahnen auch als Sekundärbahnen oder Kleinbahnen bezeichnet werden, wie kann dann eines davon ein Eigenname sein? Zur Konzessionierung hießen Lokalbahnen oft noch Localbahn, dabei handelte es sich aber natürlich um andere Entitäten als die heutigen Bahnstrecken.    FDMS  4    00:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ja und Aktie hat man damals auch noch mit "c" geschrieben [9]. Was soll also Ihr Einwand? Ich bleibe dabei, dass es, auch wenn die Konzessionen bereits abgelaufen sind oder eingelöst wurden, durchwegs Eigennamen sind und dass es da überhaupt nichts zu ändern gibt. Und ich kann dies mit Eisenbahngesetzen und genügend Literatur der Jahrhundertwende belegen. --Steindy (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Man kann sich wirklcih Probleme heraufvbeschwören - ein durcheinander mit deutschen und englischcen Bezeichnungen ist sehr gut, für Leute, die etwas etwas bestimmtes suchen :-( - Wie Steindy sagt, du verwechselst da dauernd Eigennamen mit allgemeinen Bezeichnungen - eine Südbahn ist auch keine South... --K@rl (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nur noch eine Zusatzfrage, wie kommst du drauf dass die U-Bahn eine Metro ist, siehe Category:Metro line U2 (Vienna)? --K@rl (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wie anfangs erläutert ist Sinn dieses CFDs Durcheinander (das in starkem Ausmaß unter den deutschsprachigen Kategorienamen besteht) zu beheben. Wenn sogar lediglich mit Start- und Zielort plus einem der mehreren zutreffenden Gattungsnamen bezeichnete Bahnstrecken Eigennamen sein sollen, kannst du vielleicht ein Beispiel geben, was deiner Meinung nach kein Eigenname ist? Wird in Eisenbahndokumenten nicht auch öfter Bahnlinien und Niederösterreich verwendet, und eurer Argumentation folgend müssten demnach auch die Hauptkategorien deutschsprachig benannt sein?
Dass metro ein englischsprachiger Begriff für U-Bahn ist verrät mir z.B. ein Deutsch–Englisch-Wörterbuch. Metro (statt underground o.ä.) ist der auf Commons gängige Begriff, siehe u.a. Category:Rapid transit lines, Category:Rail rapid transit und die Erklärung bei Category:Rapid transit.
   FDMS  4    13:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Liebe Nachbarn, ich finde diese Diskussion leicht bizarr. Einen Gattungsanmen wie Lokalbahn als Eigennamen zu bezeichnen ist schon leicht gewagt, nicht? Vielleicht sind wir es uns in der Schweiz halt einfach aus dem täglichen Leben gewohnt, dass man solche Dinge in verschiedenen Sprachen bezeichnen kann. Und so ist es selbstverständlich, dass die U-Bahn in Lausanne Métro heisst und die S-Bahn RER. Da es bei uns die Gattung Lokalbahn nicht gibt, kann ich euch auch keine französische Entsprechung liefern, aber bei uns gab es früher im Eisenbahngesetz Nebenbahnen und dieses Wort wurde auch auf Französisch und Italienisch übersetzt. Weshalb das mit der Lokalbahn in einem englischsprachigen Kategoriensystem nicht möglich sein soll, erschliesst sich mir nicht.--Gürbetaler (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: WENN es etwas zu diskutieren gäbe unter dem Titel Eigennamen, dann wäre es nicht "Lokalbahnen in Lower Austria", sondern "Local railways in Niederösterreich". Wenn überhaupt!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lokalbahn ist eben bei uns ein Gattungsname, der auch in den Betriebsbewilligigungen steht und hat mit Local railways wieder nichts zu tun. --K@rl (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Es tut mir leid, aber diese Aussage verstehe ich nicht. Und das liegt nicht an der Sprache!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Da versteh ich dich auch nicht, was du dran nicht verstehst. Die Betriebsbewilligungung or what? --K@rl (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ich verstehe nicht, weshalb man Lokalbahn nicht mit local railway übersetzen kann. Aber das ist wahrscheinlich dieselbe Diskussion wie U-Bahn und Metro. Anders gesagt: Was würde das Bundesministerium für Verkehr wohl schreiben, wenn es eine englische Übersetzung der Betriebsbewilligung ausfertigen müsste? Wohl schon local railway! -- Gürbetaler (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ganz einfach weil ein österreichisches Ministerium eben eine Bahn deutsch benennt und nicht englisch, nur das man sich bei Wikimedia leichter tut ;-) --K@rl (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kopfschüttel & Achselzuck -- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1K@rl (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noch zur U-Bahn, genau in der de Wiki läuft die Diskussion ob die Kategorie der U-Bahn auf Metro umbenannt werden soll. Hier wird ins Treffen geführt, dass U-Bahn und Metro gar nicht das selbe ist. Außerdem wenn man es schon übersetzen will, wieso nicht Sub or tube - alles das wäre einer Übersetzung besser passen. Aber macht wie ihr glaubt, ich werde mich halt dann vom Kategorisieren zurückhalktn, wenn es eh soviele gibt, die es besser wissen, ich persönlich verstehe heute schon nicht mehr viele Kategorien, denn mein englisch ist eben nicht so gut. Aber das ist eine andere Sache. --K@rl (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basketball matches by date (flat list)

[edit]

This discussion is for the following several categories:

These categories are not metacategories, as their names imply. They contain subcategories for sports matches where the category name includes the date or year of the match, and those subcategories are sorted by those dates/years. This is a nonstandard use of categories.

I think the content of these categories should be moved to relevant "by year" categories (creating them if they don't already exist). That makes for incomplete categories if there are other matches that don't happen to have a date/year in their names, not to mention files for matches that don't have their own categories.

If these categories are deleted, there would be few categories left in Category:Sports matches by date, and those that are left would mostly be "by year" categories, so Category:Sports matches by date might no longer be needed. Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly convinced by your argument, because a non topical flat list is needed for these classes of categories, anyway I would not engage in a war of religion for keeping them. "Category by date" is different by "Category by year". One might not know the exact year when a match was held. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know the year, then you don't know the date, either, so those matches couldn't go in either by-year or by-date categories anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. I agree with user:Auntof6. I started to correct the situation, but eg football categories are categorized via Template:Association football match. So we also have to change template(s) to correct this systematic invalid categorization--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organisms in visual arts

[edit]

Bulk creation of categories by User:Tokorokoko, many of which named ...in visual art in addition to existing ...in art. Many of them very much too specific, containing 1 subcat containing 1 subcat and so on. Perhaps the user suffers from categorisitis? Achim (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Achim55! Thank you for your opinion. I agree that we can omit ..in visual arts, and connect '..in art' > '..in paintings/Paintings of..'
Though, the way they connect, is logically correct, the way they should be:
for example: Swans in art > Swans in visual arts > * Swans in drawings * Swans in painting(paintings?) * Sculptures of swans..
The reason why "containing 1 subcat containing 1 subcat..", for now, or some of them are red links, is because it is on the process to be reconnect correctly.
I edit here when I have time for help. I apologize if I am so slow that bother you. --Tokorokoko (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I got it. Would you please give an example of Swans in non-visual arts? --Achim (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-visual arts might be the performing arts, so swans in non-visual arts might be swans in music, plays, dance (Swan Lake?), etc. Those might be rare enough that we don't need to separate them. We certainly have simply "in art" for most things. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, we don't have *any* categories like this. The logical place to find them would be in Category:Visual arts by subject but that only contains sub-categories for individual visual arts by subject (e.g. Category:Paintings by subject, and Category:Sculptures by subject). Personally, I don't see any significant advantage to
over
There are really only so many basic classifications of art. Category:Visual arts by subject has only 14 sub-categories, so I don't see any present need of grouping these separately from the few classifications of performing arts at the subject level. I can't find any category tree where it would be useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The only "in visual arts" category that doesn't appear to be a subcat of this one is Category:Mythology in visual arts. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i support deleting this extra layer of categories. simply putting everything in xyz in art is good enough. RZuo (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Turkish descent in Turkey

[edit]

No other nation has such a strange category in Commons. See Category:People of French descent, you will not find anything similar to "Category:People of French descent in France". Or look at "Category:People of German descent by country". You will not find any comparable subcategory here, either. There is nothing special about Turkish citizens. No reason to have this category. Ah, who makes the racial scanning, and on which basis? Please let us delete this category. E4024 (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category, but only did so as part of a larger work at standardizing the naming of these categories for Turkey and other countries. It replaced another category. As to whether the category itself has any merit, I do not have any strong opinions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then please pronounce that you are OK with deleting it and let's wait for an admin to do so. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user who created this cat has retired. Some admin please kindly delete the cat. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed this cat (Category:People of Turkish descent) is intended for the (Turkish) diaspora only, just as in the case of similar cats, like Category:People of French descent that I mentioned above. --E4024 (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Turkish people by ethnic or national origin please. Something strange about categorization of Turks has taken place in Commons, I will not enter into POV discussions. *Please help me correct this and make Commons a more objective source of data. --E4024 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Category:People of Spanish descent and others in Category:People by descent. This seems to be the only exception. --E4024 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a distinction between Turkish as a nationality and Turkish as an ethnic group. There are a number of ethnic groups in Turkey who are Turkish nationals who are not of ethnic Turkish decent. (see: Category:People_of_Turkey_by_ethnicity.) Unusual phrasing compared to those common for other countries, but seems a legitimate category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sick and bored of discussions about "discrimination" to Turks everywhere in the WMF projects but still a word or two for you: "Unusual phrasing" means discrimination, it means multiple standards, one for the lovely ones and another for "the other". Correct this attitude, among all, we are in XXIst Century. Turks will not come to conquer your countries again. Ciao. --E4024 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could name it to Category:People of Turkic descent in Turkey so as to distinguish between the "Turkish nationality" and the actual ethnicity. But this might cause more discussion as to who Turkic people are, so I guess it's fine as is. Turks love to rub it in our faces when it comes to calling other ethnicities Turkish per the "Turkish" constitution, but when it comes to themselves it's suddenly "discrimination".--Balyozxane (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • First things first: You are the "typical" user I avoid interaction with, here; so I will speak to you only once and will forget you: 1. You came here claiming that "some people were deleting anything" related to your culture and closed the door to people who could have a civilized dialogue with you. 2. Your psychology -which does not interest us- can only take you to confusion, mistakes, and have problems. (I also have experienced it when I was new.) 3. What has been expressed at the above discussion by me is not related -at all- to Turkish Constitution but to centuries of convention (see the hundreds of pictures here we have of people of many "nationalities" during the Ottoman Empire called "Turks") and national identity. 4. Therefore you have not even read with attention (or pretend not understanding) the references to other countries above. 5. The initiator of the cat agreed with me, even if tacitly. Please leave your prejudices out of the doors of Commons. E4024 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i support deleting "People of Turkish descent in Turkey".
no other comparable cats exist for other countries. RZuo (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Category:Federal Executive Organization of Russia

[edit]

Suggestion to rename category to "Federal executive bodies of Russia" MartynovRussia (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Makes sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MartynovRussia: Well, what about Category:Federal Executive Organization flags of Russia? Move to Category:Flags of federal executive bodies of Russia? --Achim (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see now that multiple categories altogether could be merged with the main category Category:The federal bodies of executive power of the Russian Federation instead of renaming, for instance:

Therefore a massive reorganisation might be needed. --MartyRus (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. Конечно, надо переименовать обе категории. Министерства и федеральные службы нигде не называют организациями. -- TarzanASG +1  21:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you need to rename both categories. Ministries and federal services are nowhere called organizations
translator: Google Translate via --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Famous dogs

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/02/Category:Famous Quercus in Wales.

The name is PoV. Should be merged into Category:Individual dogs. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the subcats should go there. The individual files should go in Category:Dogs, unless there's another appropriate subcategory (for example, a category for the breed shown, the activity shown, the dog's color, etc.). --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that there are quite a few other "Famous" categories, and many of those should also be addressed. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6 is right. The existing category tree is an ugly mix of "famous x", "individual x" and "x by name". It currently looks roughly like this:

"Famous x" is obviously problematic for the reasons of POV, as Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) said above. I've certainly never heard of most of these animals. "Individual x" strikes me as better but somewhat ambiguous, since it may mean "one horse alone" (as opposed to with others) and also seems to exclude groups of famous animals Category:Taro and Jiro. "X by name" seems like the best to me because it's clear and corresponds well with the Category:People by name category tree, but it does pre-suppose that we have categories for every individual notable animal. If we had just one photo of Lassie, it might not justify its own category, and therefore, wouldn't fit under Category:Dogs by name. I still think that's the best option, but I'm open to other solutions. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • With "named dogs", we'd have people adding files showing dogs who have names, or at least dogs whose names are indicated in the file. (Same for other animals, of course.) We might need to stick with "dogs by name", as we do with people. On the other hand, how about "categories for individual dogs", which would make it clear that only categories should be added. In fact, that might be a remedy for the other problematic "by name" categories we have; I'll look into that. --~~
  • @Themightyquill: I appreciate the effort in going through the list. I agree that the current names are inappropriate and should be changed. I like your "Organism by name" idea, but I think there is a problem in the analog to people. The name of a person is almost exclusively going to mean the individual's name (given and family), but with dogs, one might look to a list of "Dogs by name" and expect to find names such as "beagle" and "bulldog" as reasonably as finding "Lassie" and "Spot". I do agree that using "individual" as an adjective for the organism type gives confusion with 'groups of 1 of X' meaning, but what about something like Category:Dogs by individual name? This would both make it clear that we are talking about the name of an individual dog (or other organism) and yet not be confused with Category:1 dog or such. As for named pairs (or groups), Category:Pairs of dogs by name would seem to work fine. Note that a pair like Taro and Jiro should also have individual categories Category:Taro (dog) and Category:Jiro (dog) for files that are exclusive to one or the other and these would go in Category:Dogs by individual name. Josh (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cafés in Washington (state)

[edit]

Cafés in Washington (state) -> Coffeehouses in Washington (state) -- Reasons for move -

  1. This is a move back to the status quo. If the situation does not have consensus, then it should stay as it was. Right now I and three other are participating in the discussion. @Jmabel, An Errant Knight, and Nyttend:
  2. The rationale for the change is conformity. This would usually be the right choice, except that in this case there is cause for exception. There could be two categories, "Cafés in Washington (state)" and "Coffeehouses in Washington (state)", but "coffeehouses" and "cafes" should not be merged in this case because they are different.
  3. Knight and Nyttend correctly asked for supporting evidence that this region uses a different term than elsewhere. It does. Supporting evidence for using the term "coffee houses" or "coffeehouse" for this region includes numerous sources using these terms, including those cited at en:Coffee in Seattle and en:Coffee in Portland, Oregon. Yes, I confirm that in many places in the United States there is no distinction between a cafe and a coffeehouse, but in the en:Pacific Northwest/Cascadia region the distinction is great and it is a point of cultural pride. For many people in the region, there are obvious differences between cafes and coffeehouses, and if someone in Portland, Seattle, or Vancouver asked for one, then they would not mean the other. For most other regions in the world there would not be published sources on coffee culture in that region, but for this region, there are.

