Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10

This page is for open CFD discussions started in October 2016.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2016/10.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2016-10.
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

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name

The "Photographs of" naming convention is usually used for categories like Category:Photographs of Germany, to contain photographs grouped by characteristic (black and white, panoramics, etc.). Should this category be renamed to something like "Men of Japan by name in photographs" and the subcategories renamed to "<name> in photographs"? Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason not to make it the same as the other sub-categories of Category:Men by name by country ? ie. leave out the word "photographs" entirely. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a reason. I spot checked a few of the subcats, and they were all also subcats of categories for the person. (For example, Category:Photographs of Hamao Arata is a subcat of Category:Hamao Arata.) In other words, the subcats here seemed to be specifically to separate photos of each person from other things in the person's category. I would think the nominated category should reflect that. Of course, maybe the contents of the subcats should just be upmerged to the person's main category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice that as well, but I'm not sure why this is so common for Japanese men. There are 93 Japanese men that need a special "Photographs of" sub-category, but only 52 other men in the whole word (in Category:Photographs of men by name) that require it? Kind of strange. In some categories, the main person category is split into "Person X in art" and "Photographs of person x", which seems legitimate enough, though we generally assume photographs as the standard and only other media is sub-categorized by medium. In some cases, the main person category is also contains sub-categories for family members, and I'm not sure if we have a policy on that. but in others (e.g. Category:Endō Kinsuke, Category:Hōjō Tokiyuki, Category:Hosokawa Junjirō) there's no other category, so this is an unnecessary extra layer. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@庚寅五月: , would you care to comment? We're a bit confused. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 庚寅五月 who created many subcategories about Japanese men. Basically, I created the categories "Category:Photographs of <name>" to distinguish between the photographs of the subject person and the other files (works by subject person, works about the person, monuments or memorials to the person, etc), based on already existing Category:Photographs of John Quincy Adams, Category:Photographs of Richard Wagner etc. However, if the category Category:Photographs of men by name is useful, I think that its subcategories "Category:Photographs of <name>" are meaningful to create even if there is no media other than photographs.

The category name "Category:Photographs of <name>" is based on Category:Photographs of people and Category:Photographs of men. Similarly, there are categories Category:Paintings of people and Category:Prints of people. But for these category names, "Category:People in <medium>" may be preferable because category names don't become ambiguous when under-categories are created. The reason why "Category:Photographs of <name>" are the subcategories of "Category:<name> in art" is based on the fact that Category:Photographs and Category:Photographs of people are subcategories of Category:Art by medium and Category:People in art by medium.

Incidentally, this Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name is not created by me, but it seems that it was created to group the categories "Category:Photographs of <Japanese man>" which was also categorized into "Category:Men of Japan in art". I think that it is not absolutely necessary.--庚寅五月 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, 庚寅五月. I understand your logic, but if we used it more broadly, the number of categories on wikipedia would double overnight. In addition to Category:Hats, Category:Hats by color and Category:Red hats, we'd need Category:Photographs of hats, Category:Photographs of hats by color and Category:Photographs of red hats. Because the vast majority of the files on commons are photographs, it would create an unnecessary extra layer of empty categories, and wikipedia article would end up linking to empty commons categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, we don't need to create subcategories of photographs for all object categories, I don't intend to make such claims. But in the case of the person categories, not only the photographs of the subject person but also the various files related to that person are categorized therein (e.g. Category:Alexander Graham Bell, Category:Wright brothers). I think that it is meaningful enough to distinguish between the photographs of the subject person and the others files, in order not to clutter the person category. However, it might be more appropriate to use the names "Category:Portraits of <name>" or "Category:Portrait photographs of <name>" than "Category:Photographs of <name>" (e.g. Category:Portrait photographs of Albert Einstein, Category:Portrait photographs of Victoria of the United Kingdom).

If the files about the subject person are not found outside the portrait photographs (or simply portraits), we don't necessarily need to create subcategories. But if the categories "Category:Photographs of <name>" is the most basic subcategory in the person categories, I also think that it is better to create them as much as possible.--庚寅五月 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:Portrait photographs of men by name. What about moving these there (and renaming them accordingly)? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they were all portrait photographs of each individual, which I don't think they are. See this one of Ichirō Hatoyama, this one of Itō Hirobumi and this one of Uchimura Kanzō, just to mention a few. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but 庚寅五月 could go through and ensure that they are all portraits. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images categorized into subcategories of Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name are actually just portrait photographs (images that don't show the appearance of subject person, such as File:State funeral of Kinmochi Saionji.JPG or File:The Triumphal Return of Admiral Togo From the Sea of Japan.jpg, are probably not categorized), so I have no objection to renaming subcategories.

