Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in April 2016.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/04.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2016-04.
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: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]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/04&oldid=956784479"