Issue 1: Resolve confusion of subcategory names. There is confusion between the subcategories in Category:Churches by name and those in Category:Churches by patron saint because many of them have similar names. This could be fixed by renaming the subcategories in one or both of these.
Issue 2: What should be in the by-name category? Should entries named after saints be in Category:Churches by name? User:Motacilla has recently removed almost all of the entries from the subcategory Category:St. James churches. (I don't know if any other categories have been similarly emptied.) Those categories are now under categories specfic to the saint they are associated with (there is more than one saint named James). This tells me that there is a question as to whether churches named for saints should even be in Category:Churches by name. I think they should, because there is not a one-to-one correlation between churches dedicated to any given saint and churches named for that saint. Examples of what I mean are:
There are churches dedicated to Saint James the Greater and Saint James the Less that are named just "Saint James" (or Saint Jacques, etc.) without indicating which saint they are for.
There are churches dedicated to Saint Mary that don't bear her name, but instead have names like Immaculate Conception, Our Lady, and others.
I prefer to consider a church or other religious building for their dedication and naming (but in Italian "intitolazione" is traslate in English only with "naming"?) because if it might be correct bedlam is definitely made between popular name and official dedication, also sometimes the name of the parish (talking about Roman Catholic) does not match the name of the church. For an Italian contributor by name (per nome) is not clear, and in Italy we do not have tens of thousands of churches, oratories, chapels, abbeys, monaster, convents...--Threecharlie (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For me a buffer category could also remain, however, specifying that it is a service category is intended to be filled by those religious buildings of which we know only the name, for exemple to Saint John (Evangelist, Baptist), to Saint Anthony (Of Padua, the Great) and many others that for a not particularly precise contributor may be the only saint to have that name around the world. It would therefore be necessary that there were expert users who move at the precise holy individual images and categories but if you learn to do it right the chargers pictures we take away very dirty work which already is almost unmanageable.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the problem of the specific dedications of Mary the mother of Jesus churches is solvable with subcategories for the countless iconography, even art, which is represented, with or without the child, sitting, standing, with saints and not, see, please, en:Titles of Mary, In Italy, for example, we have thousands of churches dedicated to the Immaculate Conception which contain in turn, paintings, frescoes, statues, reliefs, mosaics, ceramics, stained glass windows that concern that particular iconography.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a serious problem with the articles and categories. People from Tamilnadu names the dam as Soliayar Dam, Nirar Dam, Aliyar Dam etc. and they think that this is the only dam in that area. Because the entry to Lower Sholayar Dam in Kerala is restricted. But with the permission from Forest Dept and KSEB we can visit the Lower Sholayar Dam. Also most people from Tamilnadu upload photos in this spelling. So it is better to keep this category for Upper Sholayar Dam and the other category Sholayar Dam must stay for Lower Sholayar because people from Kerala think that the spelling is Sholayar. Recently the page in English wiki was redirected to Solaiyar and which was also wrong. So In my opinion it is better to keep like this. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the move / current status is OK. I won't lose any sleep over another name. If renamed to Stadion Hirnyk then the city name should be Komsomolske, same as in parent categories. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: I’m no expert, but it appears to mirror the terrible tangle with naming of these ethnic groups. In Western languages “Circassians” usually refer to all three branches, whereas in Russian there are кабардинцы=Kabardinians, черкесы=(?), and адыгейцы=Adyghe. To confuse all us further, the endonym of the whole people is “Adyghe”. I don’t expect anybody here can improve it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I understand at least one user agrees with me that there is a problem here. That is a first good step towards finding a solution. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have seen some other Korean firefighters with cats, one even has "pages"... Something has to be done, but what? --E4024 (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can simple delete these cat but what we can do is to categories the pic with the events. Some pics seem to be from a firefighting exercise and other seem to be from a ceremony. In military cat we don't use for every soldier a category but sometimes we categorize certain events of a unit in a sub cat (like change of command or award ceremony).--Sanandros (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "Simplicity principle This principle suggests not to combine too many different criteria." And with authors I mean all these persons which are a parent category right now.--Sanandros (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, keeping track of that would be a lot more difficult during the upload process.
Second, doing so would cause all those photos to appear on the main category pages of those subjects. Consider that you're talking about hundreds of photos showing up those pages. When that happens, categories need to be subdivided, which is one of the main reasons I've grouped them by event. When you consider the sheer number of signings I've covered (do you intend to do this to ALL of them?), and the fact that many of these people have appeared at multiple signings (I've photographed Peter David, for example, at six different events that yielded photo counts large enough to merit their own cat pages), this would result in a mess of way too many photos placed on the main categories pages for users to navigate through. Isn't this why we subdivided into subcats in the first place?
Third, I see nothing at the Commons:Categories that indicates that 12 criteria qualifies as "too many", nor does it give any indication of any number that so qualifies.
This is how I've categoried the over 10,000 photos from signings I've uploaded to the Commons since 2007, and I've never gotten any indication from a single member of the community that there is anything wrong with this until now. It's what works for me, as it makes the workload of uploading so many photos slightly more manageable, and organizes it more easily for the user. When you're talking about hundreds of photos per signing, with different subjects in each photo, having to keep track of which cats to put each photo in as I upload them is simply not reasonable nor feasible. My system works fine. Please leave it alone. Nightscream (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would not bother me so much if all of these guys are just categorized in the comic cats but Tom King is categorized in the CIA cat, and obviously a Batman singing is not a child category of the CIA.--Sanandros (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we should be open to considering the practice, at least in some situations like this one, that categories can be directly related to their immediate parent or child category, and not always to their grandparent/grandchild one. The degree to which it is possible to adhere to organizational rules in systems as vast as the Commons is naturally going to be limited, and not entirely absolute, as imperfections or inconsistencies may at one point or another be unavoidable. I think that important thing is that in general, at least, this mostly works fine. Nightscream (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. @Nightscream: Here is categorization mistakes as noted by user:Sanandros. Firstly, the category name should be something like "Category:Batman Day in 2016" (location to be added if needed, but currently even Category:Batman Day is missing). Secondly, for the specific person, the acceptable category name would be "Category:Scott Snyder at Batman Day 2016", and this can be categorized under "Category:Scott Snyder"--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my response above. Regarding the first matter, the passage cotaining the link to the Midtown Comics signings applies. Regarding the second matter, the passages regarding uploading large amounts of photos. Nightscream (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a definition of what fits in this category. If it were fully populated, it would probably have so many things in it that it wouldn't be useful. Unless we can define criteria for including things here, and possibly subcategorize, this cat should probably be deleted. Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Gazpacho de torta", I believe, must be separated from this cat. I'm not an expert on Spanish cuisine. I'm not sure if we should make it a totally different cat or a subcat of this one. Certainly these plates (I have seen that there are 4 or 5 in Commons) are quite different from what people imagine when we talk about "gazpacho". Any ideas from Spanish cuisine connoisseurs? E4024 (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the best solution would be to make a separated category about the "Andalusian gazpacho", which is the most common and popular form of gazpacho; that is, the one with tomatoes, vinegar and so on, typical from Andalusia. The term gazpacho predates this recipe, before the exploration of the New World and the discovery of tomatoes, hence the other variants of gazpacho and subsequent confusion. Mr Ricochet (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a disam page could help here. Regrettably -sometimes myself included- people prefer not to discuss and reach a consensus based on compromise, or find a "solution" in problematic cases with no conflicts involved, and make things more complicated than before. Not only here in this case, I see it everyday in Commons. --E4024 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category name should be "Party per fess fields" or even better "Fields party per fess". Charges can also be "per fess", for example a lion rampant per fess gules and vert. Need to reorganise structure with top level category "Per fess in heraldry" Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Juramento has diffrent mreanings. It could mean oath or a city in Brasil. But moast pics seem to refere to an oath. Can sb with better spanish anf portugese knowledge check the pics? Sanandros (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A town of 4k inhabitants as a primary topic, oRLY? A median underground station serves more people daily. Disambiguate certainly. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. All of these "Department of" categories are duplicative and inconsistent with established category naming conventions. If they are important to the institution (e.g., to indicate where the image came from), perhaps they could be renamed more explicitly and made into hidden categories, perhaps as subcategories of Images from Metropolitan Museum of Art or some other appropriate umbrella category. Laura1822 (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A departmental category refers to the curatorial department and galleries that host the artwork. This is quite different from a category based on a purely subject-based classification. For example, the Department of Islamic Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art includes a number of artworks from non-Islamic cultures (e.g. Christians in Islamic Spain), while there are a number of works from Islamic cultures in other departments (e.g. in the Department of Arms and Armor).--Pharos (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The language-specific subcategories of Category:Male names and Category:Female names seem to invite random categorization: I can´t see that "Maria" or "Anne" were specifically Catalan or "Samuel" specifically Spanish (or else why they shouldn´t be categorized in about 120 other languages as well.) Please discuss the need for the subcategories and - if you really consider them helpful for Commons´ scope of storing media files - suggest a category description that makes clear how names and languages are to be assigned to each other. Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a seperate discussion, perhaps, could we hide the (given name) categories? The category relays no information about the person. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not as a category. The name is stated at the top. It adds nothing to know who else is called, say, "Felix". -- Deadstar (msg) 08:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Names have their own fashion; they say a lot of things about the person, the idiosyncrasy of her parents, etc. It is such a simple thing... Only think about the case of former Jews in Spain (the Golden Sefarad) who took the surname "Santa Cruz". Oh sorry, that's a surname, not a male name. --E4024 (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the language/gender-specific categories are helpful. That's partly for the reasons mentioned above, and partly because a name can be from different languages and for different genders. For example, "Jean" is a French male name but an English female one. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I name my daughter Melisa it means we are a secular family (or I watch too much TV :) and if I name her Cennet probably we are a bit religious. And so on... (Sorry, these are female names, I got confused again. :) --E4024 (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, male names: Why do we have a user:Christian Ferrer (good admin BTW :) but not user Muslim Ferrer? What if I call my son "Hamdullah" (Thanks to God) or "Gökberk"? In the first case we can easily assume we have a pious family, in the latter probably a Turkish nationalist. Probably... (Probably means useful hints.) --E4024 (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's becoming more and more common for people to choose names according to fashion, example a lot of french people choose names of Anglo-Saxon origin while they are not of Anglo-Saxon origin. Therefore it becomes difficult to determine the origin of someone with their given name. I do not particularly see any particular interest in these categories, but it does not bother me particularly either. With the structured data and Wikidata, all this kind of categories will certainly disappear eventually, as the ethological origin of a first name can be defined with a property and then it should be easy for all those who are interested in finding people according to the origin of their first name, to obtain this kind of result with simple queries. In fact, all that falls under categories intersetions should become gradually obsolete and replaced by queries. Hallelujah, categories for discussion and all the related maintenance work will be greatly simplified. Christian Ferrer(talk)11:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Masculine given names. While I think categories like these are utterly worthless for helping people find usable media, the categories names should at least be unambiguous. Since {{Wikidata infobox}} automatically imposes Given name and Surname categories whether we like it or not, our surname and given name categories should be kept distinct. A name is not male or female (people are) but it can be culturally masculine or feminine in usage. --Animalparty (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Wikidata Infobox adds several types of categories, both hidden and not, based on corresponding Wikidata fields. I'm most familiar with its usage in biographical categories: see e.g. Category:John McCain, in which it automatically adds categories for birth and death years, given name and surname , a variety of awards received (e.g. Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart (United States)) and hidden categories such as "Deceased people by name", "Men by name", "People by name". See more at Commons:Wikidata infobox help. As for the Given name categories themselves, I'm not sure if they predated the existence of the Wikidata Infobox, but the infobox has certainly aided in filling them. --Animalparty (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Animalparty: Wow, thanks for pointing that out. It has certainly advanced a lot from the last time I've taken a good look at it. The good news is that if any of the template-imposed categorization needs to change, Mike Peel (talk·contribs) has been pretty responsive in updating it to fix problems. The template should serve the Commons, not the other way around. Josh (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Given names. These categories are indeed worthless for media discovery. I agree with Animalparty (talk·contribs) that names are not gendered, despite cultural limitations that may exist (or have existed) on which humans such names were given too. To impose our own assertions on given names just ensures that the categorization is not only useless, but fundamentally incorrect. The question of language-specific names is a bit more involved, but I'm not sure how one determines the language of a name, so I likwise lean to eliminaing these distinctions in our categorization scheme. At a minimum, they are worthless for media discovery, and worse they may be inaccurate and proliferate misconceptions. Josh (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, enwiki also uses the category name "masculine given names" and "feminine given names", see en:Category:Given names. Secondly, I also think that this given name categorization by language should be stopped and liquidated from Commons. In enwiki, this categorization may stay--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category should be deleted as Class 350s and Class 185s have never been on the Glossop line. Secondly, as these unit are in a depot, I wouldn‘t classify them to be on any line. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that a depot is on a line, and in this case it's the Glossop Line. As far as I'm concerned, any bit of rail connected to the national network is a line of some sort - be that an extension past the terminus (as in the case of Goodrington Carriage Sidings) or adjacent to the line (such as at Reading). A line is not just when the trains are in service, it exists independently of the trains. I'm open to this not being the Glossop Line if you can come up with some more appropriate line. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see Pkbwcgs' argument that this is in a depot rather than a running line, I agree with Mattbuck that it is connected to the Glossop Line. You could possibly make a case for it being connected to the Stafford-Manchester Line instead as the connection is right at the junction of the two and Stafford is the primary route into Piccadilly. Geof Sheppard (talk)
I agree however there are already 19 other categories of engines labeled as SNCB-NMBS that began life as Belgian State Railways (EB) engines (and most of them ran for SNCB longer than they did for EB) so I don't know what to do with all of them. It could be better in order to have some continuity between all engines used by SNCB to label as "Belgian State Railways type..." classes that were withdrawn before the SNCB was created or that changed name when SNCB started to use them. That's one of the reasons why I createdCategory:Belgian State Railways Type 15 and some other cats. talk) 22:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By browsing Category:Steam locomotives of Belgium and Category:Steam locomotives of Belgian State Railways, locomotives that started their careers with the Belgian State Railways are named SNCB-NMBS Type … while names such as Belgian State Railways Type … is only used when the class became extinct before the creation of the SNCB-NMBS (1926) or when the SNCB-NMBS class numbers differs from the Belgian State one (like the type 32/32S becoming type 44/41). The type 36 locomotives came to life in 1909-1922, were still listed as type 36 by the SNCB/NMBS and were ultimately withdrawn in 1947 Stratoswift (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu, Apalsola, Havang(nl), Jmabel, and Abzeronow: There is consensus here to merge to Category:March 2011 in France. However, there are many other categories with similar naming (for France and for other countries) that should probably be changed in the same way. Do we need to publicize this so that 1) we get agreement for the larger effort and/or 2) we don't unduly surprise people when these are renamed? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think all similarly named categories should be renamed in the same way but, as you said, that probably needs a broader discussion. ––Apalsolat • c10:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An announcement on the Village Pump & 72 hours for people to raise objections would be enough. I don't see this requiring another whole go-round here at CfD. - Jmabel ! talk16:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and similar cases. I agree with the general reasoning above. The vast majority of files on Commons are photos so I don't see a need for subcategorizing specifically as photographs. Categorizing uploads by day (e.g. 2011-03-01 in France) is fine by me, though. Blythwood (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there similar duplicates with the other "<Month> <year> <Country> photographs" categories? What should the standard name be? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a consensus for the categories that specify month and year. What about the ones that also specify a day, such as Category:France photographs taken on 2014-06-02? Do we eliminate them, on the assumption that categorizing by month is enough? Or do we rename them, maybe to something like "France on 2014-06-02"? My preference would be to combine them into month categories, especially since so many of the day categories have a very small number of files. If there is a large number for a specific day, it's probably because there was a specific event that day, and a category can be created for that event.