Previous discussion about this is also at

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really sure what "normal" bolded word to use, so Use just "cafés. No separate categories for "Cafés in WA" and "Coffeehouses in WA". As I said at the COM:AN discussion, we tend to adopt national usage in category naming (basically following en:WP:ENGVAR), but I'm not aware of any situations in which we adopt regional usage when the region otherwise uses the same English dialect as the rest of the country. Is there some legal distinction between cafés and coffeehouses under Washington law? If so, show me, and I'll reverse myself, because maintaining separate categories is important when there's a legal distinction. We already do this for other concepts with varying legal definitions from state to state. For example, Category:Towns in the United States and Category:Villages in the United States don't have anything for Ohio and Washington respectively, since Ohio law doesn't recognise "town" as a class of municipality, and Washington law apparently doesn't recognise "village" as a class of municipality. I don't suppose that most states don't recognise a distinction between "café" and "coffeehouse", so there's no reason to have separate categories for most states; if Washington is like the others, it should be treated like the others. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend Yes, there is a legal distinction. Cafés are restaurants and do food preparation, and so have licenses to do that. In contrast, coffeehouses sell food which is prepared elsewhere. Laws are different in different places, but for example, here is Seattle law -
You asked for the legal difference, and there it is. Coffeehouses do not need the same license as a café. This actually applies nationwide, but it only makes sense in the context of the cultural difference, because it is local culture which distinguishes which places are called "restaurant", "café", "diner", and "coffeehouse". The cultural distinction is so strong that as I showed, there are Wikipedia articles on the topic of coffee for this region and no where else in the US.
I also can think of no example in which en:WP:ENGVAR is applied outside the context of US/UK/India. Still, I do not see this as a distinction of English, but of the nature of the place. en:Coffeehouse is its own concept for a place with coffee, and "café" outside of English language means this. When a place starts serving more than coffee, then in the United States it is less likely to be called a coffeehouse and more likely to be a en:diner, cafe, or restaurant. The café category already is confused with diners but there is less mistaking a coffeehouse for what it is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. But are the two terms distinguished in relevant regulations (something comparable to the Ohio Uniform Food Safety Code), or in the Revised Code of Washington? You've demonstrated that certain businesses need permits while others don't, but since the terms themselves are what we're talking about, you need to demonstrate a distinction between the terms themselves if you're trying to convince me in this matter. And on your more general thing about "the nature of the place", I've routinely encountered "coffeehouse" being used for coffee-focused businesses, whether Starbucks or local places (example, which I've visited several times), that also serve items other than coffee. A distinction between "cafe" and "coffeehouse" is not general in US English, and it is not being followed in our category tree. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend The legal language does not differentiate between cafes and restaurants. Do you support a merge of everything in category:cafes to category:restaurants on the same premise?
Local culture varies from place to place. I established that there is a legal distinction, and it is already a Wikipedia custom to make cultural distinctions using terms like "cafe" which have no legal standing. I provided Wikipedia articles establishing that coffee culture in this region is so extraordinary that it is discussed in reliable sources making the entire concept of coffee culture in this region notable, when it is not elsewhere.
Starbucks is a coffeehouse, and I think you know it is from this region and helped to define the contemporary concept. Starbucks does not have a typical restaurant license; their locations have the alternate license for "restaurants which do not prepare food" however that is phrased legally. There is a category tree which distinguishes coffeehouses and cafes; in English Wikipedia, en:category:Coffeehouses exists, but the majority American concept of a cafe is described in Category:Diners or Category:Restaurants. If you check the English Wikipedia article on en:Coffeehouse, what is being discussed is not what is called a cafe anywhere in America. A coffeehouse experience includes a social aspect like a bar, and includes talking with strangers in public seating. That is not the cafe experience in most of America, but it is the coffeehouse experience in this region. Is the distinction made by English Wikipedia satisfying to you? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no legal distinction, and American English in general does not distinguish between cafes and coffeehouses, you've made my argument for me. If you want to nominate the entire "Cafes in the US" tree for renaming to coffeehouses, I'll consider supporting that. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend I am already happy to grant you your argument that in the majority of America there is no distinction, because I also feel that the cultural distinction does not occur in most of America.
It is neither correct to call all cafes as coffeehouses, nor all coffeehouses as cafes. I advocate for using the terms which are used by the several million local people in a region, rather than using the terms that would be chosen by outsiders who are not familiar with a given local culture.
Here are some examples of online discussions which confirm the distinction in the way I describe.
I am not sure what to do next. Can you think of a way for an end to this discussion? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend Do you have an idea for resolution? Here are some.
  • We reframe this as a discussion on whether Wikimedia Commons uses the common wording of local culture, or whether it prefers to use the term that matches popular use outside that culture.
  • I can solicit further comments from people who work in these categories. Since they are local in the region, I would expect them to prefer the term "coffeehouse".
  • We can try something else you propose. So far as I can tell, I have already accepted all of your arguments and premises, except for the one that seems to be, "Since people outside this region use a different term, then things in the region should not be named by the local term but instead should use the outside term." I would like to make your position look as good as it can before calling for any further comment.
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there is no legal distinction, and American English does not distinguish between them, so I reject the proposal and your distortion of it. Attempting to account for all local variations, based solely on popular usage, would produce a huge mess of our category system: it's possible to account for national variations in our controlled vocabulary, and possible to account for concepts that truly are different, but operating instead on a local folksonomy is something I strongly oppose. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: It is harsh for you to say that I am distorting something. I am emailing you with my Skype and phone number. Perhaps if we talked by phone or video we could come to more efficient resolution.
I feel that you are making an arbitrary choice. There is no legal distinction between a cafe and a restaurant, but you permit a cafe category while opposing a coffeehouse one. There is also Category:Diners, which is the same as most American cafes.
Here are other differences:
typical American cafe - usually the same as a en:diner, serves cooked food, drip coffee, no coffee professional, sit with friends, like a restaurant, not a community center, only one type of coffeebeans
coffeehouse - English word for European-style cafe, no cooked food, en:espresso, has en:barista, sit among strangers, like a bar, place which hosts public meetings, multiple types of coffeebeans available
Your userpage says you are in Ohio. In Category:Cafés in Ohio, there is Tony Packo's Cafe, which has a webpage advertising their hotdogs. At en:coffeehouse, there is no mention of hotdogs. That is a different experience for a different concept.
Would it be productive to talk through anything more, or should I get other opinions? Email me back if you would have voice conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I've been around here (since 2006), we have permitted national exceptions, on WP:ENGVAR grounds, from our controlled vocabulary, but we have not permitted otherwise, and I will not be complicit in an attempt to go against our standards. "I feel that you are making an arbitrary choice" (1) Your feelings are irrelevant to thesaurus construction, and (2) if this were going the other way, you trying to split coffeehouses out of cafes, I'd still be opposing it. Seek a worldwide split, i.e. completely rework the existing tree, and I'll not participate (I have no opinion on whether this should be done), but beating a dead horse in an attempt to replace a well-organised thesaurus with a folksonomy-influenced terminology is disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Category:Armenians in Turkey

[edit]

Should be moved to "Category:Turkish Armenians". They are not visitors, they are not "in" Turkey. They are part of Turkey. E4024 (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of other categories with this same naming convention -- just look in any of the nominated category's parent categories. Are they all wrong? I think it's possible for an Armenian to go to Turkey (or any other country) without becoming a citizen there, so this naming makes sense to me. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are speaking about local people who have been living there since ages; maybe we can use the current cat for those thousands of people from Armenia attracted to Turkey for a better life. --E4024 (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For inspiration, we have Category:German minority in the Czech Republic‎ and Category:German people in the Czech Republic‎. We have a bit mess in it, but it can indicate a way how to distinguish minorities (earlier inhabitants) from visitors, occupiers etc. --ŠJů (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, E4024, I'd say that in standard English usage, "Turkish Armenians" would mean citizens of Armenia who are ethnic Turks. "Armenian Turks" doesn't work because Category:Turks is for ethnic Turks. I can understand why the current phrasing seems unclear, but your proposed solution is insufficient. I accept that whatever difference between the subcategories of Category:Ethnic groups in Turkey (Category:Greeks in Turkey) and the sub-categories of Category:Turkish people by ethnic or national origin (Category:Turkish people of Greek descent), it could certainly be made more explicit.- Themightyquill (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Firearms of the Israeli Police

[edit]

I have the fealing that none of these firearms are actually used by the Israely police. They are used in generally but the realted pics don't show police firearms. Sanandros (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruger was photographed during Israeli Police open day. The M1 Carbine was photographed in Police's Civil Guard base. The rest are used by the Israeli Police but photographed elsewhere. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 09:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK M1 and Ruger I can accept but "used by the Israeli Police but photographed elsewhere" is for me not acceptable. If you do that consequently with all other nations some firearms will have a list full of nations but that violates the simplicity principle of Commons:Categories#Principles.--Sanandros (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to agree with Sanandros. If you just want a collection images of the *types* of weapons used by the Israeli police, a gallery might be acceptable, or perhaps a wikipedia list. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Sanandros, MathKnight, and Themightyquill: I am not oppose to make it a gallery. But maybe upmerging of these files and deleting this category would be the best solution. Notice, that this category name (<Firearms of Foo Police>) is unique in Commons database--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes make a gallery.--Sanandros (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep At least some of the media here appear to actually depict firearms owned by the Israeli Police, so those should be kept here. Josh (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Category:Plymouth

[edit]

Can we move this to Category:Plymouth, Devon, and make this the disambiguation category? The other day I cleaned out a bunch of files that were for Plymouth, Massachusetts, and I don't think it's the first time I've done that. If this page were the disambiguation category, it would be easy to see miscategorized files at Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories.

I know that Wikipedia has a practice of making the plain, unqualified name of an article be for the primary meaning of a term, but I don't think that works well for categories here. With a Wikipedia article, you can start reading and figure out from the text whether the article is about the thing you wanted. With categories here, that's harder, maybe even impossible sometimes. Because of that, I think we should qualify most category names when disambiguation is an issue. This was the solution when Category:Hyde Park was changed to a disambiguation category, and Category:Hyde Park, London was created for the park there. I think this category is a good candidate for a similar solution. Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose/Comment this is the original Plymouth, however it might not satisfy the category primary topic criteria, see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/01#Disambiguation of categories. I think 1 of the points is that other Plymouths use "Placename, State" anyway (but given that you found images for MA indicates that this is not always done. Clearly Plymouth isn't the same as Lincolnshire, Massachusetts, London, Abraham Lincoln etc which are just obviously unquestionably primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that other places specify the state. They have to, since this category without a qualifier exists. The problem isn't as much with the other category names as it is with how things end up in categories. People put them there, and that's subject to human error:
  • Sometimes they don't realize there's more than one thing with the same name.
  • Sometimes they use some kind of autocomplete software or function (such as HotCat has) and accept the first category name suggested.
My suggestion is an attempt to minimize incorrect categorization due to these by using more-specific categories. I don't believe that Wikipedia's primary topic rule works well for media, as I said above. On Wikipedia, if you find the article on "Plymouth" when you're looking for Plymouth, Massachusetts, all you have to do is read a little of the article to see that it's not the one you want. Here on Commons, if you find the category Category:Plymouth, you can't necessarily tell which one it's for from the contents. Besides all that, bulk upload processes are notorious for adding categories based on any keywords they find. If the unqualified name is a disambiguation category, no one can be misled by files in it. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other places specify the state because w:USPLACE specifies to always do this, for example Category:Missoula, Montana and Category:Bothell, Washington even though Missoula isn't named after something called "Missoula" and Bothell is named after "David Bothell". However as you point out people adding the category might not use the "City, State" (or look for it) when adding images. If the category contains images that are not for Plymouth, Devon then the is bad for readers looking for Plymouth, Devon. I agree that this one probably should be renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The principle of "primary topics" is just as relevant to Commons as Wikipedia, but the circumstances where that it should be applied are different. The same difficulties that are posed here by Plymouth also exist with, for example, Category:England but no-one would seriously propose that move, even though there are multiple Englands. The difference is merely a question of scale, which is what primary topic seeks to address.
I'd disagree with you cannot immediately tell what this category is about from its contents, it clearly has a sentence describing its content at the top of the page.
(Using the Wikipedia terms "reader" and "editor" for clarity) The goal should always be to maximise benefit for the reader - disambiguation should happen if it is to the benefit of the reader. It should not happen merely to make life easier for us, for example to overcome the limitations of the categorisation tools, if this has a negative impact to readers.
In this case, the category is well-maintained and incorrectly placed files get moved along relatively quickly - which is a low-level admin overhead, and that "pollution" has minimal impact to readers. There would be significant admin associated with the move (eg fixing links from other projects, adjusting sub-category names), and the ongoing overhead will be comparable (all files in the dab category will need review, and most files placed in the cat do relate to this subject). On balance, I think the administrative benefits are outweighed by the costs; just looking at implications for editors, the status quo should be maintained.
So to me that means the category should be moved if and only if benefits to readers after other Plymouths outweigh the negative impact to those after this one. In the context of imagery, I am most concerned about those after Plymouth vehicles than those after another location.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "from the contents" I meant the files, not the description. The description doesn't govern what goes into the category, it only governs what should go into it. If there is, for example, a photo of a generic-looking street and nothing in the file name or description to say which Plymouth it is, you wouldn't be able to tell without great difficulty (unless you happened to recognize what was in the photo). Also, not everyone looks at category descriptions when categorizing (that's probably part of the problem), and automated upload processes probably don't, either, when they're picking keywords out of a file.
Finally, I think making it easier for editors to get things in the right categories would make things better for readers, because the readers could be more confident that the files in a category really were for what the category said they were for. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general principle, that if categorisation is right, the odds of errors are lower which are of benefit to the reader. However, the categorisation structure should not be built to the weaknesses of the tools, but to how humans search the site. You can make the same argument can be made for every potentially ambiguous category and, rightly, many many ambiguous topics will stay at the base page name - as the inconvenience to people looking for that base topic outweighs the error risks (think London, Paris, Moscow..). I know Plymouth is different to those, but why does it matter for categorisation purposes?
With the particular case here, there is near-zero risk of people using files wrongly as the top-level category is pretty much empty and well-maintained. The files you removed were less than one week old before they were correctly recategorised, and that's probably typical. With the example of a generic street scene: If you can tell what Plymouth is in, categorisation is easy regardless of where it starts (as its not buried among hundreds of files here). If you cannot determine which Plymouth it is in, then it shouldn't be in any Plymouth cat but should instead be in an unidentified location cat. It doesn't matter if it started in the cat for a specific place or a dab, it will get to the corrected location pretty quickly. And if the most likely subject is not at the base name, more files will start off in the wrong place.
I am fairly neutral to the idea of a move on this, but I'd like to see a positive case to move before I could support, as any such move would result in a lot of labour to do correctly. And if moved, I would certainly want to see all aspects considered and not just have the category moved and no other edits elsewhere.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But even though the files had been in for less that a week, that's still that amount of time the category had reduced benefit for our readers, clicking through a DAB is hardly difficult for our readers is it? While if there are incorrect files then that reduces the quality drastically of the readers experience. Also you have to click on the hatnote and then find the one you are looking for with a PT, without one you can click directly on the one you want without having to load Devon as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole premise of Primary Topic is cost-benefit analysis, as clicking through a dab does have a small, but permanent and ongoing cost. When that cost outweighs the benefit of a dab page you have a primary topic (certainly the case for London or France, both ambiguous topics).
That cost is higher when readers encounter the dab when they really shouldn't. The most important route for people who want the images in the category is following w:Plymouth, not using the Commons search bar. This is why I'm opposed unless there is a real tangible benefit: Fixing the incoming links from all wikimedia projects is a complex task, and if its not done properly the harm from that will outweigh the gains. That's in addition to the internal admin on Commons such as re-naming the subcategories.
Incorrect files can be problematic, but the risks here are minimal - none in the past couple of months? That's at worst minor irritant level, so is not a big enough issue to justify a move. The best way to assist those searching for "other" Plymouths would be to remove the Citybus galleries that flood the search returns.
The rules for determining primary topics on en.wikipedia do not necessarily flow through to Commons, nor do the results. However, what's the real, substantive benefit to carrying out a move? If there isn't one I will say no move.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that's much less than having to go through an article that's not relevant to what you're looking for. However its not completely unrelated as it appears that all the other meanings derive from it.
Indeed because we have the gallery even if people type "Plymouth" into the search box they end up there instead so if the category was replaced with a DAB at the base name people would not be affected that way. If moved the link to commons from WP would simply be updated so readers would still end up in the right place. Fixing the links and moving the categories surely wouldn't be too difficult and links that weren't fixed would still lead to the DAB which could list Devon right at the top (the harm really occurs when people move a category without leaving a redirect or DAB page for people who come from other sites).
The rules are usually higher than on Wikipedia for determining primary topics, Plymouth has probably been the most debated primary topic of all English locations on Wikipedia so its strength would appear to be a lot weaker still here (like the points raised here). As I said I am neutral on the move because of the points you have made as well. Comments such as this and this and this for example show that it didn't meet Wikipedia's primary topic criteria in 2010 although there were many arguments for it being primary (such as historical importance). However primary topic has been revised so how it appears it does see for example here as "long-term significance" requires substantially greater "than any other" while "usage" requires "much more likely than any other" and "more likely than all the other topics combined". Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cost of going to the wrong category is higher than going to a dab category per event. If there is a primary topic, then the total cost of a dab (through people wanting the primary having to click through) is higher than the total cost of no dab (through people wanting the other meanings having to click through).
There are also substantial one-off maintenance costs if the proposed move were to occur - not limited to fixing dozens of incoming links that would need adjusting, hundreds of sub-categories and re-categorising thousands of files. The cost of these maintenance tasks mean that there should be a substantial benefit from making the change, to justify the time and labour that would be needed to implement the move.
Show me evidence that there is a substantial cost to not moving, and then there is a case. The risk of occasionally having a file for the wrong Plymouth in the cat, and the minimal time spent fixing those rare events, are not substantial risks - indeed are near-zero.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point as you have pointed out is that the rename has mainly one-off maintenance costs while keeping it has ongoing costs. As I pointed out I have no strong opinion either way mainly from your NOTBROKEN comments (that there is no substantial short term benefits) but I do on the other hand think that it fails PRIMARYTOPIC so I am still neutral. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are significant one-off costs to a move and very low (but not zero) ongoing maintenance costs to no move. That means no move, unless a substantial benefit to readers can be demonstrated.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What should be done with media like File:En-uk-Plymouth.ogg? That relates to the word Plymouth, not specifically the English city - and is equally valid as, for instance, a pronunciation of the car brand. Maybe, putting it into all Plymouth cats would be best approach?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a local thing then as this could apply to any word (see the history of the File:En-us-Mercury.ogg page), given that it states "Pronunciation of "Plymouth" in British English (Received Pronunciation/South East England)" it indicates that it should go in Devon specifically but could go in others. I'd note that File:En-uk-York.ogg was removed from Category:York. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, Commons is a different project to WP. If the WP article is moved, that fact is worth noting here. But this discussion could be closed at any time, before or after the discussion on WP. To be honest, Commons should use "no consensus" for obviously stale discussions when there is no prospect of a clear outcome. That's better than leaving them open indefinitely.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that ENWP is not determinate, but as established the threshold is higher for PT than WP, however most of the other major languages have the English one as primary so maybe that would be enough to stop that, but I think that if the WP article is moved, that would be enough to justify that here, to be quite honest the fact that the CAT at WP is DABBed I think would be enough to have it as a DAB here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons is not Wikipedia. If the WP article is moved, that fact should be borne in consideration here. No more, no less. This CFD should be closed on its own merits.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are commenting on the WP move discussion, and WP move processes, something you would not be allowed to on WP. All that matters here is Commons is not Wikipedia.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was about primary topic discussions in general, on any project. I would expect that the Cleveland discussion will be closed as no move as there appears to be clear consensus against it while I would expect this will be closed as move as there appears to be stronger arguments in support. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6, ScottDavis, Crouch, Swale, and Nilfanion: :
Stale discussion: The consensus appears to indicate we should Rename Category:Plymouth to Category:Plymouth, Devon . Should we move forward with that change, is there further discussion required, or should we just close this as unresolved? Josh (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing that rename is my preference. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there seems to be a weak consensus for this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Java Sea Memorial (Tokyo)

