Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in June 2016.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/06.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2016-06.
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: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 fßr 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, Gßglingen, KÜngen, 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 KĂśngen with Category:Sculptures in KĂśngen, 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 mßssen 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 [1]. Was soll also Ihr Einwand? Ich bleibe dabei, dass es, auch wenn die Konzessionen bereits abgelaufen sind oder eingelÜst wurden, durchwegs Eigennamen sind und dass es da ßberhaupt nichts zu ändern gibt. Und ich kann dies mit Eisenbahngesetzen und genßgend Literatur der Jahrhundertwende belegen. --Steindy (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Man kann sich wirklcih Probleme heraufvbeschwÜren - ein durcheinander mit deutschen und englischcen Bezeichnungen ist sehr gut, fßr Leute, die etwas etwas bestimmtes suchen :-( - Wie Steindy sagt, du verwechselst da dauernd Eigennamen mit allgemeinen Bezeichnungen - eine Sßdbahn 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 MÊtro heisst und die S-Bahn RER. Da es bei uns die Gattung Lokalbahn nicht gibt, kann ich euch auch keine franzÜsische Entsprechung liefern, aber bei uns gab es frßher im Eisenbahngesetz Nebenbahnen und dieses Wort wurde auch auf FranzÜsisch und Italienisch ßbersetzt. Weshalb das mit der Lokalbahn in einem englischsprachigen Kategoriensystem nicht mÜglich sein soll, erschliesst sich mir nicht.--Gßrbetaler (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 NiederÜsterreich". Wenn ßberhaupt!-- Gßrbetaler (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!-- GĂźrbetaler (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 Üsterreichisches 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]
KopfschĂźttel & Achselzuck -- GĂźrbetaler (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]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/06&oldid=889467615"