In the cases shown by Auntof6, I think that these images can be categorized into "Category:Portrait photographs of <name>" because the appearance of subject person is shown although the scanned image isn't clear.--庚寅五月 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A portrait photograph is not just a photograph that shows the person. It is a photograph whose purpose is to be a portrait. en:Portrait defines portrait as "a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant." This is why we have separate portrait categories for various representations of people (photographs, paintings, etc.). I think we stretch the definition to include more than just the face (such as this one), but I don't believe the group pictures or candid shots (such as this one) qualify. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that my understanding was insufficient. I'm wondering if the distinction between portrait and non-portrait is clear (e.g. between Category:Family portrait photographs and Category:Group photographs of families), but I understood that photographs like File:Ito Hirobumi4.JPG, which it isn't clear whether the subject person was in front of the camera for shooting, shouldn't categorize into portrait. Besides that, I misunderstood that Category:Photographs of men by name was integrated into Category:Portrait photographs of men by name, but confirmed that this was not the case. So I withdraw the previous comment.--庚寅五月 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mailboxes in England

We have a confusing mix of mailbox, letter box and post box here, and this has been misleading editors as to correct categories for images. I suggest we do what Royal Mail do, and have outgoing post being deposited in post boxes. In my experience, incoming mail is put by a postman into a letter box, and I think we should follow that, and (for the UK at least) ditch the concept of mailboxes, which are a US or Canadian usage. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Seems eminently sensible. Ardfern (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Makes no sense to treat the UK or England differently from everywhere else, (Other countries also have this distinction) category structure has been established for some time. A Mailboxes can either be a post box or letter box hence it is the correct parent for both categories. Also the creator of this discussion has already started altering category structures, if it was worth creating a discussion then surely it was worth waiting a bit so it can be discussed, also the discussion is referring to and should be at Category:Mailboxes in the United Kingdom.Oxyman (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Has the nominator not bothered to check Category:Mailboxes by country where on same categories (taking Russia as an example) it has

► Letter boxes in Russia‎ (6 F)
► Mailboxes in Moscow‎ (1 C)
► Post boxes in Russia‎ (1 C, 14 F)
I'm not sure as to the actual point of the nomination but as I would say at EN Wiki - AFD IS NOT CLEANUP which this DR essentially is, No valid reason for deletion anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they do things differently in other countries, but in the UK, the term "mailbox" is not in common use. Where people put their outgoing letters is a post box, and this is what Royal Mail, who mostly own them, call them. The receptacle in which a post/wo/man deposits incoming letters for their intended recipient is a letter box. OK, we may call both of these mail boxes, in which case all mail box categories should contain is subcats for post boxes and letter boxes. I see no merit in trickling down categories from mail boxes, because all they should contain is "post boxes in X" and "letter boxes in X". It's easy to tell the difference if you know, but this problem arises because some editors have not understood the distinction between incoming and outgoing receptacles and the use of "Mailbox" is just adding to the confusion. I think we owe it to them just to use terms they are familiar with. And I'll just point out this is a Category for Discussion, not a Category for Deletion. The model of Category:Mailboxes in Russia is the one I'd prefer to see. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu - Shit I'm so sorry I thought this was a DR, Clearly going blind!, You're right we don't use Mailboxes in the UK at all - Infact I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to a letterbox or postbox as "mailbox" in all the years I've been alive, Better off deleted to avoid confusion. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu What do you mean "The model of Category:Mailboxes in Russia is the one I'd prefer to see."? That is the same model as used here which you seem to have a problem with. I'd prefer to see that model remain here. Oxyman (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a Category for letterboxs and a category for postboxes what would you call the parent category that contains both of these? "boxes for mail both outgoing and incoming"? Surely better to use a single English word that has it's meaning established Oxyman (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, the term mailbox isn't used in the UK. In the US, we tend to use mailbox for everything. (I can't speak for Canada.) Maybe we need names that are clearer. How about something like "mail receptacles (incoming)" and mail receptacles (outgoing)"? If we try to use mailbox/letter box/postbox, we will keep having to clean up the categories when people who didn't see this discussion don't use them properly. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or would it not be best to keep the English language as it is and hope that editors know the meaning of the English words? Oxyman (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the suggestions people have made are proper uses of the English language per se. If everyone understood the meaning of the terms being discussed, we wouldn't need the discussion. Since we apparently do need the discussion, it's apparent that not everyone does know the distinction being made. Please don't make comments implying that others don't understand the language. English, after all, is not spoken the same everywhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current category structure is also proper use of the English language. we don't change the categories as some editors are unaware of the meaning of the terms anywhere else, or we would not have Latin plant names etc. What is needed is that editors familiarise themselves with the terms used. Please don't imply I am unaware English is not spoken the same everywhere. However the meaning of these words is the same everywhere as recorded by the dictionary. Oxyman (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such implication: I had no way of knowing whether you were familiar with different types of English, and your insistence that the terms could mean only one thing indicated that you might not be. As for the meaning of the terms, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary offers the following definitions:

