Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/05

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

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]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/05&oldid=922712085"