[edit]

This Japanese monument, in Tokyo, is apparently a memorial to the Battle of the Java Sea. Translations of its inscriptions would be most helpful. If this is not, in fact, a memorial to the Battle of the Java Sea, please recategorize accordingly. Daderot (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: Would you please be so kind to check that? --Achim (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC
I finally found this. It's this, which, since I can read this text much better than what's in the photos, I can translate. This, as I thought it might be from the address, is located at one of the gates of Yasukuni Shrine.　It's not quite the "Battle of the Java Sea" so much as it seems to be the entire Indonesian campaign. I'm still digging, so I'm a bit weak on details, but the Battle of the Java Sea is called スラバヤ沖海戦, and as best as I can get so far, 濠北 is short for the naval division (size indeterminate) that was engaged in the entire Indonesian campaign (an area I'm not familiar with in English, so it's complicating matters in Japanese). The monument was erected by a veteran's association in 1964, not the government. The poem by Emperor Meiji really threw me off, but I can see the connection. The category is definitely incorrect and should be renamed to something else. I've removed Category:Battle of the Java Sea as well - it's not sufficiently pertinent to that battle. MSJapan (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I greatly appreciate your insights and your help in getting this right! with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't see where to put it, but as far as copyright goes, the memorial date is November 3, 1964, so it would be useful to state that - it makes it clear the monument is PD because it is outside the 50-year range given in the licensing. @Daderot: The images should be retitled, but I'm not sure what is best yet. The description is going to get retooled as well, but it should be standard to a certain extent across all the images so it is clear that this is all the same monument. We can discuss further on your talk. MSJapan (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. It's probably best to figure out the right name for the category, then make a clean-up pass through the images. What do you think? Daderot (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: 濠北 is probably not a naval division. 濠洲 is Australia. 濠北方面 is probably the area to the north of Australia, since File:Memorial plaque with Java Sea map - Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan - DSC04772.jpg shows Indonesia.
A rough translation would be Cenotaph of North of Australia War Dead. 戦歿者 = war dead. 慰霊碑 = cenotaph.--Roy17 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More background info: https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E8%B1%8A%E5%B6%8B%E6%88%BF%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E&oldid=93229294 . Roy17 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best solution is a transliteration of the japanese name "濠北方面戦没者慰霊碑", but I dont speak japanese. Roy17 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hermitage (religious retreat)

[edit]

Should this be merged with Category:Hermitages? If not, could we have descriptions on each explaining the difference? Auntof6 (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word „Hermitage“ or „Ermitage“ can have several meanings. Normally a religious retreat is meant. Sometimes it is a retreat, which has no religious background - more spiritual in nature (for example, a quiet environment, a park or a museum). See also: Eremitage or Hermitage Museum. Have applied analogous to the category Hermitages (religious retreats) by country and its subcategories in this category. With kind regards --Schofför (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that Category:Hermitages is for the non-religious ones, then maybe it moved to a qualified name and then turned into a dab cat. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Kaganer (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus
  • Hermitage churches (Q56750657) - kind of a small church/chapel, which is normally nobody's house, people do not retreat there either. Sometimes in rural environments, sometimes not.
--Strakhov (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Party per pale twice shields

[edit]

Redirect to category "Tierced per pale shields"; JotaCartas (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JotaCartas: seems to be specific topic, but if we see upper category Category:Heraldic divisions, then there are analogues pairs. These pairs also to be merged?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense, redirected – Doc Taxon • Talk • 14:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AR-15 family

[edit]

Does there exist any definition of "AR-15 family"? Sanandros (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Kept, added an intro line. --Achim (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd re-opened

In the previous disussion the reference for AR-15 family definition is en wp but on en wp doesen't have any ref for AR-15 family (sicientific or technical) definition. Sanandros (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanandros, ich verstehe nicht, worauf du eigentlich hinauswillst. Soll die Cat umbenannt werden? Vielleicht Category:AR-15 and derivatives? Kein Problem, können wir von mir aus gerne machen. --Achim (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nein mir geht es darum eine Messerscharfe Definition zu haben. So dass wenn eine neue Waffe auf den Markt kommt ich diese konkret kategorisieren kann. Z.B haben wir die Category:CMMG Mk47 Mutant in der AR-15 Familie. Nach welchem Kriterium ist diese Waffe dort Kategorisiert? Denn viele Technische Details sind anders.--Sanandros (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Achso, da fragen wir doch am besten erstmal nach. Inviting @Avron: There are doubts that Category:CMMG Mk47 Mutant is categorized correctly as subcat of Category:AR-15 family. Could you please enlighten us? --Achim (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to [10] it was my understanding that CMMG Mk47 Mutant is based on AR-15--Avron (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then how should somebody interpret "The Mk47 isn’t simply a 7.62x39 mm upper receiver pinned onto an AR-15-style lower. This is a completely different firearm that is nearly as large as the AR-10 in certain dimensions—CMMG builds its 7.62x39 mm rifles on what it refers to as a “mid-size” receiver."?--Sanandros (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baths by date

[edit]

There's something not right with this category and its subcats (including sub-subcats) and the files therein, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Some of the images seem to be for buildings where people swim or bathe, some seem to be for people swimming (or at least beaches where they can swim), and others seem to be for neither of those. It certainly can't for the English city of Bath, because the name would be "Bath by year" (singular). However, the descriptions added by Template:Bathsyear does link to the Wikipedia article for the city (which I think is a mistake). Any ideas how to straighten this out? As a side note, maybe we could move Category:Baths by year up to Category:Baths and do away with Category:Baths by date, since the by-date category contains nothing else. Auntof6 (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's because some baths are outdoors, others indoors. J 1982 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@J 1982: Please read the description at Category:Baths. Images of people at the beach should not be categorized under "Baths". As for this category, it could exist, I guess, but it would have to be renamed to fit in the tree at Category:Buildings by year of photographing‎ - Themightyquill (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. The nominated category has no files, and only two subcategories. I agree with user:Auntof6 that we should delete the nominated category. Side notice: if you want to discuss the parent Category:Baths, please open another CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as it is.
Same as Category:Castles by year with ..., Category:Castles in 2023, Category:Castles in 2024, ...
Some baths are outdoors, others indoors
Not all files are Fotographs, so not all files fit in "...by year of photographing‎", for example "postcards" of a bath or a bath in art ("paintings", ...).
--> keep as it is. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 07:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name

[edit]

The "Photographs of" naming convention is usually used for categories like Category:Photographs of Germany, to contain photographs grouped by characteristic (black and white, panoramics, etc.). Should this category be renamed to something like "Men of Japan by name in photographs" and the subcategories renamed to "<name> in photographs"? Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason not to make it the same as the other sub-categories of Category:Men by name by country ? ie. leave out the word "photographs" entirely. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a reason. I spot checked a few of the subcats, and they were all also subcats of categories for the person. (For example, Category:Photographs of Hamao Arata is a subcat of Category:Hamao Arata.) In other words, the subcats here seemed to be specifically to separate photos of each person from other things in the person's category. I would think the nominated category should reflect that. Of course, maybe the contents of the subcats should just be upmerged to the person's main category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did notice that as well, but I'm not sure why this is so common for Japanese men. There are 93 Japanese men that need a special "Photographs of" sub-category, but only 52 other men in the whole word (in Category:Photographs of men by name) that require it? Kind of strange. In some categories, the main person category is split into "Person X in art" and "Photographs of person x", which seems legitimate enough, though we generally assume photographs as the standard and only other media is sub-categorized by medium. In some cases, the main person category is also contains sub-categories for family members, and I'm not sure if we have a policy on that. but in others (e.g. Category:Endō Kinsuke, Category:Hōjō Tokiyuki, Category:Hosokawa Junjirō) there's no other category, so this is an unnecessary extra layer. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@庚寅五月: , would you care to comment? We're a bit confused. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 庚寅五月 who created many subcategories about Japanese men. Basically, I created the categories "Category:Photographs of <name>" to distinguish between the photographs of the subject person and the other files (works by subject person, works about the person, monuments or memorials to the person, etc), based on already existing Category:Photographs of John Quincy Adams, Category:Photographs of Richard Wagner etc. However, if the category Category:Photographs of men by name is useful, I think that its subcategories "Category:Photographs of <name>" are meaningful to create even if there is no media other than photographs.
The category name "Category:Photographs of <name>" is based on Category:Photographs of people and Category:Photographs of men. Similarly, there are categories Category:Paintings of people and Category:Prints of people. But for these category names, "Category:People in <medium>" may be preferable because category names don't become ambiguous when under-categories are created. The reason why "Category:Photographs of <name>" are the subcategories of "Category:<name> in art" is based on the fact that Category:Photographs and Category:Photographs of people are subcategories of Category:Art by medium and Category:People in art by medium.
Incidentally, this Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name is not created by me, but it seems that it was created to group the categories "Category:Photographs of <Japanese man>" which was also categorized into "Category:Men of Japan in art". I think that it is not absolutely necessary.--庚寅五月 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, 庚寅五月. I understand your logic, but if we used it more broadly, the number of categories on wikipedia would double overnight. In addition to Category:Hats, Category:Hats by color and Category:Red hats, we'd need Category:Photographs of hats, Category:Photographs of hats by color and Category:Photographs of red hats. Because the vast majority of the files on commons are photographs, it would create an unnecessary extra layer of empty categories, and wikipedia article would end up linking to empty commons categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, we don't need to create subcategories of photographs for all object categories, I don't intend to make such claims. But in the case of the person categories, not only the photographs of the subject person but also the various files related to that person are categorized therein (e.g. Category:Alexander Graham Bell, Category:Wright brothers). I think that it is meaningful enough to distinguish between the photographs of the subject person and the others files, in order not to clutter the person category. However, it might be more appropriate to use the names "Category:Portraits of <name>" or "Category:Portrait photographs of <name>" than "Category:Photographs of <name>" (e.g. Category:Portrait photographs of Albert Einstein, Category:Portrait photographs of Victoria of the United Kingdom).
If the files about the subject person are not found outside the portrait photographs (or simply portraits), we don't necessarily need to create subcategories. But if the categories "Category:Photographs of <name>" is the most basic subcategory in the person categories, I also think that it is better to create them as much as possible.--庚寅五月 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Category:Portrait photographs of men by name. What about moving these there (and renaming them accordingly)? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they were all portrait photographs of each individual, which I don't think they are. See this one of Ichirō Hatoyama, this one of Itō Hirobumi and this one of Uchimura Kanzō, just to mention a few. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but 庚寅五月 could go through and ensure that they are all portraits. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Images categorized into subcategories of Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name are actually just portrait photographs (images that don't show the appearance of subject person, such as File:State funeral of Kinmochi Saionji.JPG or File:The Triumphal Return of Admiral Togo From the Sea of Japan.jpg, are probably not categorized), so I have no objection to renaming subcategories.
In the cases shown by Auntof6, I think that these images can be categorized into "Category:Portrait photographs of <name>" because the appearance of subject person is shown although the scanned image isn't clear.--庚寅五月 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A portrait photograph is not just a photograph that shows the person. It is a photograph whose purpose is to be a portrait. en:Portrait defines portrait as "a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant." This is why we have separate portrait categories for various representations of people (photographs, paintings, etc.). I think we stretch the definition to include more than just the face (such as this one), but I don't believe the group pictures or candid shots (such as this one) qualify. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that my understanding was insufficient. I'm wondering if the distinction between portrait and non-portrait is clear (e.g. between Category:Family portrait photographs and Category:Group photographs of families), but I understood that photographs like File:Ito Hirobumi4.JPG, which it isn't clear whether the subject person was in front of the camera for shooting, shouldn't categorize into portrait. Besides that, I misunderstood that Category:Photographs of men by name was integrated into Category:Portrait photographs of men by name, but confirmed that this was not the case. So I withdraw the previous comment.--庚寅五月 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mailboxes in England

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/03/Category:Post boxes by country.

We have a confusing mix of mailbox, letter box and post box here, and this has been misleading editors as to correct categories for images. I suggest we do what Royal Mail do, and have outgoing post being deposited in post boxes. In my experience, incoming mail is put by a postman into a letter box, and I think we should follow that, and (for the UK at least) ditch the concept of mailboxes, which are a US or Canadian usage. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Makes no sense to treat the UK or England differently from everywhere else, (Other countries also have this distinction) category structure has been established for some time. A Mailboxes can either be a post box or letter box hence it is the correct parent for both categories. Also the creator of this discussion has already started altering category structures, if it was worth creating a discussion then surely it was worth waiting a bit so it can be discussed, also the discussion is referring to and should be at Category:Mailboxes in the United Kingdom.Oxyman (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Has the nominator not bothered to check Category:Mailboxes by country where on same categories (taking Russia as an example) it has