letter box: British for mailbox
postbox: mailbox, especially a public mailbox
mailbox:

a box at or near a dwelling for the occupant's mail
a public box for deposit of outgoing mail

The website http://www.webster-dictionary.net offers the following:

letter box: a box for the reception of letters to be mailed or delivered (the opposite of the meaning mentioned above)
mailbox: the same two meanings as above

I'll leave it to those interested to look up what Wiktionary has -- the definitions there are similarly ambiguous. Given these definitions, it's no wonder that things are confused. What would be wrong with trying to make them clearer? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also made no such implication, you do realise you have proved exactly what I was saying?

Mailbox can mean either

a box at or near a dwelling for the occupant's mail
a public box for deposit of outgoing mail

That is precisely how it is used here and yes a postbox is a public mailbox, what is wrong with your attempts to make the category structure clearer is that it would have the opposite effect, It would disturb an established cat structure that has existed for some time without need for these alterations, also some of these proposals would treat the UK differently from everywhere else, thus creating more confusion and a greater likelihood that someone in the future would come along and move the UK cats attempting to standardise the terms used. Thus on balance the current, established, standardised and well thought out (even is some editiors were unaware of this) category structure should remain. Oxyman (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that the definitions make the point that "mailbox" is an unclear term. They also make the point that post box and letter box aren't always clear, either. I wasn't suggesting that we keep any of those. I suggested that we use different terms altogether (receptacles, qualified with either incoming or outgoing), rather than use any term that could be misunderstood. Those aren't the only other terms that could be used, they're just what seemed good to me at the time. We could also use "boxes for receiving mail" and "boxes for sending mail", or similar things. I realize you don't want to change, but this seems to be a case of either change or plan on periodically having to clean up incorrectly categorized files in the future. Why would you want to keep something that people will routinely get wrong? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the dictionary describing what mailbox means makes the term unclear? and also describing what a post box and a letter box also makes them unclear? Strangely for me the description from the dictionary makes the term clear, do we really need to accommodate people that are confused by dictionary definitions? Your suggestions make the category names longer and usually it is attempted to make them shorter also you have failed to suggest what the parent category of "boxes for receiving mail" and "boxes for sending mail" should be "boxes for sending or receiving mail" those are lengthy names for categories when we have 1 or 2 word equivalents. So your arguments is that we should use long winded terms just in case someone who is unaware of definitions misunderstands them? Why when we have had minimal and manageable incorrectly categorized files so far should there be a problem in the future? Why when people don't "routinely get wrong" now should this change in the future? It seems to me that these are assumptions by people that have only become aware of this category structure as a result of this discussion rather than people that have been aware of it and involved with it for some time. Oxyman (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting what I said. However, I don't want to argue with you, so I'm through with this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting what the dictionary said Oxyman (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd avoid any artificial terms like receptacle, which are never used. Contrast that situation with aeroplane/airplane, where the neutral term aircraft is often used. When consulting a dictionary be aware of its market - Miriam-Webster is an American publisher, so provides an American English dictionary. OED (British English) states:

Mailbox: (N American) A box for delivery, especially one mounted on a post at the entrance to a person's property. OR a postbox
Postbox: A public box for collection
Letter box: A box outside, or slot in wall, for delivery.

So British English makes a clear distinction between collection and delivery.

I'd suggest letterbox is used for delivery boxes, and postbox is used for collection boxes within the UK, and potentially globally to remove confusion. By using the two distinct names globally, it allows distinct names for the two distinct classes of objects even in the USA (This is related, but different, to this). It also has the benefit of matching the English Wikipedia articles on these subjects.