And another Information: I've seen a lot of discussions within the last years about categories like "... photographs taken on ..." and the navigation templates. Please have a look to all these discussion - with the search engine. There is no common agreement. --XRaytalk07:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Triplec85: Please explain how this is useful for many users. Also, what are your thoughts on the comment that the phrase "France photographs" is unclear? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Thousands of photographs by year become a structure.
2. Easy to navigate through months ... and other advantages.
3. By the time, more and more users have good smartphones with good cameras (every day available on their way)... The number of images is constantly increasing, still progressive. Bots are uploading more and more images. We already have over 90 million images. We will have billions of images in Commons before the end of this century. These categories create order, even in the long term.
4. And: Useful (in their individual opinion) for many users.
Delete and similar cases. I agree with the general reasoning above. The vast majority of images on Commons are photos so I don't see a need for subcategorizing specifically as photographs. Blythwood (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the discussion. I understand in some language this name ("Jewish style artichoke/s") was used first and then passed to other languages. It could be an interesting etymological study. Alas, close this and let's save efforts, but look at the pic I added also. --E4024 (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. Seems to be same food. See eg [1], which says "Carciofi alla giudia, littéralement « artichauts à la Juive »". @Varaine: please elaborate your statement, references would be also good. Otherwise we cannot consider your statement--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of the very confusing "as food" and "based food" "duplicate" cats, we should use the word "dishes". Let's please make (nothing stops me, but I want to change the previous situation first) a cat for "liver dishes". Only in Turkish cuisine we have at least 10 varieties of them. E4024 (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Liver as food" is for images that show a piece of raw liver, for instance in the market, to be sold as food. "Liver-based food" should be for prepared liver dishes. Quite some time ago, someone or some people started changing many of the categories "..... dishes" into "....-based food". I don't have a preference for one or the other. - Takeaway (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the "liver as food" category and at most one of the "dishes" or "-based food" cats. The latter would not include showing liver that is for consumption but which has not been made into a dish yet (for example, Takeaway's example above of liver for sale, images of ingredients that include liver, or even nutritional info about liver). Somewhat along these sane lines, shouldn't some of the subcats either be renamed to specify "as food" or be moved out of the "as food" cat? Resolving this might require merging Category:Pork liver and Category:Sus scrofa domesticus livers. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i'm having the same problem now. i want to create a subcat for cat:shark fins for images of shark fins intended for human consumption (a delicacy in east asia), but i cant be sure whether it should be "shark fins as food" or "shark fin-based food".
i do feel that the distinction noted above -- "as food" for everything, including things not yet made into consumable food, vs "-based food" for something already made into food -- is valid. RZuo (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are hard to find. OTOH these are interchangable bayonets, at least from M59 on forward. I don't know if the M47 fits on a AKM, maybe the bayonet lug will interfere. I see no need to distinguish them further from what the gallery provides. --Markscheider (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Removed or replaced. I avoided adding any low-ql-template because i found some good photos as well and likely very low ql photos should be deleted. A list of affected files is here just in the case someone wants to look at it. I think you can close the CFD then. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: {{Low quality}} applies to the whole of a photograph, while the scope of this CfD are (also) used to categorize background details of otherwise unrelated photographs, which can be of high quality in toto. (That’s why most of these cats should probably be renamed from "(low quality)" to "(incidental)".) -- Tuválkin✉✇11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Low photographic quality, while worth being categorized, is not a criteria fo deletion per se. In the case at hand many botanical aspcts that are notable may only have these images to attest them, being therefore in scope regardless of low quality. -- Tuválkin✉✇11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was a wrong deletion, and I regret I din’t saw this discussion before. Please inform yourselves about the significance of these categories, undelete them, and repopulate (yes, it’s lots of work — but it’s good for the project, and also yiels a lot of admin actions into your edit count!). -- Tuválkin✉✇11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: No files have been deleted (I just proposed bad ql files may be deleted if out of scope, but i am not a fan of deleting such files. I saw a number of good one in those category's), just the unneeded category has been removed as per consensus above. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: I also missed this discussion. Can we please undo this? The reason we had this category is that it gets clogged up with images that are of such bad quality that they are impossible to identify. People who periodically look through the unidentified plants cat to identify images then have to scroll past heaps of images again and again because they will never be identified. Amada44talk to me16:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amada44: There were multiple category's for identified files, i don't think such tagging is currently allowed. Regarding plants which are impossible to identify, maybe there should be a category for that (impossible to identify). We also can batch add them to the cat if needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: You have just deleted 14 categories without following the procedures of Commons:Categories for discussion based on one person saying that he dosen’t like the category because one of his images was put in them and one person agreeing with that. You did not notify the category creators. Following cats where deleted:
Looking through the categories linked above, many of the images categorizes like this are crisp and high resolution, and therefore I don't think they even qualify as "low quality." - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Yes we ABSOLUTELY do need them. It's much easier to sort them using hot cat rather than tagging each image, and, most importantly it means the unusable images can be moved out of the normal category, where they just clutter things up. These are essential for the big tourist sites, not to mention cats (felids) I suppose. I wush more people set these up and populated them. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or move them to a new name not referring to quality). Quality is handled through different processes in Commons, guided by some form of community consensus. With regards to something being "incidental" in an image or not... that is not related to quality, but incidentality (sic). Disclaimer: I've reached this discussion by finding this category in a reasonably usable file (not mine). Strakhov (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we are better off not intersecting low quality images with categorization. What is someone supposed to do in Category:Unidentified plants in India (low quality)? Go up and find another unidentified plant and replace the low-quality image with a higher quality but also unidentified image? For the more useful categories, if I see an image in use that has a low quality tag, I can look into the category (not the parent to find the non-low quality images) and replace the image in use. It seems like categorization for the sake of categorization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the categories for popular subjects are often overloaded with many blurred or unsharp images with random focus, regardless of the resolution or size. Just look at them in their full size. In such cases finding a reasonable photo to illustrate what you need takes so much time (checking 200-300 images is an easy go). The categories discussed here are not named "low resolution" or "low size". Such images can still be of good quality, if they show the subject, are sharp and informative. This is also not the case for "incidental" categories - they exists for a different reason: to avoid confusion and clearly state what is the main subject and what is not (e.g. people usually don't know all the plant species, so it allows to lower the number of mistakes, which I correct quite often). Maybe there is a better name than "low quality" though. Nova (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could work for me and the blurry problem. But, what with the rest of problems mentioned in the low quality template: very small, unfixably too light/dark, or may not adequately illustrate the subject of the image? There would have to be 3-4 different categories instead of one. The Category:Images of low quality is huge, contains a lot of files (~15k) and subcategories, processing them would be challenging. There is also the instruction page Commons:Media for cleanup with info how to cope with low quality images. Changing the approach requires a wider consensus. Nova (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subcats should be harmonized to either be "food with ... background" or "food on ... background". I prefer "with" but I think it could use discussion before moving everything. Guanaco (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be better to harmonize them, but I think "on" sounds slightly better. However it's close enough that I suggest we just go with which ever requires less re-categorization. Interestingly, among the other "X by background" categories, there doesn't look to me to be a strong majority. Within this Food category, I see all 6 Apple subcategories use on, along with 3 of the other categories. with has the other 7 categories, giving it a majority of the direct subcats, but a minority when the Apple subcats are counted. Sigh. JesseW (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a discussion that needs to be held for the entirety of the Category:Objects by background subtree at once. It does not make sense to agree on one convention for food and another one for (e.g.) weapons. Propose to close this without changes and start a new one for all subcategories of Category:Objects by background. That might also have the benefit of getting more people involved. --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be merged to Category:Mercedes-Benz Superdome to align with the en-wiki article en:Mercedes-Benz Superdome. There is no substantial difference between the images in the two categories except the time period and the separate categories only adds confusion. It's possible to create _____ by year categories if separation by time period is a necessity.