► Letter boxes in Russia‎ (6 F)
► Mailboxes in Moscow‎ (1 C)
► Post boxes in Russia‎ (1 C, 14 F)
I'm not sure as to the actual point of the nomination but as I would say at EN Wiki - AFD IS NOT CLEANUP which this DR essentially is, No valid reason for deletion anyway. –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they do things differently in other countries, but in the UK, the term "mailbox" is not in common use. Where people put their outgoing letters is a post box, and this is what Royal Mail, who mostly own them, call them. The receptacle in which a post/wo/man deposits incoming letters for their intended recipient is a letter box. OK, we may call both of these mail boxes, in which case all mail box categories should contain is subcats for post boxes and letter boxes. I see no merit in trickling down categories from mail boxes, because all they should contain is "post boxes in X" and "letter boxes in X". It's easy to tell the difference if you know, but this problem arises because some editors have not understood the distinction between incoming and outgoing receptacles and the use of "Mailbox" is just adding to the confusion. I think we owe it to them just to use terms they are familiar with. And I'll just point out this is a Category for Discussion, not a Category for Deletion. The model of Category:Mailboxes in Russia is the one I'd prefer to see. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rodhullandemu - Shit I'm so sorry I thought this was a DR, Clearly going blind!, You're right we don't use Mailboxes in the UK at all - Infact I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to a letterbox or postbox as "mailbox" in all the years I've been alive, Better off deleted to avoid confusion. –Davey2010Talk 22:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rodhullandemu What do you mean "The model of Category:Mailboxes in Russia is the one I'd prefer to see."? That is the same model as used here which you seem to have a problem with. I'd prefer to see that model remain here. Oxyman (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a Category for letterboxs and a category for postboxes what would you call the parent category that contains both of these? "boxes for mail both outgoing and incoming"? Surely better to use a single English word that has it's meaning established Oxyman (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the term mailbox isn't used in the UK. In the US, we tend to use mailbox for everything. (I can't speak for Canada.) Maybe we need names that are clearer. How about something like "mail receptacles (incoming)" and mail receptacles (outgoing)"? If we try to use mailbox/letter box/postbox, we will keep having to clean up the categories when people who didn't see this discussion don't use them properly. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or would it not be best to keep the English language as it is and hope that editors know the meaning of the English words? Oxyman (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any of the suggestions people have made are proper uses of the English language per se. If everyone understood the meaning of the terms being discussed, we wouldn't need the discussion. Since we apparently do need the discussion, it's apparent that not everyone does know the distinction being made. Please don't make comments implying that others don't understand the language. English, after all, is not spoken the same everywhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current category structure is also proper use of the English language. we don't change the categories as some editors are unaware of the meaning of the terms anywhere else, or we would not have Latin plant names etc. What is needed is that editors familiarise themselves with the terms used. Please don't imply I am unaware English is not spoken the same everywhere. However the meaning of these words is the same everywhere as recorded by the dictionary. Oxyman (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made no such implication: I had no way of knowing whether you were familiar with different types of English, and your insistence that the terms could mean only one thing indicated that you might not be. As for the meaning of the terms, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary offers the following definitions:
  • letter box: British for mailbox
  • postbox: mailbox, especially a public mailbox
  • mailbox:
  1. a box at or near a dwelling for the occupant's mail
  2. a public box for deposit of outgoing mail
The website http://www.webster-dictionary.net offers the following:
  • letter box: a box for the reception of letters to be mailed or delivered (the opposite of the meaning mentioned above)
  • mailbox: the same two meanings as above
I'll leave it to those interested to look up what Wiktionary has -- the definitions there are similarly ambiguous. Given these definitions, it's no wonder that things are confused. What would be wrong with trying to make them clearer? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also made no such implication, you do realise you have proved exactly what I was saying?
Mailbox can mean either
  1. a box at or near a dwelling for the occupant's mail
  2. a public box for deposit of outgoing mail
That is precisely how it is used here and yes a postbox is a public mailbox, what is wrong with your attempts to make the category structure clearer is that it would have the opposite effect, It would disturb an established cat structure that has existed for some time without need for these alterations, also some of these proposals would treat the UK differently from everywhere else, thus creating more confusion and a greater likelihood that someone in the future would come along and move the UK cats attempting to standardise the terms used. Thus on balance the current, established, standardised and well thought out (even is some editiors were unaware of this) category structure should remain. Oxyman (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that the definitions make the point that "mailbox" is an unclear term. They also make the point that post box and letter box aren't always clear, either. I wasn't suggesting that we keep any of those. I suggested that we use different terms altogether (receptacles, qualified with either incoming or outgoing), rather than use any term that could be misunderstood. Those aren't the only other terms that could be used, they're just what seemed good to me at the time. We could also use "boxes for receiving mail" and "boxes for sending mail", or similar things. I realize you don't want to change, but this seems to be a case of either change or plan on periodically having to clean up incorrectly categorized files in the future. Why would you want to keep something that people will routinely get wrong? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the dictionary describing what mailbox means makes the term unclear? and also describing what a post box and a letter box also makes them unclear? Strangely for me the description from the dictionary makes the term clear, do we really need to accommodate people that are confused by dictionary definitions? Your suggestions make the category names longer and usually it is attempted to make them shorter also you have failed to suggest what the parent category of "boxes for receiving mail" and "boxes for sending mail" should be "boxes for sending or receiving mail" those are lengthy names for categories when we have 1 or 2 word equivalents. So your arguments is that we should use long winded terms just in case someone who is unaware of definitions misunderstands them? Why when we have had minimal and manageable incorrectly categorized files so far should there be a problem in the future? Why when people don't "routinely get wrong" now should this change in the future? It seems to me that these are assumptions by people that have only become aware of this category structure as a result of this discussion rather than people that have been aware of it and involved with it for some time. Oxyman (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting what I said. However, I don't want to argue with you, so I'm through with this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misinterpreting what the dictionary said Oxyman (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'd avoid any artificial terms like receptacle, which are never used. Contrast that situation with aeroplane/airplane, where the neutral term aircraft is often used. When consulting a dictionary be aware of its market - Miriam-Webster is an American publisher, so provides an American English dictionary. OED (British English) states:
  • Mailbox: (N American) A box for delivery, especially one mounted on a post at the entrance to a person's property. OR a postbox
  • Postbox: A public box for collection
  • Letter box: A box outside, or slot in wall, for delivery.
So British English makes a clear distinction between collection and delivery.
I'd suggest letterbox is used for delivery boxes, and postbox is used for collection boxes within the UK, and potentially globally to remove confusion. By using the two distinct names globally, it allows distinct names for the two distinct classes of objects even in the USA (This is related, but different, to this). It also has the benefit of matching the English Wikipedia articles on these subjects.
I'd also point out the current status of Category:Mailboxes in the United States. As for mailbox categories - either treating them as a disambiguation category, or as the parent category for both letterboxes and postboxes should be fine. I'd recommend final structure as follows:
  1. Mailbox
    1. Postbox
    2. Letterbox
In other words, Mailbox as a parent to postbox and letterbox (and also potentially email boxes too).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This IS the structure that is currently used! Oxyman (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then we stay put then (and the British mailbox cat would stay empty most of the time) :) One minor point is that Street furniture should not apply to UK letterboxes (a slot in a door is not street furniture), but should apply to UK postboxes; while it should apply to all US mailboxes.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This discussion applies to all countries in order to keep the category structure neat and simple. The most logical structure that I have been using for years, from a postal and philatelic point of view is:

  • Mailboxes in foo, this is a parent category that should usually be empty
  • Subcategories
    • Post boxes in foo, these are for posting mail that the post office will collect, sort and deliver
    • Letter boxes in foo, for receiving mail

Just look at the main parent category Category:Mailboxes by country and you see the first two categories are Letter boxes by country and Post boxes by country then each country should have its own Post box and Letter box subcategories. In fact the parent category should probably be a deb page with an explanatory note just like Category:Mailboxes in the United States. There is no reason to have anything else. Ww2censor (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:ŠJů, probably unaware of this discussion, has moved the content of Category:Post office boxes by country and Category:Post office boxes in the Czech Republic to letter box categories and asked for speedy deletion of the emptied cats. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Some discussion about this problem was resolved once in 2010 (I cannot find the discussion itself but I think,this fitting category description followed it - here it was adpoted also to the Czech subcategory). As I can see, this new discussion needs nothing else then to apply the since 2010 respected consensus even for such forgotten countries which didn't apply it yet even during 7 years. Is there some new and serious reason to reopen the old discussion or revoke the old and convenient consensus?
The two missnamed categories proposed to speedy deletion were created recently by an user which often creates duplicate, misspelled or conspicuously unsystematical categories. He is very helpful and active and of the best will, but has ...ehm... a specific lack of sense for the categorization system. I suppose, he would not protest against the existing system established since 2010. The only one included image was recategorized by standard way. --ŠJů (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. I added this 2010 CFD (mentioned by User:ŠJů) at the hatnote of this discussion. Maybe it is helpful and helps to move on with this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Episcopalian bishops

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Episcopal Church (United States).

Believe this category should be deleted, as only contains "Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States)" as a subcategory. Bishops of the Episcopal Church are not referred to as "Episcopalian bishops". If "Episcopalian bishops" is a common search phrase, then it should be a redirect, with "Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States)" as the target category.. Drbones1950 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The episcopal church is strong in Scotland, and has seven bishops, of which we have images of at least three. This suggests a category "Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland" ("in Scotland" to avoid confusion with the Church of Scotland). Hence I'd suggest this category is renamed to Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the addition of the category for Scotland. "Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States)" should be renamed to "Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States", since brackets in disambiguation mean "is a" rather than "is in". Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, I would agree to that suggestion. How is this renaming accomplished? Drbones1950 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple case of moving all the images to the new category, then creating it by moving the existing category, in this case I'd suggest without creating a redirect, to avoid further confusion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Scottish categories use the term Scottish Episcopal Church, so maybe Category:Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church would fit better. --Achim (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that but I think any naming should be consistent across nations. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What other countries are you thinking of, Rodhullandemu? The only churches in the Anglican Communion that I know of that call themselves Episcopal are the United States and Scotland. Or perhaps you are thinking of another type of consistency?Drbones1950 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found references to Episcopal churches in Canada and Australia, so I'd presume anywhere in the English-speaking world might have them- I'm not sure if it is a world church or merely a group of churches all calling themselves Episcopal but without being under one umbrella. What I meant was that the names of categories referring to these churches should follow the same format to avoid confusion. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked other images on Wikimedia that included "Episcopal" and either "Canada" and "Australia", and I found references from Canada to Episcopal Methodist churches and from both Canada and Australia to the word "episcopal" meaning bishop in the Roman Catholic church, but I did not find any other categories with Episcopal in the category names (except for subcats of the Episcopal Church in the United States). But if I can change the wording of the Episcopal Church U.S. I will also change the wording of the subcats. All very interesting! Drbones1950 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipalities in Vermont

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Municipalities in the United States.

This category doesn't seem helpful. It contains only the category for towns in Vermont, which could go directly under Category:Populated places in Vermont (or maybe under Category:Towns and villages in Vermont). Unless "municipality" means something specific in Vermont, I think we can delete this category. Auntof6 (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

en:Vermont municipality suggests that municipality does mean something specific in Vermont: "Vermont contains 246 incorporated towns and cities. Nine are cities and 237 are towns. Collectively, these 246 municipalities..." So all municipalities are cities and towns. No municipalities are villages. There are 40 incorporated villages in Vermont, but they are all part of larger muncipalities. On the contrary, I see Category:Towns and villages in Vermont as being not very useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we don't need Category:Towns and villages in Vermont just like the fact that the likes of Category:Towns and villages in Suffolk was moved to Category:Populated places in Suffolk though suburbs aren't towns or villages but the "towns" and "villages" categories can be in the "populated places" category without the extra level. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted Category:Towns and villages in Vermont. What to do about Category:Municipalities in Vermont remains open to discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just like in English Wikipedia, this category is accurate and should not be a redirect: there are two types of municipalities ("municipal corporations") in Vermont (cities and towns), and they are in subcatergories; there are also possibly subcategories for flags, or seals of municipalities, or possibly for former municipalities.
More generaly, we should have a category of municiplities in all states, listing their subtypes and other categories for topics related to municipatities of each state (flags, seals, maps, former, ...). They are still incomplete in Commons, but are complete in English Wikipedia, and this is also needed for correctly settings Wikidate items and properly setting sitelinks for each Wikipedia (not all localized Wikipedia have a category grouping all municipalities in a state, and there's a frequent confusion between municipalities and their subtypes which may be different between each state ("cities" are found everywhere, "towns" or "incorportated towns" in most states, and sometimes "village", "city-county" or "city boroughs", plus special "cities" for New York City, which covers multiple "boroughs" that were former counties, and Washington DC because it's coterminus with a undivided state-equivalent "district"); as well we need a clear separation between municipalities and uncorporated communities almost everywhere.
The assumption that municipalities are the same as cities in the United states is false in general, as well as the frequent confusion between cities, towns, or even uninorporated towns and villages, or former cities and towns that may have been municipalities but no longer today because they are "ghost"/abandoned or destroyed/washed and remain just as named places, or bercause they were absorbed into another municipality and may be covered now by one or several of their municipal districts.
As well, municipalities can change their status from town to city (generally when their population reaches about 50k, or because a state law decided to give all its municipalities the status of a city, possibly by merging some of them or by integrating their surrounding unincorporated "townships" within the boundary of the "new" city. Also some towns (or cities?) that were formerly incorporated but that have been largely depopulated may also become unincorporated and still not included into any other municipality (they may become one or several census-designated places, or merged into another one, or just remain as unincorporated communities; the state will integrate them in one its counties or county-like subdivisions, e.g. for the state police because such uninorporated place can no longer have a municipal police, but they may still have a representation in some other metropolitan or micropolitan area, without having their own local government). verdy_p (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Episcopal Church (United States)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Episcopalian bishops.

The editor Rodhullandemu suggested that:

"Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States) should be renamed to "Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States", since brackets in disambiguation mean "is a" rather than "is in"." Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC).

I would like to propose, by the same logic, that I change the parent Category:Episcopal Church (United States) to be "Episcopal Church in the United States" as well as changing the name of the subcat "Bishops..."-. Thoughts? Drbones1950 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1800 in Canada

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:1795 in the United Kingdom.

In my opinion, this Category should be renamed 1800 in British North America, as should every category prior to the Confederation of Canada. I know several contributors who disagree, and feel that images of geographic topics should be named after whatever jurisdiction they are in now, without regard to what the location was named, when the image was made. I think the Crimea is the most recent example of what is wrong with this approach.

Crimea, until recently, was part of Ukraine. Now it is part of modern Russia. It was part of the Soviet Union for about 70 years. It was part of Imperial Russia, prior to that. Geo Swan (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. Do we want such categories to mean, for example, "1800 in the territory that is now called Canada"? There are similar issues in the United States history categories: years go back to 1565, decades go back to the 1540s, and centuries go back to the 8th century! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, one might assume Canada refers to Upper and Lower Canada, which did exist in 1800? I can see your point though. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • British possessions in what is now Canada date back a long time. Britain had colonies in Newfoundland in the 17th Century. Britain's Hudson's Bay Company dates back to 1670. What is now the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were taken from the French about a decade prior to the capture of Quebec.
By the same token, pictures taken in Newfoundland, prior to Confederation, do not belong in a Canada category. Geo Swan (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: I guess, more importantly, the issue extends far beyond Canada. Did Romania exist before 1881? Did Belarus exist in 1800? What about Italy? Should the independent princely states be in Category:1800 in India? On the one hand, you're right - it's anachronism. On the other hand, if someone is looking for a history of the maritime provinces in 1800, it's not at all unreasonable that they might start at Canada in 1800 and expect to find something. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the category 1800 in Canada were renamed for 1800 in British North America, it would have to be removed from the superior category Canada by year at the same time and be added into a different superior category British North America by year. What is more, what should be the superior category for Category:Architecture in Toronto? Should it be split into Category:Architecture in Toronto before July 1, 1867 (which would have subcategories Architecture in Toronto before July 1, 1867 by decade and would fall under Architecture in British North America) and Category:Architecture in Toronto after July 1, 1867 (which would have subcategories Architecture in Toronto after July 1, 1867 by decade and would fall under Architecture in Canada)? I am afraid that this would make the things too complicated for the contributors and even more for people looking for images whose knowledge of Canadian history is not very deep. Or should it stay in one category Architecture in Toronto, which would have two superior categories (Architecture in British North America and Architecture in Canada) at the same time? Then e. g. the subcategory 1800s architecture in Toronto would be under both Category:Architecture in Canada and Category:Architecture in British North America, which is a nonsense if we decide that the post-1867 history does not fall under Canada. I have no idea what the good solution is, I just want to bring the attention to these questions too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moskvich 407 (II 1962 - 1963)

[edit]

Along with category:Moskvich 407 (1959)‎ such detailed subcategories for pre- and post-facelift cars are completely redundant. They had no separate designations. Wikipedia articles on Moskvich 407 direct to main category category:Moskvich 407, which would contain no pictures, only sub-categories. Pibwl (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense to have detailed categories, especially if they are based on external details.
Consider this: someone is looking for a picture of a Moskvich 407 from a particular series but doesn't have the detailed knowledge to be able to pick out one from sometimes less than ideal pictures and even if he/she does he/she probably doesn't have unlimited time to look through potentially hundreds of pictures.
To solve this problem either every picture needs to contain this information in the name and/or the description (good luck enforcing that or periodically manually fixing that yourself) OR we could simply have a category which is way easier to use (especially when tools like the Cat-a-lot are used) than having to go into every single picture and edit the description manually. Also as an added bonus, thanks to this category's name, it gets suggested when an uploader is adding a Moskvich 407 category potentially solving the problem ealier.
Also saying that the Wikipedia article doesn't point to either one of these categories is not an argument for removing them because 1. there are many categories on Wikimedia Commons that don't have Wikipedia articles that point to them and 2. it is not impossible for a link to be added at a later date. Wikimedia Commons is separate from Wikipedia and can have categories for things that don't (yet) have their own articles on Wikipedia. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...or for things that are included in articles about related things. I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article, but it might cover different models in the same article. I agree that it's worth having this kind of category. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine a realistic situation, that someone needs a photo of specifically pre-facelift Moskvich 407, and yet, despite that he has a knowledge about M-407 facelift, he can't judge by the first glance on its grill, if it is pre- or post-facelift. Of course, such category will be useful, if we have a rear view (with subtle differences) and we know into which category it should go. But in cases of rear views, they will probably go to general 407 category anyway, for we rarely can be sure. I won't argue, if there is a strong support, but I find general categories splitting into detailed sub-categories inconvenient, because we have to browse each sub-category, instead of having a quick look on a variety of Moskviches 407. And in this case this is not a separate model, and won't have a separate article. Pibwl (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course with enough knowledge and time you can probably find what you're looking for but the categories serve as a time-saving measure. From my personal experience I can say that I find looking through categories with a large number of pictures to be tiring and therefore I think it is a good idea to try to break categories into smaller ones to minimize the amount of pictures in each category.
Also consider that there can be links to more than one category in a Wikipedia article. A series of a vehicle is usually described in a single section and that section can have a link to the relevant category.
Additionally it is difficult to draw the line between allowed and not allowed subcategories. I mean what is so fundamentally different between categories such as Moskvich 407 (II 1962 - 1963) and Ford Focus Mk II (as far as I can tell it is a made up name to symbolize the second generation) that makes the second one ok but the other one not? Both of these categories refer to visually different versions of their respective vehicles but in neither case does this version have a different official name than the one before it or do you believe we should abolish all subcategories without a different model name? Meanwhile we have different categories for vehicles built under license by different manufacturers, for example FIAT cars produced by SEAT, even though the only difference between them might the badge on the front. It is better to allow categories such as this than having to argue about every single car model and whether it is ok to have subcategories for it or not. Especially since you'll then have to convince every person who appears later and tries to create these subcategories that you want to ban. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @SuperTank17, Pibwl, and Auntof6: the nominated category is empty. Can we delete the nominated category, and close this CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 I'm fine with that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It lasted so long, that somebody moved the files? Of course it's pointless now. Pibwl (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:September 2007 Finland photographs

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/07/Category:September 2011 in Kozova Raion.
See also: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/11#Sub-categorizing_regions_by_date.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05/Category:June 2012 in Queen's Road Central.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:16th April 2012 in Switzerland.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/01/Category:Villages by year.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/01/Category:2013 in Miami by month.