I'd also point out the current status of Category:Mailboxes in the United States. As for mailbox categories - either treating them as a disambiguation category, or as the parent category for both letterboxes and postboxes should be fine. I'd recommend final structure as follows:

Mailbox
1. Postbox
2. Letterbox

In other words, Mailbox as a parent to postbox and letterbox (and also potentially email boxes too).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This IS the structure that is currently used! Oxyman (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then we stay put then (and the British mailbox cat would stay empty most of the time) :) One minor point is that Street furniture should not apply to UK letterboxes (a slot in a door is not street furniture), but should apply to UK postboxes; while it should apply to all US mailboxes.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion applies to all countries in order to keep the category structure neat and simple. The most logical structure that I have been using for years, from a postal and philatelic point of view is:

Mailboxes in foo, this is a parent category that should usually be empty
Subcategories
- Post boxes in foo, these are for posting mail that the post office will collect, sort and deliver
- Letter boxes in foo, for receiving mail

Just look at the main parent category Category:Mailboxes by country and you see the first two categories are Letter boxes by country and Post boxes by country then each country should have its own Post box and Letter box subcategories. In fact the parent category should probably be a deb page with an explanatory note just like Category:Mailboxes in the United States. There is no reason to have anything else. Ww2censor (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:ŠJů, probably unaware of this discussion, has moved the content of Category:Post office boxes by country and Category:Post office boxes in the Czech Republic to letter box categories and asked for speedy deletion of the emptied cats. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Some discussion about this problem was resolved once in 2010 (I cannot find the discussion itself but I think,this fitting category description followed it - here it was adpoted also to the Czech subcategory). As I can see, this new discussion needs nothing else then to apply the since 2010 respected consensus even for such forgotten countries which didn't apply it yet even during 7 years. Is there some new and serious reason to reopen the old discussion or revoke the old and convenient consensus?

The two missnamed categories proposed to speedy deletion were created recently by an user which often creates duplicate, misspelled or conspicuously unsystematical categories. He is very helpful and active and of the best will, but has ...ehm... a specific lack of sense for the categorization system. I suppose, he would not protest against the existing system established since 2010. The only one included image was recategorized by standard way. --ŠJů (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. I added this 2010 CFD (mentioned by User:ŠJů) at the hatnote of this discussion. Maybe it is helpful and helps to move on with this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Episcopalian bishops

Believe this category should be deleted, as only contains "Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States)" as a subcategory. Bishops of the Episcopal Church are not referred to as "Episcopalian bishops". If "Episcopalian bishops" is a common search phrase, then it should be a redirect, with "Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States)" as the target category.. Drbones1950 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The episcopal church is strong in Scotland, and has seven bishops, of which we have images of at least three. This suggests a category "Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland" ("in Scotland" to avoid confusion with the Church of Scotland). Hence I'd suggest this category is renamed to Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the addition of the category for Scotland. "Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States)" should be renamed to "Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States", since brackets in disambiguation mean "is a" rather than "is in". Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, I would agree to that suggestion. How is this renaming accomplished? Drbones1950 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple case of moving all the images to the new category, then creating it by moving the existing category, in this case I'd suggest without creating a redirect, to avoid further confusion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Scottish categories use the term Scottish Episcopal Church, so maybe Category:Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church would fit better. --Achim (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that but I think any naming should be consistent across nations. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What other countries are you thinking of, Rodhullandemu? The only churches in the Anglican Communion that I know of that call themselves Episcopal are the United States and Scotland. Or perhaps you are thinking of another type of consistency?Drbones1950 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found references to Episcopal churches in Canada and Australia, so I'd presume anywhere in the English-speaking world might have them- I'm not sure if it is a world church or merely a group of churches all calling themselves Episcopal but without being under one umbrella. What I meant was that the names of categories referring to these churches should follow the same format to avoid confusion. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked other images on Wikimedia that included "Episcopal" and either "Canada" and "Australia", and I found references from Canada to Episcopal Methodist churches and from both Canada and Australia to the word "episcopal" meaning bishop in the Roman Catholic church, but I did not find any other categories with Episcopal in the category names (except for subcats of the Episcopal Church in the United States). But if I can change the wording of the Episcopal Church U.S. I will also change the wording of the subcats. All very interesting! Drbones1950 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipalities in Vermont