Renaming the category based on corporate naming rights also follows other NFL stadium categories:
Disagree. For the majority of it's existence, the building has been officially the "Louisiana Superdome". It has a temporary marketing deal which began 23 October 2011 for a projected 10 year period into the future; no provision has been made to extend this advertising into the past. (For example to state that the 1988 Republican National Convention took place at the "Mercedes-Benz Superdome" would be a falsehood, since no building of that name existed at the time.) Notes: Within Louisiana outside of commercial sports broadcasting and advertising it is still generally simply known as "The Superdome", as it has been. For an example of the advertising promotion not being used when referring to the building in the time before the marketing deal began, see eg usage at the New Orleans Times-Picayune/Nola com: [2] -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: As to "no substantial difference between the images"; the most easily noticeable difference is specifically that large Mercedes-Benz logo and text is on the building during the marketing period. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any real difference between what you describe, and images of the Miami Dolphins' home when it was named Joe Robbie/Dolphin/Pro Player/Sun life being under Category:Hard Rock Stadium? It's the same building in the same location serving the same purpose under a different name. Name of the building doesn't change what's happening in it. With the Superdome, nothing has changed about the stadium structurally. It's the same shape, size and color.
Also, how do you feel about a merge going the other way, with Category:Mercedes-Benz Superdome merging and redirecting to Category:Louisiana Superdome? Ytoyoda (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinion on what the parent category should be. Most of the media we have is from when it was officially the Louisiana Superdome, and if no extended marketing agreement is made that's likely what it will be again. However I acknowledge that "Mercedes-Benz Superdome" is the current official name, and the possibility that over the next few years should that continue the media specifically relevant to when the building was so named is likely to become more numerous. I just feel it inappropriate to recategorize historic media into a name that did not exist at the time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The merchandising deal having expired, the stadium is no longer branded "Mercedes-Benz" and has reverted to being "The Louisiana Superdome". I suggest closing this discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not en:wikipedia. I think Commons has a bit more grounding in history and a bit less frantic eagerness to frequently change things for the sake of recentism. There was no such building as "Caesars Superdome" until July 2021. The vast majority of our media predates that, and it would be dishonest to describe it by a name that did not exist at the time. The permanent legal name of the structure is the "Louisiana Superdome". If all media should be in a single category, that is what the category should be. If we wish to bow to commercial advertising, names of the advertiser should only apply to media from the time when the advertising sponsorship was in effect, so "Caesars Superdome" would be a subcategory for media from late 2021 until whenever the sponsorship expires or the name is changed again. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are many subcategories already. The Eichsfeld is a region where religious objects are more evident than in the surrounding areas of Germany. So it would probably help to have such a parent category for all those subcategories, e.g. Religion in the Eichsfeld. imo the category could be renamed rather than split or deleted. --Dehio (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Eichsfeld and Landkreis Eichsfeld are not the same area. The Eichsfeld contains most (not all) villages in Landkreis Eichsfeld (in Thuringia), many in Landkreis Göttingen (in Lower saxony), some in Landkreis Northeim (Lower saxony) and Unstrut-Hainich-Kreis (Thuringia) and even one in Weera-Meißner-Kreis (in Hesse) - see also de:Liste der Orte im Eichsfeld.
You can see at once whether you are in an Eichsfeld village or not. Today, not a few hundred years ago. There is a difference at least in religion and in religious architecture. And if you talk to the people, you will as well hear the difference in what they say (though not in their dialect, which is similar to the nearby villages not in the Eichsfeld). You can't see or hear by talking to people whether or not you are in Germania inferior or even in Kingdom of Westphalia, but you can see it in the Eichsfeld. So it's not just a historical region, but also today's reality. In my opinion most of these categories make sense, at least the "religious" categories (wayside shrines, chapels, churches, wayside crosses, monasteries, stations of the cross, pilgrimage sites, grottoes of mary, Maria columns etc.). At the moment I agree with you in case of the "transport"-category, and perhaps the castles and village greens. A "boundary stones"-category makes sense as far as the stones really mark the boundaries of the Eichsfeld and not just Hesse/Prussia or something like that, for example if they show the Wheel of Mainz. --Dehio (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Themightyquill, for your explanation. I do think you're right for most or all of these categories. The difference is mostly in religion and religious culture (including architecture and non-material cultural elements which I meant when I wrote You can hear it by talking to the people). Many people in Eichsfeld have a feeling of special identity, they are proud of belonging to the Eichsfeld. When you're in the next village (out of Eichsfeld) and ask anyone, whether you are still in the Eichsfeld or not, he or she will probably get angry about anyone supposing this village could belong to the Eichsfeld. That's probably why these categories were created and because of that it may be hard to convince anyone living in the Eichsfeld that they should be deleted. For me personally all these categories are helpful, but I do only need the religious categories (and of course the historic ones). But of course you are right: You can't distinguish hotels, restaurants (except that nearly every second hotel or restaurant will have "Eichsfeld" in the name), hospitals, roads or even timber framing in or out of the Eichsfeld. You can just see a different architecture of the churches and as soon as you drive from a non-Eichsfeld village into the Eichsfeld you will see wayside crosses and wayside shrines nearly on every high hill, and under every green tree.