Does it make sense to have a Category:September 2007 Finland photographs as a subcat of Category:September 2007 in Finland? Achim (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least in the 21st century. J 1982 (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
J 1982, you created that category, so you can tell us the difference regarding the images. Which ones fit to which category? --Achim (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are subcategories like "Finland photographs taken on 2007-09-06", "Finland photographs taken on 2007-09-07" and so on (just none of those have been created for September 2007 in Finland yet). In the last years, these categories have appeared for many countries (still mostly during the 21st century). J 1982 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, and when the moving of files is done then Category:September 2007 in Finland will contain Category:September 2007 Finland photographs only or did I miss something? --Achim (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland up to 31 December 2009 you can also add categories for "X month y year in z county". J 1982 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @J 1982 and Achim55: Seems to be solved?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and I don't care. When hopefully one day the category intersection mechanism will be implemented into the wiki software hundreds of thousands of these categories will be thrown away. --Achim55 (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep useful for many users. In the future bots will automatically add these categories. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 06:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy images by location

[edit]

Starting with Category:United States Navy images by location there are approx. 2592 a large number of images that have been placed in categorization that doesn't meet the normal standards for Categorization within commons.

As I can see, there seems to be several different problems here:

  1. Many of the subcategories under the United States Navy images by location categorization have unnecessary all caps in some portions such as Category:Images from US Navy, location AGAT, Guam‎;
  2. Some have abbreviations such as Category:Images from US Navy, location Anaheim, Calif.‎
  3. Some have categories that are duplicates of others such as Category:Camp Barber and Category:Images from US Navy, location CAMP BARBER, Afghanistan;
  4. There is usually no need to say "Images of" or "Photographs of" categories because that is the majority of what is in commons, so it's essentially duplicative to state that explicitly;
  5. The format of "Images from US Navy, location Anaheim, Calif.‎" isn't necessary.

I would like to discuss cleaning up these categories and renaming them to a more appropriate title. For example, Category:United States Navy images of Anaheim, California or losing the location completely from the title and doing that by categorization.

Below is a rather large list of the categories I could identify with this particular problem.

Extended content

Reguyla (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary heading so people don't have to scroll through the long list
Auntof6 Not exactly. Some do need to be eliminated or merged IMO yes. I don't have a problem with having them categorized as Navy related in some way, but I think these categories need a lot of cleanup with regard to the names and with the amount of them and after consulting a couple of others, it was felt a discussion was the best course. Reguyla (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I don't think this is about the 'Navy source' categories, at all... those are usually added by templates, anyhow. It's about the naming of the 'source-by-location' categories, which is indeed quite awkward. Reventtalk 00:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a holdover from when we got a big upload of Navy images a few years back the wierd naming, all caps etc were all from the original source, the Commons cats were created around the US Navy naming in order that otherwise uncategorised files could be quickly categorised into Commoms, and be sorted out into more appropriate categories, as a maintenance category these were meant to be basically temporary and disposable, and if they have served their purpose, then its fine that they be deleted, and many have.--KTo288 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the background. I'll be working to keep refining these and chopping them over time. Reguyla (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been sorting through these as well. The bot really went overboard with the categorizing here. A lot of these categories are duplicates, typos, misspellings, that weird capital-letters scheme, places that don't even exist, sometimes total nonsense, and locations that are way too specific and don't need cats of their own. Some are categorized as US Navy images when they are actually from the Marine Corps or other branches. I have been merging images into existing categories. Now there are hundreds of empty categories located at Category:United States Navy images by location to be classified, these can be deleted if no one objects. Will continue to sort. I am kind of enjoying learning about international geography by sorting these. Thanks. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I tagged all of the subcats of Category:United States Navy images by location to be classified conditionally for speedy deletion, so they will automatically show up at Category:Other speedy deletions as soon as they are empty. --Achim (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Achim55: Sometimes that kind of code doesn't work the way you'd want. When the cat becomes empty, you see the speedy notice on the category, but it doesn't show up in the other speedy deletions category. Right now Category:Images from US Navy, location AIN SOKNAL, Egypt is showing the notice, but it isn't shown in Category:Other speedy deletions -- none of the empty cats here are. Sometimes you have to edit the empty category to get it to show up. A null edit is enough, and I've been able to do those with AWB. If you don't want to bother picking out the categories that are empty, just load up everything in Category:United States Navy images by location to be classified in AWB and click save on each without making any changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6, you're right, it's a general problem of transcluded templates that affects also some other categories like Category:Broken category redirects, Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories or Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories by grid square. Therefore I run about 3 times a week pywikibot touching the 'missing' files, so they will show up then. --Achim (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm running it and they show up. --Achim (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the transclusion problem is because there was no 1= in the speedydeletion portion of the template. Reguyla (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Impressions

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/10/Category:Tracks.

What is this category for? There are different things that the name could mean, but neither the content nor the parent categories seem to make sense with them. Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you think of a less encyclopedic or obvious category than this. ill try to see if there is a photographic definition. well, cant find any. its being used very vaguely here. we do have categories for colors, that should be enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the content here does seem weird to me too, but please be careful. Category:Impressions left by objects and Category:Impressions left by traveling objects were, after lengthy discussion, the only way we could find to group together foot prints, animal tracks, hand prints, and vehicle tracks. They obviously belong together, but it's hard to find a common noun for them. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: @Themightyquill: I would like to do some categorizing of media by color and location, but given the controversy about this category I wanted to talk about it with you guys first. Are categories like that acceptable? Should the naming scheme follow the "Red impressions in the United States" format or is there a better naming scheme that doesn't descend from this vague category? Abyssal (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abyssal: What's an impression? The whole category is at risk of deletion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I'm not trying to defend this particular category; as you noted, the word "impression" is basically meaningless. I do think the concept behind "[color] impressions in [place]" subcategory could be useful if it were unburdened from its gobbledegooky name, though. I was just wondering what category to use that's a bit less narrow than "[Color] objects in [place]" so it can include living things, landscapes, the sky, etc. Abyssal (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about "subjects" (e.g. Category:Red subjects instead of Category:Red impressions)? We have Category:Unidentified subjects, Category:Proposed or planned subjects, Category:No longer existent subjects. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an improvement to me. Abyssal (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the category should be disambiguated between:
  • Impressions (physical marks)
  • Impressions (perceived)
  • Impressions (tools) (such as used in dentistry and metalwork)
The second being useful for distinguishing gestalt impressions of, say, shapes from explicit shapes. The fact that "$colour impressions" even is a thing stems from earlier separation that was desired between images that are purely (e.g.) red and images that feature things that are red, or look like red. --Pitke (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That abiguity is exactly the problem, but Category:Impressions (perceived) and Category:Red impressions (perceived) are more than a little awkard. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think/hope that "subjects" could work.

Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss of words to describe my own complaints sufficiently right now, but I know that our maths-minded friends will be very upset if we call our "these birds form a sort of symmetrical arrangement" media just "symmetrical X". This is why I originally called the "symmetry impressions" category that, because the media within has impressions of symmetry, not true symmetry. That's what I intended to be the scope of these sorts of categories. Photographic impressions, less than precise but communicative exapmles of various phenomena. In the sense of the art movement. The frantic brush strokes don't exactly portray the subjects, they deliver impressions. And while some categories could easily be given equivalent names without the word "impression" (how about "symmetry approximations in nature"?), some would be harder to rename ("animals being visually hard to distinguish from their environments"? how about the collective category for "X on X" colour photos, "almost monochrome photos"?) --Pitke (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ies: I don't understand this subcategory either: why does it have subcategories like Category:Yellow impressions? Jarble (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking the wrong user. I didn't invent this impression stuff. Only added a then missing color. -- Ies (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impression is when things come together. Like when an artist assembles pieces of wood to create an art piece. The wood is then the common element, but the result or assembly can be anything (which is why some don't see it as a category). I need this category, and will miss it when it is gone. Very useful to highlight a common element. JMK (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Category:Missing persons

[edit]

What is the difference with its mother category "Disappeared people"? SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The categories don't seem to indicate much difference. In common use, at least where I've heard the terms, "disappeared" implies that the person was made to disappear, possible kidnapped or killed, often for political reasons (see en:Forced disappearance). "Missing" just means that their whereabouts are unknown. As such, I think disappeared should be under missing instead of the other way around as it is now. Since we can't usually be sure which category a person fits into until/unless they are found, I think the categories could be combined. I do note, however, that enwiki has Category:Forced disappearances, although they have guidelines as to when a person can be categorized there. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that forced disappearance might relate to, i.e., the desaparecidos during the junta in Argentina (1976-82). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a category for Category:Forced disappearance. I'd suggest we redirect Category:Disappeared people to Category:Missing persons (or Category:Missing people?). - Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to categorize the unknown. I think, however, our tree should look like this:
Category:Disappearance / Category:People by status
Category:Missing persons (or Category:Missing people ?)
Category:Kidnapping (or Category:Kidnappings ?)
Category:Forced disappearance (or Category:Forced disappearances ?)
I've already created/moved Category:Missing in action‎, Category:Missing air passengers‎, Category:Missing aviators‎, Category:Fugitives‎, Category:People lost at sea‎ as sub-categories of Category:Missing persons. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this discussion is closed. "Missing persons" is standard English language in the UK and Ireland. Certainly a division such as "forced disappearance" is valid because "missing" is taken to mean missing without information. I am not sure what is standard in American English. Apologies for not responding, I was living without electricity owing to an adventure/misadventure for some time. I had glanced at the notice since, but assumed the discussion would be closed by and didn't look. ~ R.T.G 20:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guantanamo captives' documents by serial number

[edit]

The name of this category isn't accurate, because the subcats are not by serial number. I'm looking for input (here, in this discussion) on whether the category should be renamed (to what, I don't know), or if the contents should just be moved up to Category:Guantanamo captives' documents. Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the subcats should be moved up. The category (as named) seems useful, though, so it should probably be kept and properly populated with categories for each serial number. BMacZero (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Auntof6 is suggesting a flattening of the hierarchy. I would regard that as an unnecessary informationectomy.
I am not wedded to the current category names, but, in this subhierarchy, the individual files are organized by serial number. Were you stating that they weren't?
OARDEC, the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants, conducted annual status reviews from 2004 through 2008. 572 captives had a first review. Only 350-400 men had a second review, in 2005, as some had been released, and some had been cleared for release. By 2008 only 100 reviews took place, even though the prison still held approximately 350 men. Approximately ten of them weren't reviewed as they faced charges before the Guantanamo military commissions. And approximately 240 weren't reviewed, as they were still being held in spite of being cleared for release.
So, the allegation memos for those hearings constitute close to 1500 individual documents. OARDEC was also compelled to release the transcripts from hearing where the captive was in attendance. Approximately two thirds of the first hearings were attended, but by 2008 attendance was only three percent. Anyhow, another 600 documents. In 2005 and 2006 OARDEC published the heavily redacted recommendations of the review panels, but just for the individuals recommended for release, that is another 300 documents. In 2007 and 2008 OARDEC published all the recommendations, without regard to whether the recommendation was for release or continued detention -- another 250 documents. Finally, from 2004, OARDEC published 179 habeas dossiers.
So, the flattening of the hierarchy you seem to be recommending? I can't agree that removing one, or several, levels of organization, from over 2000 documents, is a good idea. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that the files in the subcats aren't sorted by serial number. I am saying that the subcats in this category aren't grouped or sorted by serial number. For comparison, the subcats in Category:Guantanamo captives' documents by name are grouped by the stated criterion (name). "By serial number" applies to the subcats, but not to this parent cat. The other thing I'd say is that we don't need the "by" designation in a category name just because the contents are sorted a certain way. Using "by" this way causes confusion because it looks like the name of a metacategory, which this isn't. Including "by serial number" in the category names here doesn't do anything that a notice on the category wouldn't do.
I'm also not necessarily suggesting flattening the hierarchy; the alternative is to rename the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila - Manila MRT Line 2 (Magsaysay Boulevard-Jose Laurel Street, A. Lacson Avenue-Mabini Bridge Fly-Over)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila villages (Manila MRT Line 2 - Legarda - Ramon Magasaysay Fly-Over, Magsaysay Boulevard - Jose Laurel Street - Mabini Bridge Fly-Over - Nagtahan Street).
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Landscape-Scenery (Calumpit-Pampanga villages, Hanging footbridges, Calumpit-Pampanga riverbanks, Flood controls, Boats, Grasslands, Trees and Native houses, from Barangay Sapang Bayan).

Please rename or delete this category. There is no landscape, no scenery, no skyline. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the messages; I would suggest if it is proper under the rules to take off the words "Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of" and the New Title would be the Remaining phrases; Please kindly Rename if proper under the Rules very sincerely --Judgefloro 15:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)
The remaining phrases can't be the new cat name. The new category name could be 2016 in Sampaloc or 2016 in Santa Mesa or 2016 in Magsaysay Boulevard or 2016 in Jose Laurel Street. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila villages (Manila MRT Line 2 - Legarda - Ramon Magasaysay Fly-Over, Magsaysay Boulevard - Jose Laurel Street - Mabini Bridge Fly-Over - Nagtahan Street)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila - Manila MRT Line 2 (Magsaysay Boulevard-Jose Laurel Street, A. Lacson Avenue-Mabini Bridge Fly-Over).
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Landscape-Scenery (Calumpit-Pampanga villages, Hanging footbridges, Calumpit-Pampanga riverbanks, Flood controls, Boats, Grasslands, Trees and Native houses, from Barangay Sapang Bayan).

Please rename or delete this category. There is no landscape, no scenery, no skyline. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the messages; I would suggest if it is proper under the rules to take off the words "Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of" and the New Title would be the Remaining phrases; Please kindly Rename if proper under the Rules very sincerely --Judgefloro 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)

Category:Landscape-Scenery (Calumpit-Pampanga villages, Hanging footbridges, Calumpit-Pampanga riverbanks, Flood controls, Boats, Grasslands, Trees and Native houses, from Barangay Sapang Bayan)

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila - Manila MRT Line 2 (Magsaysay Boulevard-Jose Laurel Street, A. Lacson Avenue-Mabini Bridge Fly-Over).
See also: Category:Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila villages (Manila MRT Line 2 - Legarda - Ramon Magasaysay Fly-Over, Magsaysay Boulevard - Jose Laurel Street - Mabini Bridge Fly-Over - Nagtahan Street).