This category doesn't seem helpful. It contains only the category for towns in Vermont, which could go directly under Category:Populated places in Vermont (or maybe under Category:Towns and villages in Vermont). Unless "municipality" means something specific in Vermont, I think we can delete this category. Auntof6 (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

en:Vermont municipality suggests that municipality does mean something specific in Vermont: "Vermont contains 246 incorporated towns and cities. Nine are cities and 237 are towns. Collectively, these 246 municipalities..." So all municipalities are cities and towns. No municipalities are villages. There are 40 incorporated villages in Vermont, but they are all part of larger muncipalities. On the contrary, I see Category:Towns and villages in Vermont as being not very useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't need Category:Towns and villages in Vermont just like the fact that the likes of Category:Towns and villages in Suffolk was moved to Category:Populated places in Suffolk though suburbs aren't towns or villages but the "towns" and "villages" categories can be in the "populated places" category without the extra level. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Category:Towns and villages in Vermont. What to do about Category:Municipalities in Vermont remains open to discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just like in English Wikipedia, this category is accurate and should not be a redirect: there are two types of municipalities ("municipal corporations") in Vermont (cities and towns), and they are in subcatergories; there are also possibly subcategories for flags, or seals of municipalities, or possibly for former municipalities.

More generaly, we should have a category of municiplities in all states, listing their subtypes and other categories for topics related to municipatities of each state (flags, seals, maps, former, ...). They are still incomplete in Commons, but are complete in English Wikipedia, and this is also needed for correctly settings Wikidate items and properly setting sitelinks for each Wikipedia (not all localized Wikipedia have a category grouping all municipalities in a state, and there's a frequent confusion between municipalities and their subtypes which may be different between each state ("cities" are found everywhere, "towns" or "incorportated towns" in most states, and sometimes "village", "city-county" or "city boroughs", plus special "cities" for New York City, which covers multiple "boroughs" that were former counties, and Washington DC because it's coterminus with a undivided state-equivalent "district"); as well we need a clear separation between municipalities and uncorporated communities almost everywhere.

The assumption that municipalities are the same as cities in the United states is false in general, as well as the frequent confusion between cities, towns, or even uninorporated towns and villages, or former cities and towns that may have been municipalities but no longer today because they are "ghost"/abandoned or destroyed/washed and remain just as named places, or bercause they were absorbed into another municipality and may be covered now by one or several of their municipal districts.

As well, municipalities can change their status from town to city (generally when their population reaches about 50k, or because a state law decided to give all its municipalities the status of a city, possibly by merging some of them or by integrating their surrounding unincorporated "townships" within the boundary of the "new" city. Also some towns (or cities?) that were formerly incorporated but that have been largely depopulated may also become unincorporated and still not included into any other municipality (they may become one or several census-designated places, or merged into another one, or just remain as unincorporated communities; the state will integrate them in one its counties or county-like subdivisions, e.g. for the state police because such uninorporated place can no longer have a municipal police, but they may still have a representation in some other metropolitan or micropolitan area, without having their own local government). verdy_p (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Episcopal Church (United States)

The editor Rodhullandemu suggested that:

"Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States) should be renamed to "Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States", since brackets in disambiguation mean "is a" rather than "is in"." Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC).

I would like to propose, by the same logic, that I change the parent Category:Episcopal Church (United States) to be "Episcopal Church in the United States" as well as changing the name of the subcat "Bishops..."-. Thoughts? Drbones1950 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the above. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1800 in Canada

In my opinion, this Category should be renamed 1800 in British North America, as should every category prior to the Confederation of Canada. I know several contributors who disagree, and feel that images of geographic topics should be named after whatever jurisdiction they are in now, without regard to what the location was named, when the image was made. I think the Crimea is the most recent example of what is wrong with this approach.

Crimea, until recently, was part of Ukraine. Now it is part of modern Russia. It was part of the Soviet Union for about 70 years. It was part of Imperial Russia, prior to that. Geo Swan (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. Do we want such categories to mean, for example, "1800 in the territory that is now called Canada"? There are similar issues in the United States history categories: years go back to 1565, decades go back to the 1540s, and centuries go back to the 8th century! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, one might assume Canada refers to Upper and Lower Canada, which did exist in 1800? I can see your point though. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British possessions in what is now Canada date back a long time. Britain had colonies in Newfoundland in the 17th Century. Britain's Hudson's Bay Company dates back to 1670. What is now the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were taken from the French about a decade prior to the capture of Quebec.