This tobacco image is strange. I know there was a lot of tobacco planting in Eichsfeld and there were some cigar manufacturers. A lot of the tobacco consumed in the region came from the Eichsfeld and some nearby villages (e.g. Unterrieden, not in the Eichsfeld) up to the middle of the 20th century. But I'm not yet convinced this photo was taken in Eichsfeld or even in Germany. Cohiba? In Germany? There's something wrong, I reckon. --Dehio (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Sorry, dass ich hier deutsch schreibe, meine Englischkenntnisse sind nicht so gut. Ich bin selbst Eichsfelder und versuche mal zu erklären, warum die Erhaltung der (meisten) Kategorien sinnvoll ist. Das Eichsfeld ist eben nicht nur ein historisches Gebiet (als "Eichsfelder Staat" bis 1802), sondern noch heute fühlen sich die meisten Menschen in genau den Grenzen von 1802 als "Eichsfelder" und erst in zweiter Hinsicht als Thüringer oder Niedersachsen. Auf der anderen Seite der Eichsfeldgrenze sagen die Menschen mit der gleichen Deutlichkeit, das sie keine Eichsfelder sind. Die Ursachen liegen in der unterschiedlichen religiösen Ausprägung und Geschichte (das Eichsfeld ist überwiegend katholisch und die Nachbarregionen evangelisch), die sich bis heute erhalten hat. Der Landkreis Eichsfeld umfaßt zwar große Teile des Eichsfeldes, ist aber nicht identisch mit dem Eichsfeld. Während das Eichsfeld als Region geographisch, kulturell seit Jahrhunderten konstant bleibt, ändern sich die Verwaltungsstrukturen ständig (Landkreis Duderstadt und Landkreis Gottingen in Niedersachsen; Landkreise Heiligenstadt/Worbis/Mühlhausen, Kreise Heiligenstadt/Worbis, Landkreis Eichsfeld und so weiter in Thüringen. Auch in Veröffentlichungen und in Büchern zu verschiedenen Themen (wie Religion, Kirche, Geschichte aber auch Geographie, Geologie, Schienenverkehr, Tourismus und andere) ist immer vom "Eichsfeld" die Rede und nicht vom "Landkreis Eichsfeld". Auch wenn es keine spezifisch eichsfeldische Architektur gibt, so gibt es aber doch bei vielen Kirchen im Eichsfeld [File:Kirche in Zella (Anrode).JPG] und im benachbarten Thhüringen [File:Dachrieden Kirche.JPG] deutliche Unterschiede. Sicher kann man über den Nutzen einiger Commons-Kategorien (zum Beispiel Category:Nursing homes in Eichsfeld) streiten und gegebenfalls auch entfernen, die meisten Kategorien sollten aber erhalten bleiben. Das man die Namen der Kategorien auf die englischen Versionen vereinheitlichen will ist wohl nicht zu verhindern, obwohl es bestimmt noch genug (deutsche) Internetnutzer gibt, die keine besonderen Sprachkenntnisse haben.--79.214er (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zur Kategorie Warten: Ich antworte mal in Deutsch: Die "Warte" bezeichnet einen mittelalterlichen Beobachtungsturm, während die Kategorie "Watch towers" verschiedene Arten von Beobachtungstürmen beschreibt (mittelalterliche Warten, Grenztürme, KZ-Türme, Wildbeobachtungstürme usw.) Deshalb sollte man die Kategorie "Warte" beibehalten und passenden übergeordneten Kategorien zuordnen.-Wilkosense (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with User:Ies. Eichsfeld is a mix between Category:Lower Saxony and Category:Thuringia. In all areas, we categorize by states, districts, municipalities. In the Category:Eichsfeld and its subcategories, there are a lot of pictures and categories just linked with the "historical" region Eichsfeld, but not with the actual states (Bundesländer), districts (Landkreise), municipalities where the files belong to.
Same for "Buildings", "Churches", ... otherwise it is a wild mix between two different states.
It is not possible to split single categories to two different states. And when adding two states (Lower Saxony and Thuringia) to "Eichsfeld"-Categories, then we have wrong pictures included for both states. -- Triple C 85| User talk |13:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anmerkung auf Deutsch:
Historische Regionen gibt es überall. Im Taubertal sehen sich die meisten beispielsweise als "Tauberfranken", es werden aber keine Category:Tauber Franconia-Unterkategorien geschaffen, da dies ein Mix zwischen Baden-Württemberg (Main-Tauber-Kreis, Landkreis Schwäbisch Hall) und Bayern (Landkreis Ansbach, Landkreis Würzburg) wäre.
Die Category:Eichsfeld kann sinnvoll sein für historische Landkarten und Dateien, welche rein die historische Region "Eichsfeld" betreffen. Aber für die Sortierung aktueller Bilder nach Themen ist das ein nicht passender Mischmasch zwischen sich heute geänderten territorialen Verwaltungseinheiten (Mischung aus Thüringen und Niedersachsen). -- Triple C 85| User talk |13:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
Historical regions are everywhere. In the Tauber Valley, for example, most people see themselves as "Tauberfranken", but no Category:Tauber Franconia subcategories are created, as this would be a mix between Baden-Württemberg (Main-Tauber district, Schwäbisch Hall district) and Bavaria (Ansbach district, Würzburg district).
The Category:Eichsfeld can be useful for historical maps and files that relate purely to the historical region "Eichsfeld". But for the sorting of current pictures by topic, this is an inappropriate mishmash between territorial administrative units that have changed today (mixture of Thuringia and Lower Saxony). -- Triple C 85| User talk |13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a maintainable distinction between these two categories?
I think one (Category:Minster in Thanet) is intended for the village, the other (Category:Minster, Thanet) for the wider civil parish that takes its name from the village. But each seems to have views of "Marsh Farm Road", or views taken near the pumping station.
I'm wary about merging them, in case people think that there is a distinction that can be systematically maintained. I don't want to destroy information, if an attempt has been made to separate the two.
Also I don't know much about any automated tools that may be at work, eg categorising incoming Geograph images or Wiki Loves Monuments images -- do these tools have an idea of where the boundary of the village is, to classify images based on their coordinates? Or only the boundary of the civil parish? (Pinging @Fae: - do you know about these?)
But it would be useful to have input on this, eg to know whether there is one category or two categories that should be targeted from Wikidata.
Thanks User:Multichill. Out of interest, though, how are incoming WLM or Geograph images placed into appropriate (eg civil-parish level) categories at the moment?
Is there a matching based on name? Or to a Wikidata item, then going up the administrative levels until there's one with a Commons category (if the momument itself doesn't have a category)? Or is the WLM's parish held in an offsite database, with a note of the Commons category?
Comment I'd recommend merging the two categories. Even if one is meant to mean the parish, and the other the village - the similar names mean that distinction cannot be drawn.
If separate categories are desired, I would recommend that the village is left at Minster-in-Thanet and the parish is disambiguated with "civil parish". Civil parish should be used instead of parish as that is the formal name, and there are other types of parish that may have different boundaries.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I back the separate cats idea if enough pics are available. We are in places tending to separate a settlement from the civil parish that derives from that settlement's name. There is not much of a problem if there are few photos that apply to the settlement and the civil parish. However, settlements might be quite small and their civil parishes may within them contain further settlements, such as hamlets, estates, large farms, major roads and woods etc. which cannot be seen as part of a particular 'village' or 'town' However it is often difficult to define the boundary of a settlement that gives the parish its name i.e. at what point does the settlement become the parish, as Jheald queries. Some links through Google do provide this boundary, and if not we could make a reasonable stab at it. As for defining sub-cats as (village) and (civil parish) as Themightyquill postulates, I did try exactly this with some parishes/settlements, but (village) was considered inappropriate as Wikipedia predominates the settlement as a village in the first line of a lede, and subordinates the parish. I suggest in this case we could keep 'Minster in Thanet' as the settlement and change Minster, Thanet to 'Minster in Thanet (civil parish)', as Nilfanion suggests, as there are over 300 files between them, and places such as 'Richborough Power Station', which is miles away from the parish village could go to the civil parish. I have broken down Category:Broadstairs with its parish Category:Broadstairs and St Peters in this way. Category:High Roding shows how a small number of files doesn't require a split, and Category:Great Waltham (civil parish) where the split seemed necessary. Acabashi (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Acabashi: No objection at all from me to separate cats, if you can clearly distinguish what should be in each one. (Which would have needed quite a lot of sorting out for Minster in Thanet, at least when I looked at it). One request though, if you're splitting the categories here, please also split the corresponding items on Wikidata (or see if there's an existing item for the village, via 'What links here'), so that both the Commons categories remain well-connected, and eg can have infoboxes, and inbound links that work. Up to you to judge which item is more suitable to link to en-wiki -- sometimes it would be the civil parish, probably more often it would be the settlement, depending on the balance of content in the article. Other properties on the Wikidata item probably divide pretty clearly into which ones should stay with the parish, and which ones with the settlement. Jheald (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have strong doubts about the encyclopedic value of this category, as per se there is no such thing as "fascist architecture". During the Italian fascism, in fact (as even Wikipedia explains) there were various styles, such as the rationalist, futurist and the monumentalist schools. This category brings together whatever was built during the 20s-30s in Italy and in its colonies, considering it all "fascist architecture" just because they were built under the same authoritarian regime. The Italian Wikipedia, in fact, has not an article called "Fascist architecture" but rather a section called "architecture during the fascist period" under the article "Italian architecture in the 20th century". I suggest its deprecation or even deletion, including its subcategories. Desyman (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While there is an English wikipedia article at en:Fascist architecture, admittedly, it isn't very strong. Isn't there a case to bring together some of these works with related ideological connections, somehow? Yes, its worth organizing things simply by date, but this type of category could specify something more than that. We have Category:Art approved by the Nazi regime so maybe something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Themightyquill. In my view it would be better to be consistent with existing practices, namely to categorize by date and by style. The date is already there, Category:20th-century architecture with all its subcategories, while for the style we have Category:Futurist architecture, Category:Rationalist architecture (with their subcategories), etc. To me this is sufficient. It is a dangerous enterprise to classify architectures by political ideology, if anything at least because under fascism for instance rationalist was very common in the beginning, but then rationalist architects fell in disgrace, at the advantage of more "monumentalist" ones, who corresponded more to the ideology of the ruling regime. Thus the link between the two is in my view superficial and in a number of cases even false.--Desyman (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. I think architecture, like any form of art (applied in this case) always and necessarily reflects and dialogues with the society and also political reality of its time. The issue is that there is not a sufficiently precise overlap to categorize all rationalist architecture in Italy as fascist, nor all architecture produced during fascism as rationalist. The same can be said - mutatis mutandis - for any other political regime. One would not call contemporary architecture in north America as "capitalist architecture" for instance. One may however envisage a category such as "Architecture in country X during the given period/regime" to underscore that, while there is a temporal coincidence, there is not necessarily an ideological linkage. I believe this could be a compromise solution, although I personally tend to lean towards the deprecation altogether. What do you think?--Desyman (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Desyman: I don't know enough about Fascist Italy so my opinion should come with a grain of salt, but I imagine that architecture, like all art, can take on an explicitly ideological propagandist purpose, particularly when created at the bequest of an explicitly ideological state (and even more so when, owing to a dictatorship, the ideology is clearly defined.) Where to draw the line between state propaganda in art/architecture and other art/architecture produced at the same time? I don't have a clear answer, so I guess we'd have to depend on scholars of art/architecture for that, like any other subject. We might include works consciously celebrated as ideological by the regime in question.