Please delete this category. The category name is to long and not meaningful. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree: the category name combines too many different things. Those things should not be lost, however; the images should have appropriate categories added. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the messages; I would suggest if it is proper under the rules to take off the words "Landscape, Scenery & Skyline of" and the New Title would be the Remaining phrases; Please kindly Rename if proper under the Rules very sincerely --Judgefloro 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)
@Judgefloro: There is no word "skyline" here. Even removing landscape and scenery wouldn't be enough. There should be separate categories for the dufferent things mentioned (buildings, boats, hanging bridges, etc.) and each file should be in only the categories that fit. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was amazed by the Sun its red orange burning setting, and I rented a boat after I walked upon the Villages; so I pondered and meditated on how to put all these images into simplicity; I am experiencing problems with my Memory computer and slow download but fast upload internet; as you read in papers Philippines Internet is most expensive but slowest; therefore, these images are inside the Barangay Sapang Bayan; however, due to confluence or confusing boundaries due to election problems and funds problem, the images fit into different barangays that are inside the River areas of Districts upon the Hanging bridge; therefore with all due respect, I could not with all honesty and integrity put one specific Category of which Village this photo is under; I was taking photos not anymore of the Town or province, by the sub-category of Villages or sitios of Barangays of this beautiful town of Calumpit very sincerely, Judgefloro 17:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)
Specifically, the passenger boat starts from the hanging bridge and tours the Calumpit River banks of confusing Barangays and villages that even the natives are confused where and which village owns this or that specific photo; for example, a photo fo the mangroves, trees and the oranges waters or River District Banks, belongs to 2 or 3 Barangays, this is where the problem lies; and then, the photos of the houses, etc. all these belong to Calumpit Barangays and the very sub-category of Sitios or Villages of each Barangays; hence, I have to simplify all these photos lest I commit a grave injustice to Coordinates and GPS or Mapping locations, very sincerely, Judgefloro 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)

Oh, this have been here almost five years without desicison. I suggest that the category could be named like Landscapes of XXXX, where XXXX is the name of the community. --Velma (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Velma: we probably can't rush here. If you see Category:Calumpit it is massively populated with specific categories. To get a proper category name, we probably need user(s) who are familiar with Manila, Philippines stuff--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painted portraits of kings of Spain by painter

[edit]

I renamed this category from "Painted portraits of kings of Spain by author" because "painter" is a better term for paintings. However, looking at it, I think we should either rename it or remove/redirect it. It's named like a metacatgory, but doesn't follow the usual use for a metacategory. I would expect a category called "Painted portraits of kings of Spain by painter" to have subcategories like "Painted portraits of kings of Spain by <painter>" and/or "Painted portraits of <individual king of Spain> by painter". Instead, this breaks it down one more level and has categories for individual kings by painter. Also, if you think about it, you could populate this category with every painting of a king of Spain by creating an appropriately-named category. So, I'm not sure we need this category, but if we keep, it should be renamed. Maybe something like "Painted portraits of kings of Spain by king and painter", or "Painted portraits by king of Spain and painter"? Auntof6 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firtly, the category was worsened by the fact that one sub-category didn't belong (it was for a single painting, so I've removed it) and that some of the categories (<King> by <artist>) are poorly named. That said, I think you have a valid point about it being an awkward fit. The only way to correct it, however, would be to create additional layers of categories that aren't really needed (the ones of the two types you specify above). I'm not sure that's worth the effort and added complexity just to make it perfect. In the mean time, I think we should rename it to follow the style of its parents and its sub-cats: ie. Category:Portrait paintings of kings of Spain by painter (or by artist, given that other discussion...) - Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the additional layers of categories wouldn't be very helpful. I was just trying to imagine what would justify keeping this category. If we keep it with the current content, the title would pretty much mean "portrait paintings of kings of Spain that were created by painters", which would be redundant.
Actually, now that I look at it, I think some of the subcats need to be removed from this category or renamed: the ones that don't specify "portrait paintings". For example, the subcat under Category:Charles II by Claudio Coello is for a painting that shows Charles II, but which isn't a portrait. Similarly with Category:Philip IV by Velazquez: it contains File:Las Meninas mirror detail.jpg, which is a detail showing an indistinct reflection of the king, but can't really be said to be a portrait. If the cat doesn't specify "portrait", it shouldn't be under a portrait painting category. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for removing those two categories if they don't contain portraits. The other categories are essentially "Multiple portrait paintings of the same king of Spain, all painted by the same artist." I can see that, if there are many portrait paintings of a king, it might make sense to sort them according to artist. I'm not sure it's the best way to go about it, but it's not wholly illogical. =) In short, I'm pretty neutral on the existence of this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: to be in the line with parent categories, the category name should be Category:Portrait paintings of Spanish kings by artist--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 or Category:Portrait paintings of kings of Spain by artist, because I believe there is a preference for not using demonyms. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I agree. Then we should rename also "Category:Portrait paintings of Spanish rulers by artist" to Category:Portrait paintings of rulers of Spain by artist --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 I would think so. I also think some of the entries in that category should be moved elsewhere because they specify royalty, not rulers specifically. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships in Germany on stamps

[edit]

This category should be deleted. There is a more useful category:Ships on stamps of Germany. On many stamps in this category, one can't even see whether the ship is in Germany or not. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you can't tell where the ships are. These all seem to be drawings from artists' imaginations, so we can't really say that the ships were in the specified locations at all. I think the "Ships in" categories should be for real ships at times that they were really in the indicated place. Some of the images in this cat and its subcats might qualify, but most probably don't. I propose:
  • Redirect this cat to Category:Ships on stamps of Germany, and move the files (not the subcats) there (except for any that depict non-German stamps).
  • Copy the content of each subcat into Category:Ships on stamps of Germany (except for any that depict non-German stamps). Then move the content up to the associated "<Place> on stamps" category (for example, Category:Hamburg on stamps) and delete the subcats or redirect to "<Place> on stamps".
  • If there were any files of non-German stamps, recategorize them as appropriate.
Those are my thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Auntof6: just be bold, and execute your proposal. It is unlike that someone oppose--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St. James Churches

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Saint Catherine.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/11/Category:Saint Sava churches.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01/Category:Churches by patron saint.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/06/Category:Saint Anthony churches in France.

We have Category:Saint James the Greater churches, Category:Saint James the Less churches etc. There is no point in creating another unspecific “St. James Churches” category. AFBorchert (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a point, which I may have resolved by recategorizing this category. Category:Saint James the Greater churches and Category:Saint James the Less churches are for churches dedicated to those respective saints. Category:St. James Churches is for churches named "Saint James" regardless of which saint they're dedicated to. The other two categories are for churches dedicated to the saints, no matter what they're named.
That being said, this does raise a couple of questions.
  • Is a church dedicated to a particular saint always named for that saint? I suggest not, because there are churches named for an attribute of the saint (please correct me if "attribute" isn't the right word) rather than the saint's actual name. For example, there are churches dedicated to Saint Mary that don't have "Mary" in their names: the various versions under Category:Our Lady churches, for example.
  • Are there churches that bear a saint's name which aren't dedicated to the saint? This one I don't know. There may be a non-dedicated church named after the city it's in, where the city is named for a saint.
So it looks like there's some confusion about categorizing churches by name and by patron saint. Maybe we need different naming conventions for these. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFBorchert is correct: Category:St. James Churches is superfluous and serves no purpose. It adds confusion and should be deleted. Churches have been added to this vague category despite being already in categories that are more precise, either by geography or by discriminating between St James the Greater and St James the Less. This too is superfluous and should in all cases be reverted. "Category:St. James Churches" breaches Commons convention that "St" should not be followed by a stop "." But I wouldn't bother amending it, as the category should be deleted in any case. Motacilla (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is confusion between the church categories by name (where the name is a saint) and by patron saint. However, there is room for both. A person might be looking for a Saint James church they know of when they don't know which James it's related to -- they might not even know that there is more than one Saint James.. Maybe the categories should be renamed to make it clearer what they are for. Maybe "Churches named 'Saint James'" for the by-name categories (for all the churches-by-name categories, not just the saint-related ones). For the by-patron-saint category, maybe "Churches dedicated to <insert specific saint here>". This would apply to all saints, not just the ones named James. I think I will raise this issue at Category:Churches by name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are "St James churches" categories (and also "St John churches") for some geographical areas. They serve a limited purpose to categorise any church for which a contributor does not know to which St James (or John) a church is dedicated. I say limited, as usually it can be established which saint is meant, and therefore in many cases the "general" St James or St John category serves only as a holding category until that church is more precisely categorised. Further, Category:St. James churches can only be a global term. Individual churches should be in categories that apply to their country, province, county or other district. A global category for "Saint James churches" might serve as an umbrella for St James the Greater categories and St James the Less ones. Likewise a global "Saint John churches" category might be an umbrella that groups categories St John the Baptist churches, St John the Evangelist churches and St John the Divine ones. But likewise there are more than one St Anthony, St Augustine, St Margaret, St Theresa and so on. Does Commons need categories to group every pair or set of saints who happen to share a forename? Whatever the case, the global "Category:St. James churches" is no place for churches in countries where categories for St James the Greater churches and St James the Less ones are already established. Motacilla (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently think there is no need for a by-name category for churches. Others disagree, since the categories exist. There's no reason we can't have both a by-name structure and a by-patron-saint structure. By the way, this issue is bigger than just the various saints named James. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment While there is an overlap, there's a clear distinction between the name of the church and its patron saint. Within a few miles of me there are churches of St Mary's, Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Mount Carmel - only one is a Saint Mary's church, but all have her as their patron saint. These should all be accessible via Saint Mary in the by-patron-saint tree. These are alternative dedications, and alternative names, so a by-name to supplement the by-patron-saint tree is a good thing. A second tree also handles the situation of dual dedications. A user should be able to find a church of St Peter and St Paul via "St Peter", "St Paul", or "St Peter and St Paul", but the church has two patron saints not one combined.
However, for St James in particular I don't see any real value to having a by-name tree: If the church is dedicated to one of the saints, its formal name will be the specific St James in question. So it should be correctly placed by-name in the St James the Greater (or Lesser) cat, even if its common name is just St James. If its not dedicated to a saint, and just happens to be in a location named St James, then the church's name would be something like "St James Baptist Church". In neither situation is the formal name of the church just "St James", and we should use the formal name not our guess what the common name is.
That means a generic St James category would end up as a dab, of limited utility. If you are looking for a specific St James' church, but don't know if its a Greater or Lesser, you'll have to check in both categories without knowing which is right. The generic St James cat won't help you avoid that chore. Its only real benefit would be to trap new uploads and get them to the right place.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find Nilfanion's comments very helpful. But not every Commons category is correctly or unambiguously named. Category:St James' Church, Dorney is in fact St James the Less, although you wouldn't know it from its NHLE entry. More often, Commons categories for this or that St James church fail to mention that he is in fact St James the Great. I have already made clear that this also affects categories for churches dedicated to some other saints including Anthony, Augustine, John, Margaret and Theresa. I correct categories that are plain wrong but I seldom change ones that are merely ambiguous. That is because my priority for the moment is to get as many churches as possible into the correct categories. But Auntof6 surely has a point that Commons categories should help rather than baffle the non-expert. Hence I suggest it does no harm that Category:Saint James churches in England includes both Category:Saint James the Greater churches in England and Category:Saint James the Less churches in England, and that nine English counties have "Saint James churches in ——shire" categories that can include both the "Saint James the Greater churches in ——shire" category and any individual "St James the Less" church. So far only two dozen churches are in "Category:Saint James the Less churches in England". The number will increase, but I don't expect the final total to be very large. Motacilla (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see three options on how to approach the generic St James:
  1. Do not have St James at all, just list via St James the Greater or the Less
  2. Have St James, solely containing the Greater and the Less
  3. Have St James, and list all churches in it regardless of which saint
1 is extremely unhelpful for non-experts, and I think should be avoided. 2 is better still forces an unhelpful split (as they will have to look in both). 3 could be best approach for non-experts. The risks with 3 are original research (how do we know if a St James the Greater church is usually called St James?) and its potentially unstable, due to appearing to go against Commons policy. Its not against policy as a by-name tree is different to a by-patron-saint one, but they are very similar. With that in mind, its almost inevitable that good faith edits will try to remove churches from a St James cat if they are already in the equivalent St James the Greater cat - and it will end up in state 2.
I see a couple broader issues with the by-patron-saint tree, once its (correctly) seen as NOT a by-name tree. A few examples: St Thomas of Canterbury churches and St Thomas Becket churches have different names but the same patron saint. As they have the same patron saint, they should be listed in the same place in the by-patron-saint tree. Churches dedicated to the Holy Cross should not be in the by-patron-saint tree at all, as they don't have a patron saint. The same is probably true of any dedicated to Jesus; he isn't a saint is he? That means a church dedicated to him doesn't have a patron saint! However both Holy Cross and Christ churches would correctly be included in the by-name tree.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm back on my laptop, I'm going to propose renaming the by-name categories to "Churches named...". That should address the confusion between the by-name and by-saint categories, especially if we have them cross-reference each other. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: , I'm inclined to flip your proposal. Keep by-name categories as-is, and move the patron saint tree to "Churches dedicated to ...". "Churches named ..." is both a clumsy category title and doesn't actually solve the issue, as 99% of St James churches are correctly named "St James the Greater". If anything it might make matters worse - because a church could be either "Church of St James the Greater" or "St James the Greater's Church". The name sometimes includes the location but typically it doesn't. In contrast, "churches dedicated to..." avoids having to any need to rename existing categories, and more naturally addresses things like Our Lady/St Mary/St Mary the Virgin - they all get placed in "churches in location dedicated to Saint Mary", and that's that.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would work, too (although we'd still have to either rename some or create new "dedicated to" categories). To me, the names "Church of St James the Greater" or "St James the Greater's Church" are equivalent, though: the by-name categories aren't so restrictive that they'd put those in separate categories. I'll include your suggestion when I create the other discussion.
By the way, your ping didn't work. I understand that a ping works only when you add it in the same edit as your signature. In any case, I'm watching this discussion so I see all activity anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point there the name of the church is not "St Foo" but some variant of the "Church of St Foo" - so strictly speaking Category:Churches named St James would end up empty (as no church is actually named just "St James"), while if the existing Category:St. James Churches is used for the by-name category that issue doesn't arise. "Churches named foo" plus "Foo churches" do not seem that different, while "Foo churches" plus "Churches dedicated to foo" are clearly distinct.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, although of course with the rename from "Churches to "churches". Like the St. John churches, the St. James churches need to have a generic category when the specific saint isn't identified. For a (potentially) comparable situation, see Category:Saint Augustinus churches; if we were splitting these by the Doctor of Hippo and the Apostle to the Britons, we still should have a parent for when the saint in question isn't specified. Before there was a generic St. John's category, I didn't have a solid idea what to do with a generic St. John's church, since it was unjustifiable precision to put such an image into the category for any one St. John; deleting this category would put us into the same position with generic St. James churches. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shiplifts

[edit]

The terms "ship lift" and "boat lift" are ambiguous. In English they can both refer to the mechanism known in Canada as a "lift lock", and, in Germany, as a "schiffshebewerk" -- or for a crane for lifting vessels out of the water, for maintenance. Even though it is not the most common English term, I suggested the unambiguous and more descriptive term "lift lock" should be used for the navigation mechanism. If I cannot win agreement, over that, I suggest we should create Category:Shiplift (navigation), Category:Shiplift (maintenance), Category:Boatlift (navigation) and Category:Boatlift (maintenance) Geo Swan (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which category are you referring to? Because Category:Shiplifts, as linked here, has nothing to do with locks in the canal sense (e.g. Category:Anderton boat lift), as a means of transport. They are entirely about dry-docking ships by lifting them vertically (and then sometimes horiontally, as a separate operation), for repair or construction. Neither the Canadian or German terms are synonyms.
File:Geheyan Dam shiplift.jpg does not belong in this cat. That one is about transport. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Geo Swan is suggesting that, while the category's file content now might be appropriate, the category name is ambiguous and should be fixed to prevent confusion in the future. That makes some sense to me. I'm neutral on the "lift locks" vs "Shiplifts (navigation)" debate, but no matter which you choose, you should disambiguate both (with Category:Boat lifts (maintenance) or Category:Ship lifts (maintenance)). Otherwise Category:Shiplifts will remain ambiguous and you won't really have removed the potential problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy Dingley writes: "Because Category:Shiplifts, as linked here, has nothing to do with locks in the canal sense" I enboldened the phrase "as linked here". I think it marks a key weakness of your reply, and a key weakness of our whole category system.
We have no overall schema. Anyone can add a category. Having done so they should tehn figure out appropriate parent categories to which it should be added. It is common to find that the contributor who picked the initial parent categories did so in a hurry. Sometimes all that needs to be fixed is to change one parent category for a more specific one, or, occasionally, a less specific one. But on other occasions the good faith contributor chose entirely inappropriate parent categories.
No one left a note at the top of this category, explicitly stating it should only contain material related to the cranes for vessel maintenance.
I suggest the logical extension of your argument is badly chosen categories have "squatter's rights", and should never be fixed.
There are many navigational ship-lifts, in China, suppose some good faith contributor, who is a fan of canals, goes on a grand tour of the Chinese canal and river navigation system, and uploads hundreds of pictures of chinese navigational shiplifts, and innocently adds them all to Category:Shiplifts? Would you then suggest that the greater number of navigational shiplifts meant it was the maintenance shiplifts didn't belong?
I looked to see when Category:Shiplifts was started. 2015-05-28. And it was populated, by you on 2015-05-28: [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. No offense, but having looked into your creation of this category, and your population of it, I regard it as an instance of a good faith contributor making good faith mistakes in their category creation, and choice of parent categories. Did you look at the hierarchy under Category:Port cranes, and the thousand or so images there? Aren't the images you included in Category:Shiplifts merely examples of Port cranes? If they aren't simple examples of Port cranes, if they are a specific subset of Port cranes, then one of the subcategories of Category:Port cranes should have been a parent category of Category:Shiplifts. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not port cranes. They are shiplifts. Look at the real-world sources, for when things are called "shiplifts". Port cranes are in ports, which are places where cargo is moved (not even shipyards).
And yes, I take a lot of offence at your patronising attitude. BAE and VSEL paid me good money to work on their shiplift. I don't give a damn what you amateurs at Wikipedia want to call anything, but it doesn't change the real world and it just makes you look increasingly foolish. Play how you like. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why you both had to make this personal. Please be civil. Andy hasn't specifically opposed disambiguation. It seems to me he was just looking for clarification. @Andy Dingley: , as the category creator, do you have a preference for how it might be disambiguated to make its purpose clearer? Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
just to try, to sum up the existing categories on Commons. (not read the text above)--Zaccarias (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglo-Francais De Petite Venerie

[edit]

Correct spelling is: Anglo-français de petite vénerie Jwh (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia has it with all the upper case letters, which seems to be the standard spelling in English. So the question is, do we keep the upper case because it's the way it's spelled in English (the language that cat names are mostly supposed to be in), or is this a name that shouldn't be "translated" (even though in this case the "translation" only affects capitalization)? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Auntof6: for your considerations. I understand that the all uppercase is an English or American standard as in song titles, however the name filed with FCI in the English version keeps the original French name, but they translate it as Medium-Sized Anglo-French Hound (such omitting the vénerie/par force hunting) which won't bring us any further. Still, the main reason for me to bring this category to discussion wasn't so much the upper cases but the misspelling of français and vénerie. Best regards --Jwh (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Jwh and Auntof6: I suggest to follow en:Anglo-Français de Petite Vénerie--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do fully agreee! Jwh (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men handshakes