By the same token, pictures taken in Newfoundland, prior to Confederation, do not belong in a Canada category. Geo Swan (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: I guess, more importantly, the issue extends far beyond Canada. Did Romania exist before 1881? Did Belarus exist in 1800? What about Italy? Should the independent princely states be in Category:1800 in India? On the one hand, you're right - it's anachronism. On the other hand, if someone is looking for a history of the maritime provinces in 1800, it's not at all unreasonable that they might start at Canada in 1800 and expect to find something. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the category 1800 in Canada were renamed for 1800 in British North America, it would have to be removed from the superior category Canada by year at the same time and be added into a different superior category British North America by year. What is more, what should be the superior category for Category:Architecture in Toronto? Should it be split into Category:Architecture in Toronto before July 1, 1867 (which would have subcategories Architecture in Toronto before July 1, 1867 by decade and would fall under Architecture in British North America) and Category:Architecture in Toronto after July 1, 1867 (which would have subcategories Architecture in Toronto after July 1, 1867 by decade and would fall under Architecture in Canada)? I am afraid that this would make the things too complicated for the contributors and even more for people looking for images whose knowledge of Canadian history is not very deep. Or should it stay in one category Architecture in Toronto, which would have two superior categories (Architecture in British North America and Architecture in Canada) at the same time? Then e. g. the subcategory 1800s architecture in Toronto would be under both Category:Architecture in Canada and Category:Architecture in British North America, which is a nonsense if we decide that the post-1867 history does not fall under Canada. I have no idea what the good solution is, I just want to bring the attention to these questions too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moskvich 407 (II 1962 - 1963)

Along with category:Moskvich 407 (1959)‎ such detailed subcategories for pre- and post-facelift cars are completely redundant. They had no separate designations. Wikipedia articles on Moskvich 407 direct to main category category:Moskvich 407, which would contain no pictures, only sub-categories. Pibwl (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense to have detailed categories, especially if they are based on external details.

Consider this: someone is looking for a picture of a Moskvich 407 from a particular series but doesn't have the detailed knowledge to be able to pick out one from sometimes less than ideal pictures and even if he/she does he/she probably doesn't have unlimited time to look through potentially hundreds of pictures.

To solve this problem either every picture needs to contain this information in the name and/or the description (good luck enforcing that or periodically manually fixing that yourself) OR we could simply have a category which is way easier to use (especially when tools like the Cat-a-lot are used) than having to go into every single picture and edit the description manually. Also as an added bonus, thanks to this category's name, it gets suggested when an uploader is adding a Moskvich 407 category potentially solving the problem ealier.

Also saying that the Wikipedia article doesn't point to either one of these categories is not an argument for removing them because 1. there are many categories on Wikimedia Commons that don't have Wikipedia articles that point to them and 2. it is not impossible for a link to be added at a later date. Wikimedia Commons is separate from Wikipedia and can have categories for things that don't (yet) have their own articles on Wikipedia. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...or for things that are included in articles about related things. I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article, but it might cover different models in the same article. I agree that it's worth having this kind of category. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine a realistic situation, that someone needs a photo of specifically pre-facelift Moskvich 407, and yet, despite that he has a knowledge about M-407 facelift, he can't judge by the first glance on its grill, if it is pre- or post-facelift. Of course, such category will be useful, if we have a rear view (with subtle differences) and we know into which category it should go. But in cases of rear views, they will probably go to general 407 category anyway, for we rarely can be sure. I won't argue, if there is a strong support, but I find general categories splitting into detailed sub-categories inconvenient, because we have to browse each sub-category, instead of having a quick look on a variety of Moskviches 407. And in this case this is not a separate model, and won't have a separate article. Pibwl (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course with enough knowledge and time you can probably find what you're looking for but the categories serve as a time-saving measure. From my personal experience I can say that I find looking through categories with a large number of pictures to be tiring and therefore I think it is a good idea to try to break categories into smaller ones to minimize the amount of pictures in each category.

Also consider that there can be links to more than one category in a Wikipedia article. A series of a vehicle is usually described in a single section and that section can have a link to the relevant category.

