Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in February 2016.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/02.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2016-02.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

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 (25 C, 10 F)
Images by date (3 C)
Images by file format (14 C)
Images by language (9 C, 2 F)
Images by location (11 C)
Images by source (86 C, 4 F)
Images by technical criteria (26 C, 1 F)
Images by usage (15 C)
Images by color (2 C)
Images by medium (19 C)
Images by topic (3 C)
Categories by image (20 C)
Featured pictures (26 C, 104 P)
Quality images (22 C, 102 P, 372286 F)
Valued images (24 C, 73 P, 2108 F)
Imaging (34 C, 97 F)
Photographs by technique (15 C)
Categories which should only contain image files (292 C)
Censored images (6 C, 35 F)
Photography by genre (62 C, 1 F)
Images on Wikipedia (2 C, 35 F)
Information graphics (39 C, 1557 F)
Images with objects to indicate scale (22 C, 58 F)
Image sources (153 C, 4 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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/02&oldid=880589846"