[edit]

I recommend changing this category to Category:Men shaking hands rather than Category:Men handshakes. Reguyla (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Category:Women handshakes and Category:Man and woman handshakes as well I suppose? --Achim (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right good catch. Reguyla (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also Category:Adults and children handshakes. And what does Category:Handshakes shooting mean?
I recommend the format "Men shaking hands with men" to make it clear that both parties are men. The others could be "Men shaking hands with women", "Women shaking hands with women", and "Adults shaking hands with children". I can do these changes later today if no one objects or gets to it first. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like overcat to me. Does it really matter who they are shaking hands with? Do we really need that level of granularity? I'm not really objecting, I just wonder if they are needed. Reguyla (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that someone could be looking for something that specific to illustrate something. There certainly seem to be enough files in the subcats to justify having them. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Achim55: I'm guessing Category:Handshakes shooting means posed handshakes, which is similarly (though I guess, not exactly) served by Category:Looking at viewer handshakes. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Category:Men shaking hands (Category:Males shaking hands ?). Thanks for the good idea. --Benzoyl (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"wikt:handshake sounds (more) like a noun, hence "male"—generally an adjective is better than "man". wikt:handshaking sounds more like a verb, hence nouns such as "men," "women," "people," and "adults" seem better. I suppose Category:Handshakes by men; and Category:Handshakes by women might be more searchable; after which we can have:

Category:Men shaking hands with men
Category:Men shaking hands with children
Category:Women shaking hands with men
Category:Women shaking hands with children
Category:Men and women shaking hands [implicitly at least a man and a woman shaking each other's hand]
Category:Adults shaking hands with children
Category:Cosplay handshakes
Category:Nude or partially nude people shaking hands
199.7.156.128 01:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klare Strukturierung bei Wiki Commons führt zwar zu mehr Kategorien, aber zu besser Klarheit! - Es macht einfach keinen Sinn alles in eine Kategorie hineinzuwerfen, die dann hoffnungslos überfüllt ist. Die bessere und klarere Struktur ist - Händeschütteln (Mann - Frau) - (Frau - Frau) (Mann - Mann)! - Das ist eine - und meine Sichtweise dazu! - Liebe Grüße vom ---Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Da auch eine Benenennung zur klaren Strukturierung in deutscher Sprache in Frage gestellt wird, bitte ich um dienliche Hineweise wie falsch und sachlich unrichtige "Überfüllung" vorhandener Wiki Commons Kategogorien in der Zukunft erfolgen kann! - Liebe Grüße vom --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the suggested changes here. The question was raised almost five years ago, when will the discussion be closed? Ove Raul (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ove Raul: it seems to be not an easy discussion. I tried to start harmonizing but immediately stucked with Category:Men shaking hands with women vs Category:Women shaking hands with men, aren't these two categories actually same? Suspicious is also proposed Category:Men and women shaking hands--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i agree on the system proposed above too, except as Estopedist1 said, men and women shaking hands should all be under a single cat "Men and women shaking hands". there's no preference as to whether men or women are the subject (grammar). the order is alphabetical, hence m before w. RZuo (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of parliaments of Germany

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/08/Category:Mitglieder des Schleswig-Holsteinischen Landtages.

In sub-categories, "Mitglieder" should be translated to "Members" (e.g. Move to Category:Members of Sächsischer Landtag or Category:Members of the Landtag of the Free State of Saxony or some other equivalent.) Themightyquill (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose "Mitglied des Landtags" (MdL) ist ein feststehender Begriff in Deutschland und Österreich. Es gibt keinen Grund, dafür einen englischen Namen zu erfinden. Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) ist die amtliche Bezeichnung ... Das Gleiche gilt übrigens auch für MdB. Das Mandatskürzel wie MdL wird vor oder als sogenannter Namenszusatz hinter den Nachnamen gesetzt. Die österreichische Entsprechung in den Parlamenten der Bundesländer ist LAbg. --Ralf Roleček 17:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Die bsherige Bezeichnung ist eine amtliche Bezeichnung, die auch in Gesetzen verwendet wird. Ich lehne daher eine Änderung strikt ab. --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Category names are to be in English as much as possible. Equivalent categories for other countries appear to be in English. Some of the German ones and all of the Austrian ones are in English. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose a German signification is a German signification. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as an international project, category names should be understandable for a broad range of people. English is the project's main language. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The real problem is of course that category names can't be translated. But until this is fixed, the current compromise of using English category names is the best we have. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Those are proper nouns and shouldn't be translated anyway. btw: Commons is a multilingual, and not an English speaking project. --Stepro (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Dies ist ein internationales Projekt. Das beinhaltet auch, dass man Respekt vor den einzelnen Sprachen und deren amtlichen Bezeichnungen haben sollte und nicht gewaltsam alles in die englische Sprache verbiegt. Wieso eigentlich Englisch? Mit dem gleichen Recht könnte man verlangen, vergleichbare Fragen in Russisch zu formulieren, oder Chinesisch, denn davon gibt es sicher mehr Sprecher, als in Englisch. --ST ○ 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)--ST ○ 19:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed an international project, and that's a wonderful thing. The problem is that there is a technical issue with presenting category names in multiple languages: it's currently not possible. For that reason, the policy is that category names are to be in one language. For whatever reason, the language chosen was English. That is purely because of the technical limitation, and is not a sign of disrespect to people or places that speak other languages. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steschke: I'm not sure if I understand your point. Are you suggesting Category:Members of the State Duma of Russia and Category:General Secretaries of the Communist Party of China should not be in English? Surely there are many job titles, military ranks, and other signifiers on commons that could also use their original languages. I have trouble believing it would be good for the project. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
And as the next would be renamed Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris to Category:Cathedral Our Lady in Paris? Category:Camp Nou to Category:New playing field? Category:Reykjavík to Category:Smoke bay? Consequently, Category:Los Angeles and Category:San Francisco would have to change to Category:The Angels and Category:Saint Francis. --Ralf Roleček 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, doctors all have formal titles in every language? Should we therefore not have Category:General practitioners from Germany but Category:Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin ? Members of parliament is a title, but it's ALSO a perfectly normal description. That's inherently different than the examples you give above. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Doctors aren't proper names. --Ralf Roleček 23:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if it comes with initials you can put after your name, it's a title and a proper name, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's certainly quite a strong response. Would you all support moving equivalent categories to their own languages for all countries? I appreciate that it's a multilingual project, which is why I'd be perfectly in favour of using Category:Members of Sächsischer Landtag over Category:Members of the Landtag of the Free State of Saxony. Ralf Roletschek, I find your comparison to Tower Bridge/Turmbrücke at Commons:Forum#MdL sollen mal wieder anglifiziert werden rather unfair. In the case of "Mitglieder des Landtags von Baden-Württemberg‎" I could perhaps see that MdL is being used as a formal title, but is it really at "Mitglieder des Bayerischen Landtags‎" ? I'm unconvinced. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually undecided and therefore didn’t take part here. I could live with the translated versions. But as information, Themightyquill: Ralf linked to the German Wikipedia article, where is said, that it is a formal title for members of every regional parliament. What about category redirections? And if yes, a redirection from English to German or vice versa? — Speravir – 22:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Speravir: Sorry, where does it specify that "Mitglieder des Bayerischen Landtags" is a formal title? By my reading, it does specify that "Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages (Abk. MdB)", "Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments (Abk. MdEP)" and "Mitglied des Reichstages (Abk. MdR)" are formal titles. Should we move those as well? Then we can move Welsh MEPs to a category called cy:Aelod Senedd Ewrop (ASE), and French ones to "Membres du parlement européen (MPE)" and polish ones to Poseł do Parlamentu Europejskiego (PPE)? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: The first sentence of the linked de:Mitglied des Landtages says „Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) ist die amtliche Bezeichnung für einen Abgeordneten im Parlament eines der Flächenländer der Bundesrepublik Deutschland bzw. historisch des Deutschen Reichs …“ (”Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) is the official/functional name for a member of the parliament of a state of the Federal Republic Germany resp. historically of th German Reich …” – I’m sure this could be translated into better English.) For the 3 city states the exact name is also listed, but not for the other states. On the other hand you are right, that in the moment everything is mixed with partly English, partly German Category names, especially when it comes to the historic states. — Speravir – 16:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Speravir: I'm not sure if I still don't understand, or if you don't understand me. I get that Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) is a title, so the first part of "Mitglieder des Landtags von Baden-Württemberg‎" (MdL from Baden-Württemberg‎) could reasonably be considered a title. But I don't see how "Mitglieder des Bayerischen Landtags" includes a title (as opposed to "Mitglierder des Landtages von Bayern"). - Themightyquill (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Given that literally none of the English versions of the state parliaments' websites I checked use the term "Mitglieder", the opponents' claims above are absolutely ridiculous. @Steschke: 這句話不是英語 - 非常尊重讀者，不是嗎?    FDMS  4    19:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC) (transparency)[reply]
  •  Neutral Die verwendete Sprache bei Kategoriennamen ist völlig wurscht. Niemand außerhalb der Wikipediawelt sucht oder findet irgendwelche Bilder über die Commons-Kategorien, es sei denn durch Zufall. Wer möchte, daß seine Bilder gefunden und nachgenutzt werden, sorge für eine möglichst zutreffende und ausführliche Bildbeschreibung auf Englisch und in seiner Muttersprache und drücke sie, notfalls per Editwar, in möglichst viele Wikipedia-Artikel hinein. --smial 15:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No discussion really needed, also per FDMS4. Category:Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Category:Deutschland) is also a formal title (= Amtlicher Titel). The parliament itself translate his titles to "Member of the German Bundestag"bpb.debundestag.de (after short search) So the main and initial contra-argument all above is nothing as empty! ↔ User: Perhelion 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support renaming to Members of XYZ. The word Mitglieder has not been borrowed by English like samurai or assasin. For example, I believe most if not all English news articles would refer to the parliamentarians as members of parliament, members of the German Bundestag and the like. Could be deputies, legislators or lawmakers sometimes, but definitely not Mitglieder. If you google mitglied site:BBC.com even in 2019 now, there's nil! MPs from other countries dont get a unique name, nor should Germans in this case. MPs could be MLAs, MLCs, etc. depending on the names of the legislature, but it's definitely Members of XYZ.--Roy17 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Commons:Categories#Category names. --Marsupium (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Befürworter der Umbenennung sind ja sicher auch bereit, dann in Zukunft das Fotografieren der Parlamentsprojekte in Deutschland und Österreich zu übernehmen. Dort können sie den Parlamentariern auch gleich erklären, warum wir ihre Amtsbezeichnungen mißachten. --Ralf Roletschek 13:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "Mitglieder des Bayerischen Landtags" is not an official title. Mitglied des Landtages (MdL) is a title. Moreover, I suspect parliamentarians could not care less about the Wikimedia Commons category used to hold their photos -- it certainly hasn't been a problem in other countries -- so that particular threat is hardly convincing. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commons ist international, nicht englisch. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitglied_des_Landtages ist eine amtliche Bezeichnung und ein amtlicher Namenszusatz. Im Deutschen achten wir auch den https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire (OBE) und schreiben ihn englisch. Das wird im Artikel nichtmal übersetzt, es ist einfach ein Eigenname - wie MdL. --Ralf Roletschek 22:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we haven't consensus here, but we must to reach compromise. Voting results: 7 users are oppose, and 10 users support to use English. Conclusion: we must to translate category names. The other question is concrete body names (eg Hessischen Landtags). I guess that if no established English name, then we don't translate these German-language bodies (possible example: "Members of Hessischen Landtags", and not "Mitglieders des Hessischen Landtags")--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it should be "Members of the Landtag of Hesse". Roy17 (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
since it's Category:Hessischer Landtag, it should be "Members of the Hessischer Landtag". (a similar example is Category:Members of the State Duma of Russia, where Duma is neither an english word.)--Roy17 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Es ist nicht einzusehen, warum für Eigennamen englisch-deutsche Mischwörter erfunden werden sollen, die in Wirklichkeit nicht existieren. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitglied_des_Landtages ist ein Namenszusatz und eine Amtliche Bezeichnung. Das ist nicht zu übersetzen, weder nach englisch noch sonstwohin. --Ralf Roletschek 14:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Député français in french, Category:Deputies of France on commons.

sv:riksdagsledamot in swedish, Category:Members of the Riksdag on commons.

it's difficult to see what makes germany special to use german-language category titles.

on the other hand, take a look at some german landtags' own writings:

  1. "The Members of the Landtag..." https://www.landtag.brandenburg.de/en/welcome_to_parliament/parliament/members/548140
  2. "The Members of Parliament..." https://www.bayern.landtag.de/en/members/members/
  3. "members of the State Parliament of Hesse" https://hessischer-landtag.de/content/members-parliament
  4. "Member of the State Parliament" https://www.landtag.sachsen-anhalt.de/en/the-parliament/the-president

and look at Category:Politicians of Austria by office, which also speak german, right?--Roy17 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Category:Stereograms

[edit]

I don't see any clear difference between Category:Stereograms, Category:Stereographs, and Category:Stereo images. Given that en:Stereogram can have a variety of meanings, I would suggest it be converted into a disambiguation category. I'm fairly neutral on Category:Stereographs vs. Category:Stereo images (or perhaps Category:Stereoscopic images, the descriptive text currently in "stereo images") but unless I'm mistaken, we really only need one of these. Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Wow, I agree, and can't believe this has no comments after 1.5 years. I created a subcat and then found them all. I was concerned there was some technical distinction; if not, it's a mess as it is now. Outriggr (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I guess you're not including Category:Stereo cards? I'm not sure I see a basis for separating "cards" and "images", which is my biggest point of confusion. "Cards" is way more organized and extensive in its subcategories than "images". But the slight difference in final media format is not significant enough to have entirely different category trees that would prevent users from finding topically similar material. I made Category:Stereo images of Brooklyn and put a parent cat of Category:Stereo cards of New York City. I would rename everything to "stereo images", the more inclusive concept. Outriggr (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Outriggr. I can't remember if I missed Category:Stereo cards or avoided it intentionally, but I've tagged it now in the hope for additional input. I see that category is a sub-category of Category:Parallel-view stereo images, and there's a peer category Category:Crosseye-view stereo images as well. I'm not sure how important that difference is. Perhaps the creator(s), Chowbok and/or ArnoldReinhold can help. --- Themightyquill (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo cards are cards that go into stereoscopes: each card has two images on it. Not all stereo images are on cards or need stereoscopes: some are meant to be looked at without the aid of any device. And while stereo cards include stereo images and therefore can be a subset of stereo images, stereo images should not be a subset of stereo cards. I would not like to lose the separate stereo card categories, because they have historical interest. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement with the two categories Category:Parallel-view stereo images, and Category:Crosseye-view stereo images was in changing their title to images from photos. The distinction is important as the two type are viewed differently. The difference is explained at w:Stereoscopy#Freeviewing, with links to the two categories. I think they are important to keep. I looked at Category:Stereograms and Category:Stereographs. The stereograms were mostly computer generated, I recategorized the few that were not. The Stereographs were mostly of two types, stereo cards from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and stereo cards from Flickr. I would suggest renaming Stereograms to Computer generated stereograms, and maybe recategorizing the MEt images, (they already have their own category) and renaming Stereographs as Stereo images from Flickr. The hard part is the big overlap between Stereo images and Stereo cards. I think it is important to keep the Stereo card category for the vast corpus of stereo cards for the 19th and early 20th century, when they were a very popular medium, and separate more modern stereo pair images, e.g. Category:Stereo images of plants.--agr (talk)
@Auntof6 and ArnoldReinhold: Thanks for your input. I certainly support Arnold's suggestion of moving Category:Stereographs, though perhaps to Category:Computer-generated stereo images. Adapting your suggestion, it might make sense to create Category:Stereo cards by source with Category:Stereo cards in the Metropolitan Museum of Art‎, Category:Stereo cards in the Swedish Performing Arts Agency‎ and Category:Stereo cards from Flickr as subcategories.
But surely, stereo cards are all stereo images, right? So how to we create the most efficient category tree? At least when categorizing by subject, anything at the sub-category card level should also exist at the parent category image level. e.g. it's a problem that we have Category:Stereo cards of animals but no Category:Stereo images of animals because the former now contains Category:Stereo images of cats‎ and File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Schapen in weide te Priangan TMnr 10013358.jpg. I would suggest we upmerge all the "Stereo cards by subject" categories to "Stereo images by subject" categories. Everything that's a stereo card should definitely be categorized as such, but maybe it's enough if it's in Category:Stereo cards, or one of the sub-categories for publisher, photographer, or source? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Computer-generated stereo images works for me and Category:Stereo cards by source as well. (BTW, I've cleaned out the MET images from Category:Stereograms.) I agree that the overlap between Stereo cards and Stereo images is the thorniest aspect. Clearly stereo cards are a subset of stereo images. For starters, I agree that the category tree for stereo images by subject should be as rich as that for stereo cards by subject. I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind by "upmerge." I think I'd rather have Stereo cards of animals be a subcategory of Stereo images of animals, but I don't feel strongly about it. Category:Stereo images has 1367 files in it. Many, but not all are stereo cards. For starters, I'd suggest any files in this category that have another "stereo" category be removed from Stereo images. Finally, I think we need some top text be added to the Stereo cards and Stereo images categories explaining what goes where.--agr (talk) --agr (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed we have Category:Stereo images by source, so I'm not sure we need a separate Stereo cards by source.--agr (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold: And I just noticed we also have Category:Stereoscopic 3D files including Category:Stereoscopic 3D files from Flickr‎. @とある白い猫: Would you, as creator of that tree, like to contribute to this discussion? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stereograms has been moved to Category:Computer-generated stereo images. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)`[reply]
I've just redirected Category:Stereographs to Category:Stereo images. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more complications: There is a template:3D that among other categories can set the Category:Stereograms, along with an entire category tree that includes Category:Stereoscopic 3D files (side-by-side). Images in this category tree are to be set using the template, not the usual [[Category:... way. Also there is a Category:Anaglyphs which covers images that are viewed in 3D by colored glasses. We have been mostly discussing side-by-side stereo images. I think we need to invite editors involved with those projects to this discussion.--agr (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had been involved in creating the current version of Template:Stereoscopic 3D a few years ago. As it pertains to categorization, this template identifies two things:
  • Whether the tagged file "is" a 3D image/video/etc, or if it "contains"/"depicts" one.
  • What method of stereo imagery the aforementioned image/video/etc uses.
The categories it uses identify as "files" rather than "images" because the files it tags could be videos and animations as often as it could be a photograph or illustration. I'm not actually sure if there are any videos, and my attempt to find them failed due to deep search returning an error. But the template essentially tries to identify the "3D format" of the imagery, including whether this imagery is presented "for viewing" or not.
I'm not sure how this might best combine with the other categories. I would be tempted to put "3D files" within "stereo images" but for the above point; I was more comfortable with "stereograms" as the parent category because of its generality. Currently there is very little connection between the two. "Stereo images" also contains a lot of files which should be tagged with the template (which must be done manually, not by script).
Also, going too far into "by subject" might be undesirably more complicated than searching for "3D format" and "subject" category intersections.
If Template:Stereoscopic 3D can be improved to help resolve issues, let me know. I see a comment was posted a couple months ago asking to change the template now that Category:Stereograms has been changed to Category:Computer-generated stereo images. I'll change that to Category:Stereo images. It only places files not formatted "for viewing" and without an identified method into this, a total of two. djr13 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, worth noting, Category:Computer-generated stereo images still retains its "other languages" and description from when it was formerly Category:Stereograms. I don't think the description remains totally correct post-rename, and the other languages probably don't either. djr13 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also need Category:Stereo photographs, into which relevant sub-categories should be moved, distinct from drawn stereo images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prunus lannesiana