Additionally it is difficult to draw the line between allowed and not allowed subcategories. I mean what is so fundamentally different between categories such as Moskvich 407 (II 1962 - 1963) and Ford Focus Mk II (as far as I can tell it is a made up name to symbolize the second generation) that makes the second one ok but the other one not? Both of these categories refer to visually different versions of their respective vehicles but in neither case does this version have a different official name than the one before it or do you believe we should abolish all subcategories without a different model name? Meanwhile we have different categories for vehicles built under license by different manufacturers, for example FIAT cars produced by SEAT, even though the only difference between them might the badge on the front. It is better to allow categories such as this than having to argue about every single car model and whether it is ok to have subcategories for it or not. Especially since you'll then have to convince every person who appears later and tries to create these subcategories that you want to ban. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @SuperTank17, Pibwl, and Auntof6: the nominated category is empty. Can we delete the nominated category, and close this CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 I'm fine with that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It lasted so long, that somebody moved the files? Of course it's pointless now. Pibwl (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:September 2007 Finland photographs

Does it make sense to have a Category:September 2007 Finland photographs as a subcat of Category:September 2007 in Finland? Achim (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least in the 21st century. J 1982 (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J 1982, you created that category, so you can tell us the difference regarding the images. Which ones fit to which category? --Achim (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are subcategories like "Finland photographs taken on 2007-09-06", "Finland photographs taken on 2007-09-07" and so on (just none of those have been created for September 2007 in Finland yet). In the last years, these categories have appeared for many countries (still mostly during the 21st century). J 1982 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, and when the moving of files is done then Category:September 2007 in Finland will contain Category:September 2007 Finland photographs only or did I miss something? --Achim (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Finland up to 31 December 2009 you can also add categories for "X month y year in z county". J 1982 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion. @J 1982 and Achim55: Seems to be solved?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and I don't care. When hopefully one day the category intersection mechanism will be implemented into the wiki software hundreds of thousands of these categories will be thrown away. --Achim55 (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful for many users. In the future bots will automatically add these categories. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 06:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy images by location

Starting with Category:United States Navy images by location there are approx. 2592 a large number of images that have been placed in categorization that doesn't meet the normal standards for Categorization within commons.

As I can see, there seems to be several different problems here:

Many of the subcategories under the United States Navy images by location categorization have unnecessary all caps in some portions such as Category:Images from US Navy, location AGAT, Guam‎;
Some have abbreviations such as Category:Images from US Navy, location Anaheim, Calif.‎
Some have categories that are duplicates of others such as Category:Camp Barber and Category:Images from US Navy, location CAMP BARBER, Afghanistan;
There is usually no need to say "Images of" or "Photographs of" categories because that is the majority of what is in commons, so it's essentially duplicative to state that explicitly;
The format of "Images from US Navy, location Anaheim, Calif.‎" isn't necessary.

I would like to discuss cleaning up these categories and renaming them to a more appropriate title. For example, Category:United States Navy images of Anaheim, California or losing the location completely from the title and doing that by categorization.

Below is a rather large list of the categories I could identify with this particular problem.

Extended content

Reguyla (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary heading so people don't have to scroll through the long list

Are you saying we don't need a category for identifying that the images came from the US Navy? We have similar categories for other sources, such as Category:Historic American Buildings Survey. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6 Not exactly. Some do need to be eliminated or merged IMO yes. I don't have a problem with having them categorized as Navy related in some way, but I think these categories need a lot of cleanup with regard to the names and with the amount of them and after consulting a couple of others, it was felt a discussion was the best course. Reguyla (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: I don't think this is about the 'Navy source' categories, at all... those are usually added by templates, anyhow. It's about the naming of the 'source-by-location' categories, which is indeed quite awkward. Revent^talk 00:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a holdover from when we got a big upload of Navy images a few years back the wierd naming, all caps etc were all from the original source, the Commons cats were created around the US Navy naming in order that otherwise uncategorised files could be quickly categorised into Commoms, and be sorted out into more appropriate categories, as a maintenance category these were meant to be basically temporary and disposable, and if they have served their purpose, then its fine that they be deleted, and many have.--KTo288 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the background. I'll be working to keep refining these and chopping them over time. Reguyla (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been sorting through these as well. The bot really went overboard with the categorizing here. A lot of these categories are duplicates, typos, misspellings, that weird capital-letters scheme, places that don't even exist, sometimes total nonsense, and locations that are way too specific and don't need cats of their own. Some are categorized as US Navy images when they are actually from the Marine Corps or other branches. I have been merging images into existing categories. Now there are hundreds of empty categories located at Category:United States Navy images by location to be classified, these can be deleted if no one objects. Will continue to sort. I am kind of enjoying learning about international geography by sorting these. Thanks. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I tagged all of the subcats of Category:United States Navy images by location to be classified conditionally for speedy deletion, so they will automatically show up at Category:Other speedy deletions as soon as they are empty. --Achim (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: Sometimes that kind of code doesn't work the way you'd want. When the cat becomes empty, you see the speedy notice on the category, but it doesn't show up in the other speedy deletions category. Right now Category:Images from US Navy, location AIN SOKNAL, Egypt is showing the notice, but it isn't shown in Category:Other speedy deletions -- none of the empty cats here are. Sometimes you have to edit the empty category to get it to show up. A null edit is enough, and I've been able to do those with AWB. If you don't want to bother picking out the categories that are empty, just load up everything in Category:United States Navy images by location to be classified in AWB and click save on each without making any changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6, you're right, it's a general problem of transcluded templates that affects also some other categories like Category:Broken category redirects, Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories or Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories by grid square. Therefore I run about 3 times a week pywikibot touching the 'missing' files, so they will show up then. --Achim (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm running it and they show up. --Achim (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the transclusion problem is because there was no 1= in the speedydeletion portion of the template. Reguyla (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks likes all these images were deleted so this can be closed as moot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Impressions