The problem with the solution that you suggest is that in many many cases there is no objective way to ascertain whether a building was "consiously" fascist. How do you do so? By checking whether the architect was member of the party? At the time almost everyone did. By checking who paid for it? Most times this information is lost and may per se not be 100% representative. I therefore believe that a more objective categorization such as: Category:1930s architecture in Italy (and '20s, and '40s) plusCategory:Rationalist architecture in Italy (and equivalent for other styles), as well asCategory:Architecture in Italy during Fascism can indeed be the best option, as these categories lend themselves to less arbitrariness and "ideological celebration", the criteria for categorization are much more objective. In practice, this could be done by simply renaming the category Category:Fascist architecture with relatively little work.--Desyman (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Well, at least I imagined that it was Portuguese. I hope other people will also understand those names. I sometimes open a category for a Turkish dish in Turkish, but, for example, I write Category:Mercimek soup and not "Mercimek çorbası". In the case of the cat on "katıklı ekmek" I opened it as Category:Katikli ekmek so as not to confuse people with a small "i" without a dot (ı)... Well, I cannot agree with everything as everybody does not agree with me. Have a good day. --E4024 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A category with such an name schould always at least have an english decription which tells what the category is for. In Portugues I could only guess what it means. --Kersti (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is clear because of confusion and Coats of arms ais all about history (even before the region was recently created only in 2016). All modern French regions now use "Normandie" (not Normandy" hich remains larger and not strictly limited to France.
There a clear separation of subcategories to avoid mixing Channel islands for the region in France. No nvgation issue at all but in some cases there are overlap for coats of arms that are not only for France. There's always been a confusion about what "Normandy" was refering too, and we've seen contents categorized in France when they were in Jersey or Guernsey only. There's no easy way to distinguish both, except using the official French name when it refers to the French region.
Don't merge these categories, you'll put contents that will become parts of France when they are not. And we passed a long time to distinguish France, Jersey and Guernsey. verdy_p (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not hilarious but there was still no clear way tro distinguish the names, except by language (for the official name of the new region). Nothing was decided on adding a prefix "Réagion Normandie" in France, for now. But Normandy has always been a larger area. Up to 2015 there was two distinct adminsitraive french regions that merged in 2016, and they were both subcategories in "Normandy", alog with the former "Channel islands" (then separated into Jersey and Guernsey). This broader category corretly refers to the 3 administrative units as subcategories and no confusion is possible. Coats of arms are all refering to the former area for centuries before 2016 (and no coats of arms in French Normandie have any legal status in the region even if some municipalities (or groups of cooperating municipalities) use them for their communication and culture, or display them on street plates or municipal bulletins or tourism office sites. verdy_p (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The categorization I had made to this cat was changed recently. As I do not see myself very knowledgeable in the cuisine(s) that make(s) this "pilav" (palov), instead of changing the categories I preferred to bring it here. E4024 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the final shape will be, I hope it may be better than having as mother cats the Category:Pilaf at the one hand and the cats
Osh palov is the most common (but not the only) type of pilaf in Central Asia. This type spread across the whole former Soviet Union. So nowadays, versions of this pilaf are found in Russia, Ukraine etc. Historically it seems to be mainly associated with the area of modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. This category includes images of all osh palov images from all countries, while the categories "Pilaf of Uzbekistan" and "Pilaf of Tajikistan" include only those shot in those countries, but they include also other types of pilaf. So strictly speaking this category should be placed directly under "Pilaf". Or alternatively, one should create categories "Pilaf in Uzbekistan" etc. for images made in the countries, and use "Pilaf of Uzbekistan" etc. for dishes historically associated with the countries.
This topic is a particular case of a more general issue: What should be included in category "Cuisine of country X" or any "Topic of country X"? Images from that country only? Or from all countries where the same recipe was used? Shall we make two categories "Subject of country" and "Subject in country"? As an example: an image of a döner kebap made in Germany can be in "Cuisine of Turkey in Germany". Then this category should be in "Cuisine of Turkey". But should it also be in "Cuisine of Germany"? But this is not German cuisine. So we would need a separate category "Cuisine in Germany", thus separating the historical origin and the actual location. There were attempts like this in the classification of paintings, like Category:Paintings of Russia and Category:Paintings in Russia. This means however doubling the work of categorization. --Off-shell (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand this cat. What does it mean? Food that has a part of yogurt in it? Is yogurt not food itself?
Also the cat is under Category:Yogurt but begins with "Yoghurt". I could move it, but if colleagues join me, I prefer that we should better delete it. E4024 (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the content seems to be yogurt-based food. Some seems to be yogurt that happens to be with other food. This image and this one, for example, appear to show some yogurt on the side of something else: that doesn't make the food yogurt-based. This one shows just yogurt, although just barely. That's not to say that most of the content couldn't go under Category:Yogurt-based food, just that some analysis would be needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I don't think this is a useful category intersection, otherwise we could proliferate to things such as Category:Coffee and cake; when we have tools to find such images, I don't see the use of separate categories for any somewhat arbitrary conjunction of comestibles that might arise. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the other kinds of food in the photo are also categorized, I don't see the point. Do we need to separate every kind of food and label it as being with other food? It should be divided into appropriate subcategories as to kind and use, see, Category:Strawberries as food. Category:Yogurt as a sauce should be sufficient as a parent category, as that covers the majority of yogurt served with food. Wikimandia (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ett problem med den här kategorin är att de flesta fotona bara visar Hamngatspalatset, och det faktiska Sidenhuset är bara med på två av dem. För att undvika förvirring om vilken byggnad som är vilken borde en kategori för Hamngatspaltset etableras också. AugustMoon (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these intersect too many variables. The same is true of the corresponding categories for women and for right hands. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. @Oursana and Auntof6: I also agree that too many variables, but these category trees are massive. The creator (user:Ecummenic) of such categories is very active in Commons. Maybe he can recommend, on where we should start to delete these category trees?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge the left and right hand cats, then we are still detailed.
