Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in July 2016.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/07.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2016-07.
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:Federal Executive Organization of Russia

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Famous dogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Cafés in Washington (state)

[edit]

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

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

Previous discussion about this is also at

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

  • Not really sure what "normal" bolded word to use, so Use just "cafés. No separate categories for "Cafés in WA" and "Coffeehouses in WA". As I said at the COM:AN discussion, we tend to adopt national usage in category naming (basically following en:WP:ENGVAR), but I'm not aware of any situations in which we adopt regional usage when the region otherwise uses the same English dialect as the rest of the country. Is there some legal distinction between cafés and coffeehouses under Washington law? If so, show me, and I'll reverse myself, because maintaining separate categories is important when there's a legal distinction. We already do this for other concepts with varying legal definitions from state to state. For example, Category:Towns in the United States and Category:Villages in the United States don't have anything for Ohio and Washington respectively, since Ohio law doesn't recognise "town" as a class of municipality, and Washington law apparently doesn't recognise "village" as a class of municipality. I don't suppose that most states don't recognise a distinction between "café" and "coffeehouse", so there's no reason to have separate categories for most states; if Washington is like the others, it should be treated like the others. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend Yes, there is a legal distinction. Cafés are restaurants and do food preparation, and so have licenses to do that. In contrast, coffeehouses sell food which is prepared elsewhere. Laws are different in different places, but for example, here is Seattle law -
You asked for the legal difference, and there it is. Coffeehouses do not need the same license as a café. This actually applies nationwide, but it only makes sense in the context of the cultural difference, because it is local culture which distinguishes which places are called "restaurant", "café", "diner", and "coffeehouse". The cultural distinction is so strong that as I showed, there are Wikipedia articles on the topic of coffee for this region and no where else in the US.
I also can think of no example in which en:WP:ENGVAR is applied outside the context of US/UK/India. Still, I do not see this as a distinction of English, but of the nature of the place. en:Coffeehouse is its own concept for a place with coffee, and "café" outside of English language means this. When a place starts serving more than coffee, then in the United States it is less likely to be called a coffeehouse and more likely to be a en:diner, cafe, or restaurant. The café category already is confused with diners but there is less mistaking a coffeehouse for what it is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. But are the two terms distinguished in relevant regulations (something comparable to the Ohio Uniform Food Safety Code), or in the Revised Code of Washington? You've demonstrated that certain businesses need permits while others don't, but since the terms themselves are what we're talking about, you need to demonstrate a distinction between the terms themselves if you're trying to convince me in this matter. And on your more general thing about "the nature of the place", I've routinely encountered "coffeehouse" being used for coffee-focused businesses, whether Starbucks or local places (example, which I've visited several times), that also serve items other than coffee. A distinction between "cafe" and "coffeehouse" is not general in US English, and it is not being followed in our category tree. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend The legal language does not differentiate between cafes and restaurants. Do you support a merge of everything in category:cafes to category:restaurants on the same premise?
Local culture varies from place to place. I established that there is a legal distinction, and it is already a Wikipedia custom to make cultural distinctions using terms like "cafe" which have no legal standing. I provided Wikipedia articles establishing that coffee culture in this region is so extraordinary that it is discussed in reliable sources making the entire concept of coffee culture in this region notable, when it is not elsewhere.
Starbucks is a coffeehouse, and I think you know it is from this region and helped to define the contemporary concept. Starbucks does not have a typical restaurant license; their locations have the alternate license for "restaurants which do not prepare food" however that is phrased legally. There is a category tree which distinguishes coffeehouses and cafes; in English Wikipedia, en:category:Coffeehouses exists, but the majority American concept of a cafe is described in Category:Diners or Category:Restaurants. If you check the English Wikipedia article on en:Coffeehouse, what is being discussed is not what is called a cafe anywhere in America. A coffeehouse experience includes a social aspect like a bar, and includes talking with strangers in public seating. That is not the cafe experience in most of America, but it is the coffeehouse experience in this region. Is the distinction made by English Wikipedia satisfying to you? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no legal distinction, and American English in general does not distinguish between cafes and coffeehouses, you've made my argument for me. If you want to nominate the entire "Cafes in the US" tree for renaming to coffeehouses, I'll consider supporting that. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend I am already happy to grant you your argument that in the majority of America there is no distinction, because I also feel that the cultural distinction does not occur in most of America.
It is neither correct to call all cafes as coffeehouses, nor all coffeehouses as cafes. I advocate for using the terms which are used by the several million local people in a region, rather than using the terms that would be chosen by outsiders who are not familiar with a given local culture.
Here are some examples of online discussions which confirm the distinction in the way I describe.
I am not sure what to do next. Can you think of a way for an end to this discussion? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend Do you have an idea for resolution? Here are some.
  • We reframe this as a discussion on whether Wikimedia Commons uses the common wording of local culture, or whether it prefers to use the term that matches popular use outside that culture.
  • I can solicit further comments from people who work in these categories. Since they are local in the region, I would expect them to prefer the term "coffeehouse".
  • We can try something else you propose. So far as I can tell, I have already accepted all of your arguments and premises, except for the one that seems to be, "Since people outside this region use a different term, then things in the region should not be named by the local term but instead should use the outside term." I would like to make your position look as good as it can before calling for any further comment.
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there is no legal distinction, and American English does not distinguish between them, so I reject the proposal and your distortion of it. Attempting to account for all local variations, based solely on popular usage, would produce a huge mess of our category system: it's possible to account for national variations in our controlled vocabulary, and possible to account for concepts that truly are different, but operating instead on a local folksonomy is something I strongly oppose. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: It is harsh for you to say that I am distorting something. I am emailing you with my Skype and phone number. Perhaps if we talked by phone or video we could come to more efficient resolution.
I feel that you are making an arbitrary choice. There is no legal distinction between a cafe and a restaurant, but you permit a cafe category while opposing a coffeehouse one. There is also Category:Diners, which is the same as most American cafes.
Here are other differences:
typical American cafe - usually the same as a en:diner, serves cooked food, drip coffee, no coffee professional, sit with friends, like a restaurant, not a community center, only one type of coffeebeans
coffeehouse - English word for European-style cafe, no cooked food, en:espresso, has en:barista, sit among strangers, like a bar, place which hosts public meetings, multiple types of coffeebeans available
Your userpage says you are in Ohio. In Category:Cafés in Ohio, there is Tony Packo's Cafe, which has a webpage advertising their hotdogs. At en:coffeehouse, there is no mention of hotdogs. That is a different experience for a different concept.
Would it be productive to talk through anything more, or should I get other opinions? Email me back if you would have voice conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I've been around here (since 2006), we have permitted national exceptions, on WP:ENGVAR grounds, from our controlled vocabulary, but we have not permitted otherwise, and I will not be complicit in an attempt to go against our standards. "I feel that you are making an arbitrary choice" (1) Your feelings are irrelevant to thesaurus construction, and (2) if this were going the other way, you trying to split coffeehouses out of cafes, I'd still be opposing it. Seek a worldwide split, i.e. completely rework the existing tree, and I'll not participate (I have no opinion on whether this should be done), but beating a dead horse in an attempt to replace a well-organised thesaurus with a folksonomy-influenced terminology is disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/07&oldid=641003639"