[edit]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this seems redundant with Category:Prunus serrulata var. lannesiana? Themightyquill (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

too specific. Asked here: en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive70#Prunus_lannesiana_and_Prunus_serrulata_var._lannesiana --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
POWO has it as Prunus ×lannesiana. Neither POWO nor IPNI gives the parentage, and I failed to find a statement elsewhere. POWO splits the Prunus serrulata complex, so it could be a hybrid within the complex (serrulata × jamasakura?), but it could also be a hybrid between the complex and another species. Flora of China lumps the complex, with the 3 taxa as varieties. Anyway Prunus lannesiana and Prunus serrulata var. lannesiana (and Cerasus lannesiana) are the same thing, but what would be the correct taxonomy is not a trivial question to answer. (A 2007 paper lumps the complex, but complicates things by proposing that Prunus lannesiana f. albida lies outside the complex.) 87.75.46.187 18:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I think Commons is not the place to discuss such specific taxonomy about a species. Most easy is to follow enwiki, hence to be redirected to Category:Prunus serrulata. After that this CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has a much better set of taxonomic categories than English wikipedia does. I see no reason to follow their lead. Moreover, this is definitely either a particular variant of Category:Prunus serrulata (Category:Prunus serrulata var. lannesiana) or an alternative species (Category:Prunus lannesiana), so merging to Category:Prunus serrulata is not helpful. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Color combinations of heraldic shields

[edit]
Category names

A long time ago when I had been asked to write FIAV1 I was told that the preferable sequence to define first the matals silver-gold and then the other codes in alphabetical order, i.e. a|A|o|b|B|c|C|g|p|s|t|v. As a matter of fact, currently some tincture categories follow this rule, but most don't and their sequence sorts "Or" alphabetically between g and p. Some have not such a rule at all, e.g. the new {{C}Category:Argent, azure, carnation, céleste, or, sable in heraldry}} sorts to the long names instead of the codes, a/b/c/B/o/s instead of a/b/B/c/o/s.

I am not so sure whether all the tincture categories are really helpful, or not. Due to mathematics with 12 colors, 3974 combinations are possible; because some combinations as a|A, b|B or c|C are unlikely not all categories are used, and if more than six colors come together as Multi-colored heraldic shields we need less categories - but IMHO still much more than useful!
If the community decides to keep the Color combinations of heraldic shields there are two possibilities:

  • either we let the category names as they are now and let the workaround of the automatic categorization as it is, and expand it when needed,
e.g. a|A|g|…|o|…, or another one, an need forever the Tincture/cat0 workaround template
  • or we move the categories to the names corresponding to one rule for all - namely the mentioned rule a|A|o|…, and don't need any more the workaround template.

There are a lot of files using color combinations without a category defined; for some rare combinations only one single file corresponds to a category. Such almost empty categories will not be very helpful? -- sarang♥사랑 08:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sarang: Well, sorry to be the first person to respond in almost a year but I also don't see how these are particularly helpful. I am against excessive categorization for color combos and think it should not go past three colors at most. I'm not even sure HOW people use these general categories just for colors. I can see the use when it is specific (ie, chequy azure and or) but can't see how "azure and or in heraldry" really helps anyone find what they are looking for. — ʷiḳỉℳẚṅ₫¡₳ (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation is not at all satisfying - but it seems that an alteration is not so urgent. -- sarang♥사랑 07:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stair railings

[edit]

This category should be merged into Category:Stair handrails, because all stair railings are for holding onto. (The images under the two categories look like the same thing.) The subcats should also be merged into their similarly-named handrail categories, or renamed to use the term "handrail". The old cat names should be left as redirects, because they're likely to be used again. Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This whole category tree is weird. Guardrails says that it's synonymous with railings but might include crash barriers, yet it's a sub-category of both Category:Railings and Category:Crash barriers rather than a parent category of both. It should look like this
Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comments:
So how about this:
Note that Category:Guardrails appears twice. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Perhaps you misunderstood my bullet list. Crash barriers and Railings are listed as peers - both are examples of guard rails. I don't understand how you see a guardrail (something that's designed for people or for cars, according to the category description) as a type of railing (something that's designed exclusively for people, no?). To me, the relationship is the opposite. - Themightyquill (talk)

I guess I was going by dictionary definitions, not the definitions on the categories. Specifically (according to Wiktionary, with italics added by me):
  • Guardrail: "A rail placed alongside a dangerous place in order to improve safety." Here we have specific form (rails) and general function (improving safety).
  • Railing: "A fence or barrier consisting of one or more horizontal rails and vertical supports." Here we have specific form (rails) and general function (fence/barrier = separation, but could be separating anything).
  • Crash barrier: "A barrier on the side of a road, to keep vehicles on the road." Here we have specific function (keeping vehicles on the road) but nothing about form. Here's a crash barrier that has rails. Here are some that don't.
I think the Wiktionary definitions are better than the definitions on the categories. Since crash barriers aren't required to have rails, I don't think they belong under a railing category. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, your logic is better. I'm not sure how to set the relationship between Category:Crash barriers and Category:Guardrails. Not all guard rails are crash barriers, and not all crash barriers have guard rails. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe they shouldn't have a relationship. Maybe guardrails should be under railings, but not under crash barriers. Some files might be in both, but the categories wouldn't be over/under each other. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, most of the category definitions in the barrier category tree are from the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus [16] which I think is in architectural matters a more reliable source than Wiktionary. Crash barrier is BE, guardrail is AE. See barriers and barrier elements. Some other dictionaries on my playground may be useful. --Bohème (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Category:Crash barrier guardrails could be used to store those guardrails which are actually crash barriers as well? Many of the road guardrails are crash barriers, while others are merely functional or decorative, but are not intended to effectively stop a car from passing through them.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restarting this discussion, DarwIn. My understanding of your suggestion is this:

That works for me. @Bohème and Auntof6: Thoughts? Let's see if we can close this. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:
  • Not all concrete barriers are crash barriers. Examples of some that are not: File:Ornamental concrete balcony railing.jpg, File:Military Roadblock & Snow (11354646143).jpg. Concrete is just a material: it doesn't imply anything about purpose. Maybe "concrete barriers" belongs outside of this hierarchy, although "concrete crash barriers" would fit.
  • When I see the term "Crash barriers guardrails", to me it sounds like it focuses on the guardrail part of crash barriers. Maybe "crash barriers with rails" is more descriptive.
--Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with this category and why you mix up railings with such different things as crash barriers (british english) and guardrails (american english).
The cat definition in Category:Railings is quite clear.
Railings (banisters, balustrades) are structures (parent Category:Barriers) - not rails - destinated to keep people or objects - not vehicles - from falling down. Components of railings:

  1. supporting structure
    1. footing,
    2. railing posts,
    3. vertical railing shafts or balusters between the railing posts; they may be replaced by horizontal bars, by ornamental elements, wood panels, glass or concrete elements (parapets), etc ... and all these forms are still railings (still nothing to do with rails)
  2. handrails; stair railings are usually (not always) topped by handrails (grasp bars)

Stair railings are topped by stair handrails, but: stair handrails may also be simple grasp bars supported by railing posts (often in the middle of stair ramps), or grasp bars fixed on a wall.

Just keep the Category:Guardrails out of the Category:Railings, change the imho erroneous category definition in cat:guardrail (somtimes referred to as railing doesn't mean that the choice of this word is correct. Guardrail is (imho) not synonymous with railing) and open another discussion under Category:Crash barriers (british english) or the synonymous Category:Guardrails (american english). --Bohème (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: Exceptional case: Bridge railings are for people and vehicles = railings and crash barriers. --Bohème (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guardrails

[edit]
This category needs a disambiguation page (see: en:Guardrail (disambiguation) but this is not the right place to discuss the cat tree of roadside barriers/Crash barriers.
Concrete barriers aren't necessarily crash barriers. They shouldn't be in Category:Crash barriers but only in Category:Barriers.
Concrete crash-barriers with guardrails: should be in both -> Category:Concrete crash barriers and Category:Guardrails.
Please move the category discussion to roadside barriers or crash barriers. Thx. --Bohème (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuit debout by date

[edit]

This request is for Category:Nuit debout by date and all its subcategories. This category is supposedly "by date", but most of the subcats don't represent valid dates. I suggest either renaming the subcats so that they make sense, or moving all the files up to Category:Nuit debout and deleting this cat and the subcats. Auntof6 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Together there are over 600 images here, so I think sub-categorizing them is a good idea. Maybe these are all sub-categorized in other ways already, but unless you want to go through each one to check, I'd suggest renaming the "by date" sub-cats so that they use proper dates. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @Auntof6 and Themightyquill: en:Nuit debout lasts from 31 March 2016 to June 2016. The correct naming is not easy. Should we use style:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Days by day

[edit]

Issue 1: There has to be a better name for this category. The subcats aren't groups of the same kind of things by day; they are for individual dates (year-month-day). Maybe something like "Individual dates"?

Issue 2: Many of the individual date categories here contain only one category, that being for a person who either was born or died on the date. For example, Category:1431-02-20 contains only Category:Martinus V: he died on 20 February 1431. To understand why a person category is there, you have to look in that category to see that the date matches their year of birth or death. Wikipedia and Wikidata have info about people's exact dates of birth and death; I don't think Commons needs to categorize people by those exact dates. Auntof6 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support a move. Category:Individual dates doesn't sound great, but I can't think of anything better. It's much better than Category:Days by day anyway. Leave this open for a while and maybe someone will come up with something better.
As for Category:1431-02-20 you never know, maybe someday this category will be filled with images of people that died on 20 February 1431. ;) Seriously though, it doesn't make much sense to have that category is only populated by Category:Martinus V but going through all these individual date categories would be a lot of work. If you want to do it, go ahead, but I suppose they aren't causing much harm. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The today situation is OK for me. I dont see why to change. --Tangopaso (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds very strange in English, and its meaning isn't obvious. "Jours par jour" sounds equally strange in French, does it not? Category:Individual dates isn't great, but it's much clearer. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: how about "Category:Days by date"? also: if you move forward to the 19th, 20th, & 21st centuries, you will see increasing amounts of stuff for each day. especially photographs; many from the world wars, the donated archive-collections, & from the start of WMC to the present. these categories serve as the framework for the "photographs taken on xxxx-xx-xx(-date)" categories. Lx 121 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lx 121: Firstly, "Days by date" is not any better. This is not a category of days (Monday-Sunday) organized by date (xxxx-xx-xx), it's just a category of specific dates. Second, no one disagrees with the principle of using specific dates to categorize material when there is plenty and room for more, such as contemporary dates or dates likely to have a lot of content (such as your example of wartime). The question is whether it's actually valuable to do so when there is very little content and very little chance of more content being added in the future (such as Category:1431-02-20). - Themightyquill (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about calling this category just Category:Dates (time)? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's better than Category:Individual dates as it's obviously not for something like File:Hadrawi-Date.jpg. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any reasoned opposition to Category:Dates (time) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as it is. Evrik (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Originally, I thought this was for individual days of the year, like January 1 or December 17. I think that would be a better use of this category. Evrik (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We do have categorisation for that, starting @ category:Years. This one is meant for organising the chronology of (& by) actual calendar dates (yyyy-mm-dd). I am open to better suggestions for naming it. Lx 121 (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It seems like there's a consensus not to change this. Although looking over it 99% of these categories contain either a single subcategory or file. So I'm tempted to just go through and delete a lot of them as overly granular and pointless. I think doing that would be in alignment with the outcomes of CfD for similar categories. Does anyone have any objections to that or thoughts on it? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books DJVU files

[edit]

There should be a consensus on the capitalisation in the name of subcats of this category. See that categories in Category:Books in PDF by year have in their name "PDF" in capitals but djvu in Category:Books DJVU files have "djvu" and not "DJVU". Even more "confusion in the capitalisation is that the category itself is in Category:DjVu files. --Wesalius (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The English wikipedia article is at en:DjVu, so I'd say that's the way we should go. I have various other problems with this whole category tree, including the idea that we shouldn't be mixing content categories with format categories, but at very least this category should be changed to Category:DjVu books or Category:Books in DjVu or something that's grammatically correct. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or Category:DjVu files of books? - Themightyquill (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
for simplicity and the system, all categories' names consisting of file extension maybe to write fully capitalized. Eg PDF, SVG, DJVU, WEBM (we have category:WebM videos). Also strong move to the future: more file extensions are definitely coming--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"DjVu" isn't primarily the filename extension, it's the name of the file format. i.e. it is equivalent to "Portable Document Format" not ".PDF"; and unlike PDF it never appears mono-capitalized. But "PDF" is in this context an initialism of the full file format name and not a filename extension (they just share the same derivation). Filename extensions as such would be a very strange basis for category names, especially given each file format can have multiple recognised file name extensions (and some bear little relation to the file format name).
The mixing of content and format is a little weird, but I think it may be at least partially necessary due to semantic ambiguity. "Book" alone in a category would be used for scans of whole books, of individual pages from a book, and for images extracted from a book (which can be both, say, a photo of a famous person that strictly speaking exists independently of the book; or an illustration or flourish that is inseparably linked to that book). By specifying "Books DjVu files" and "Books PDF files" it is clear(er) that these are digital representations of whole books we're talking about.
But I'm not sure the specific file format as such needs to be specified here if a semantically unambiguous alternative can be found that people will actually relate to. Things like the enWP push to replace "Paintings of …" and "Plays about …" categories with "Cultural depictions of …" are, IMO, badly misguided: what the devil is a "cultural depiction" and when last did you hear that term used down at the local? That argues against constructs like "Digital representations of books", but there may exist better ways to convey the same idea.
In any case, I think the original rationale (from 2016!) is flawed: the capitalization in the examples ("PDF" and "DjVu") is correct as given. But a lot of the related and subcats use inconsistent capitalization by, e.g., lower-casing "djvu" (see e.g. Category:1895 books djvu files). Whatever the top-level cats end using, the subcats should consistently use that too. --Xover (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016&oldid=685613090"