I understand that these categories are too specific, but categories of the type "Portrait paintings of standing men with right hand holding objects" should be kept, as they allow me to locate images uploaded in Commons with ambiguous names and avoid loading duplicates, also group images with a particular composition. But I can transfer categories related to specific objects like "Portrait paintings of standing men with right hand holding books" to "18th-century portrait paintings of men holding books" Ecummenic (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the original meaning of "Workshop" is a place (room or building) that provides the tools or machines for manufacturing or repairing the goods. And, the usages of a word "workshop" on above categories possess different nuance due to the adaptation on the different fields.
Workshops (meetings) seems slightly ambiguous in definition, however it is often used as title of various meetings including Wikimedia Community, so this category is useful for quickly categorizing these. Probably it implies the meeting for the "Creative problem-solving" on English Wikipedia.
Hi, Themightyquill (A). The workshops (meetings) seems to be the 2nd definition of a noun "Workshop", according to the online version of Oxford Dictionaries by Oxford University Press:
In my opinion, the purpose of the coexistence of the Category:meetings and Category:workshops (meetings)lieslays in providing the convenience of categorization work of each media. Specifically, I am considering the following categorization procedures:
Is this media about the meeting titled Workshop ?
No → keep on the Category:meetings (or possibly sub-categorized under the other subcategories)
But also: what purpose does this category serve, and are we really ready to face the consequences of using it consistently? Are we really going to put this on every photo or category of a phenotypically "white" American for whom we don't know a more specific ancsetry? - Jmabel ! talk19:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Census requires overt identification, typically by the individual but at least by a member of the household. Identifying (for example) all Arab Americans as "white" is a very different matter; so is looking at a photo and deciding the person is "white". - Jmabel ! talk02:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete it, too. In the past, under Jim Crow laws in the South (Southern Continental US), only "White Americans" were allowed to vote or own property, in continuation from the enslavement of African Americans for some 400 years. The term is used to fuel white supremacist bigotry, and it has no place in our categorization system. — JeffG. ツ03:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: so are you OK with this being put on arbitrary photos of people based on phenotype, and including (for example) the entire Arab & North African diaspora in the U.S.? Or are you somewhere in between? - Jmabel ! talk20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed redirecting the category to another existing one which is not contested, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. But for the sake of the argument, how would that differ from the situation with Category:African Americans? How do you determine an image should belong in that category? FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I've used Category:African Americans only when either (1) it has already been used by an archive describing that image (E.g. I upload a lot of images from the Seattle Municipal Archives, and they've been known to use it in the description or tags), (2) I know that the individual in question has that self-identification (e.g. in some self-description or official bio/CV), or (3) I have it at the level of citability I'd need for WP (e.g. newspaper articles, etc. referring to them that way). Pretty much the same standard I'd use for any other ethnicity (e.g. Irish American, Serbian American). I agree that "African American" is also a bit problematic, but (I think) less so.
Again, what brought me here was having someone slap the category on a photo presumably based on nothing but appearance + the fact that the photo was in the U.S.
Oppose deletion of this category, Opppose redirect to Category:European Americans if it is decided to delete this category. It is hard to be a dissenting voice in this debate, but a dissenting voice I must be. Yes, there is a moral and ethical issue with the categorising of people by their skin colour, or more precisely by their perceived skin colour as can be seen in a photograph. It is a moral issue which we must address in society and in our own lives, but Commons is not here to be anyones moral guardian, we are a repository of files that serve our sister Wikimedia projects, and as a resource to others. To that end we have files of nudity and sexuality which some say do not belong here, we cause distress to others with cartoons which some say are bigoted and offensive, we host flags and maps which have others fuming. As a project we have no problem with leaving moral considerations to end users. en wikipedia, and about 20 sister Encyclopedias have a White American article, that we find it problematic as to how we populate the corresponding category here should not mean we give up. Redirecting to Category:European Americans is a fudge and a bad one. Straight forwardly put the White American label is and has always been about skin colour not ethnicity. Such a move may seem logical, but a quick exercise will show that the two are not the same, for exampe if one's mother is old stock American of English and Irish descent, that would of course make you a European American would it not? so Barack Obama is quite rightly categorised as an European American through being an Irish American. If the logic White Americans=European Americans were correct, then the opposite would also hold true i. e. European Americans= White Americans, and if need be we could delete the European American category and redirect it to White Americans. The redirect option also fails because it conflates white with European to think that the only white people in the world are from Europe is the height of ignorance, there are people of North African and Middle East and Central Asia who would be considered white. Deleting this category is the wrong thing to do; redirecting this category is the wrong thing to do. The only alternative I can offer is to maybe add an introduction asking for caution when adding the category.--KTo288 (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
White and European American are not synonyms, as I stated above, yet it could be argued that white American is a subset of European Americans. Yes, Barack Obama can still be categorised as European American if white American redirects there, because a white American is by definition a European American (if we ignore the Middle East grey zone.) FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KTo288: I partly agree with you - i.e. I don't think it would be a good idea to redirect to Category:European Americans. But I still support deletion of the category "White Americans" (without leaving a redirect). As the subcategories of Category:European Americans clearly show (with one exception), it's a clearly structured category for American individuals of a specific, known European ancestry, like Category:Greek Americans. It is not a category for all Americans perceived (by some viewer) as "white". Therefore, a redirect would be wrong. The exception to the clear structure of Category:European Americans that bothers me is Category:White supremacy in the United States as a subcategory which doesn't make sense, in my opinion. However, I see that this is a very recent change and I'd propose to revert to the previous categorization of that subcategory (it fits better under Category:European-American society). - I disagree with your reasoning for keeping the category because there is an important difference between a Wikipedia article and a Commons category, as the name "category" says. Ambiguous terms such as "White Americans" can be explained with all their various meanings and nuances in an encyclopedic article; the purpose of a Commons category, on the other hand, is to put a specific label on an individual image. I don't see it as helpful to put photos like File:Girls at Columbia University.jpg into that category (by the way, it was recently categorized by the same User:Dash9Z who put "White supremacy in the United States" under "European Americans") - in the particular case of this example, we don't even know whether the three girls are actually all "Americans", the might just as well be guest students from elsewhere. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A problem for Commons is that "White Americans" is ambiguous, as can be seen at en:White Americans and en:Definitions of whiteness in the United States. An option would be to retain the category (for linking with Wikipedias) and make a subcategory "White Americans (US Bureau of the Census)" which in turn contains the subgroups that are defined by the US Bureau of the Census to be part of their "White Americans" classification. There may also be material relating to other historical classifications in Commons. --ghouston (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, because my sock-master won't let me use "his" {{vs}} here, but seriously, think about it, which half of Trevor Noah should be in one of these categories? –89.15.239.28
The problem, as I see it, is that "White people" is a based in the pseudoscientific concept of racial categories that we shouldn't be using but which the United States government still does use. There should be some category to acknowledge its continued use in demographics etc, but we shouldn't ourselves be categorizing individuals according to a debunked and racist categorization scheme. (en:Aryan race exists on Wikipedia, but we don't use it to categorize people.) So, I support getting rid of this category (if necessary, moving individuals into a geographic origin category - European Americans or whatever is most appropriate) but something should be retained. Category:White American demographics or something to that effect. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up Themightyquill. In addition to the excellent points raised by Jmabel, a category like this, even more than Category:Irish Americans where I first raised this point, desperately requires a hatnote that specifies who does or doesn't belong in it. For Irish American I suggested people should only be included if they held both Irish and American citizenship.