What is this category for? There are different things that the name could mean, but neither the content nor the parent categories seem to make sense with them. Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you think of a less encyclopedic or obvious category than this. ill try to see if there is a photographic definition. well, cant find any. its being used very vaguely here. we do have categories for colors, that should be enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content here does seem weird to me too, but please be careful. Category:Impressions left by objects and Category:Impressions left by traveling objects were, after lengthy discussion, the only way we could find to group together foot prints, animal tracks, hand prints, and vehicle tracks. They obviously belong together, but it's hard to find a common noun for them. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: @Themightyquill: I would like to do some categorizing of media by color and location, but given the controversy about this category I wanted to talk about it with you guys first. Are categories like that acceptable? Should the naming scheme follow the "Red impressions in the United States" format or is there a better naming scheme that doesn't descend from this vague category? Abyssal (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abyssal: What's an impression? The whole category is at risk of deletion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I'm not trying to defend this particular category; as you noted, the word "impression" is basically meaningless. I do think the concept behind "[color] impressions in [place]" subcategory could be useful if it were unburdened from its gobbledegooky name, though. I was just wondering what category to use that's a bit less narrow than "[Color] objects in [place]" so it can include living things, landscapes, the sky, etc. Abyssal (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about "subjects" (e.g. Category:Red subjects instead of Category:Red impressions)? We have Category:Unidentified subjects, Category:Proposed or planned subjects, Category:No longer existent subjects. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an improvement to me. Abyssal (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the category should be disambiguated between:

Impressions (physical marks)
Impressions (perceived)
Impressions (tools) (such as used in dentistry and metalwork)

The second being useful for distinguishing gestalt impressions of, say, shapes from explicit shapes. The fact that "$colour impressions" even is a thing stems from earlier separation that was desired between images that are purely (e.g.) red and images that feature things that are red, or look like red. --Pitke (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That abiguity is exactly the problem, but Category:Impressions (perceived) and Category:Red impressions (perceived) are more than a little awkard. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think/hope that "subjects" could work.

Category:Topics ~~Category:Impressions~~

Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss of words to describe my own complaints sufficiently right now, but I know that our maths-minded friends will be very upset if we call our "these birds form a sort of symmetrical arrangement" media just "symmetrical X". This is why I originally called the "symmetry impressions" category that, because the media within has impressions of symmetry, not true symmetry. That's what I intended to be the scope of these sorts of categories. Photographic impressions, less than precise but communicative exapmles of various phenomena. In the sense of the art movement. The frantic brush strokes don't exactly portray the subjects, they deliver impressions. And while some categories could easily be given equivalent names without the word "impression" (how about "symmetry approximations in nature"?), some would be harder to rename ("animals being visually hard to distinguish from their environments"? how about the collective category for "X on X" colour photos, "almost monochrome photos"?) --Pitke (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ies: I don't understand this subcategory either: why does it have subcategories like Category:Yellow impressions? Jarble (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the wrong user. I didn't invent this impression stuff. Only added a then missing color. -- Ies (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10

Contents

Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name

Category:Mailboxes in England

Category:Episcopalian bishops

Category:Municipalities in Vermont

Category:Episcopal Church (United States)

Category:1800 in Canada

Category:Moskvich 407 (II 1962 - 1963)

Category:September 2007 Finland photographs

Category:United States Navy images by location

Category:Impressions

Navigation menu

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10

Navigation menu

Search