Well, for this category, the American aspect of inclusion has a clear test - American citizenship. But the "white portion" just too subjective.
PBS broadcast a documentary, over a decade ago, about the living descendants of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, the slave who was a half-sister to his deceased wife. An attempt was made to trace all the men who had an unbroken male line to one of Hemings sons, to see if they shared the same Y chromosome as Jefferson. As the study was underway some commentators said a share Y chromosome might only mean Jefferson visiting uncle, or visiting nephews sired a son with Hemings. An exclusive club composed solely of Jefferson's descendants decided to broaden its membership to anyone descended from someone who lived on Jefferson's properties, avoiding a law suit. The documentary showed a friendly ceremony where some Hemings descendants joine.
But the most interesting thing for me was some cousins in a town in, um Ohio. Hemings descendants on one side of town identified as white. One 18 year old girl reached the age of 18 without learning she had black cousins on the other side of town. When she met the cousins who identified as black they were friendly and welcoming.
I think this anecdote shows the subjectivity in deciding who is or isn't "white".
Further, consider how much work it would be to fully populate this category. If the criteria for inclusion were "most of this individual's ancestory can be traced from Europe..." Are we going to look at the millions of images we have of Americans to guess at whether their ancestry primarily trace to Europe? That would be tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of hours of work, for no discernable advantage.
Consider smart and charming AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When Trump critized her and her squad I was surprised to hear her identify as a person of colour. If I had agreed to classify Americans into Category:White Americans, based on their names and appearance, I would have figured she as a hispanic American and included her.
So, (1) currently this category is undefined; (2) even if it were defined it would be too much work to fill it. Therefore I think it should be deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Largely agree with Geo Swan's latest here, except for "Irish American" requiring dual citizenship. Tons of Americans identify as Irish American without holding dual citizenship. Many (though not all) would be eligible for Irish citizenship—I have a few in my acy of quaintance who have obtained it at some time in the last 20 years—but most don't bother. - Jmabel ! talk19:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that file above. I suppose we can just take the definition from enwiki "White Americans are an ethnic group of Americans who are descendants from any of the indigenous peoples of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, or in census statistics, those who self-report as white based on having majority-white ancestry." That may address the original complaint that the definition is contentious, but I don't know whether User:Jmabel would agree. --ghouston (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the category might have its uses, but I'm very uncomfortable with what seems to me to be the inevitability of it being slapped on files on simple basis of appearance rather than self-identification. Please look again at the conversation where this started. - Jmabel ! talk03:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would share that problem with all of the subcategories of Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. I'd say people should only be added to such categories if there's a reliable external reference, but unfortunately, category additions don't take reference statements, and there isn't a police force to patrol it. --ghouston (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand. Is anyone specifically opposed to using this category to categorize images referencing "white americans" as a demographic category, but removing subcategories related to culture/ethnicity and any sub-categories for individual people? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the considerable overlap between this category (with its 51 subcategories), and Category:Coats of arms of municipalities by country (64 subcategories). The term "city" has special status in some countries and the majority of these files in the city category do not belong to actual cities, but that distinction has become blurred as files are randomly categorized among these two branches. Some countries do not have a "municipality" category and their files are all located in the city parent category. Some country categories are listed in both COA municipalities by country and COA cities by country, such as Category:Coats of arms of cities of Argentina.
Not every municipality consists of just one city. How would this proposal deal with the fact that many municipalities consist of multiple villages? Ofcourse, some countries do not use the system of municipalities. Then, we do live in the 21st century, and there are most likely not many (if any) distinctions left between the legal status of cities and municipalities or villages. Ofcourse, I dare only to speak of Europe. How about non-Western countries? Perhaps it would be best to unify the CoA's of cities, municipalities and villages into one category. This subject needs to be thought out thoroughly. --oSeveno (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just use municipalities as a general term of urban communities including cities, towns and villages regardless of how each country defines them? Otherwise, the name of the category would be very long like Coats of arms of municipalities, cities, towns and villages by country. Also, Coats of arms of municipalities of <<Country Name>> seems grammatically odd to me. We seldom say "Tokyo is a city of Japan" but rather "Tokyo is a city in Japan" unless we're saying "Tokyo is the capital city of Japan". Shouldn't it be Coats of arms of municipalities in <<Country Name>>? In addition to this, we should also use insignia instead of coats of arms in the parent category and unify it with Category:Emblems of cities and Category:City seals since different countries use different terms and designs.--Xeror (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of using the word municipality as a general term for all urban communities including cities, towns and villages. The description for municipality on the English language Wikipedia: „A municipality is usually a single urban administrative division having corporate status and powers of self-government or jurisdiction as granted by national and state laws to which it is subordinate. It is to be distinguished from the county, which may encompass rural territory or numerous small communities such as towns, villages and hamlets.“ Sometimes there is just no simple way to categorize. --oSeveno (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the definition in English Wikipedia is overcomplicated. Its definition given in other dictionaries are simpler and clearer:
* a city or town that has corporate status and local government. (Google/Apple)
* a city, town, or other district possessing corporate existence and usually its own local government. (dictionary.com)
* a city or town with its own local government, or this local government itself. (Cambridge Dictionary)
* a town or district that has local government. (Oxford Dictionary)
* a political unit, such as a city, town, or village, incorporated for local self-government. (American Heritage Dictionary)
* a city, town, or district enjoying some degree of local self-government. (Collins English Dictionary)
* a city, town, village, or borough possessing corporate existence and usu. its own local government. (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary)
* a primarily urban political unit having corporate status and usually powers of self-government. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Most definitions include city and town, while some include village. The only exception is Merriam-Webster Dictionary that uses the term "primarily urban political unit". The only common criterion to be a municipality is to have a local government, which I assume all cities, towns or villages with an insignia have or have ever had. To me "municipality" seems to be the closet general term in English that can be used without a long list of different terms used in different countries.--Xeror (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are focussing just on the English or American definition and use of the word. The word comes from the French word Municipalité. Latin municipalis (from municipium 'free city', from municeps, municip- 'citizen with privileges', from munia 'civic offices') In the Netherlands, ever since 1848, a municipality (Dutch: gemeente), ranks above both a village, town and city. --oSeveno (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we need to focus on the English definition here since the whole category title is in English ('coats of arms' is an English term). In addition, many words in English have meanings deviated from its origin or its cognates in other languages. One example is dish in English and Tisch in German, which both come from latin discus but have different meanings. Another example is bully in English, which probably comes from Middle Dutch boele meaning lover but you certainly cannot use bully to refer to your lover unless jokingly. --Xeror (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
English is used as a common language for purposes of communication, not for the purpose of being the language which solely defines everything on Commons. Do you also propose the use of the British Imperial or Exchequer Standards of 1825, instead of the metric system? Or the United States customary units? Please let me know, since we would have to do about a million corrections on Commons. Please be aware of a thing called cultural assimilation, which is not promoted on Commons. So, let's instead try to achieve a consensus, or leave the whole matter for what it is instead. --oSeveno (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful! You're using a slippery slope argument here. From my statements, never did I propose using some standards or customs in a particular country or culture in the naming of the categories. Like I never said changing all the streetcars in North American categories to trams. I merely pointed out that the assumption that there is a one-to-one translation between the English word municipality with any words in other European languages with the same root or origin is simply a mistake. We cannot redefine the word within Wikipedia or related Wikiprojects that is different from those definitions in well-recognized dictionaries. Nowhere did I imply that I encourage the promotion of particular country or culture. Indeed I included dictionaries from both the United States and the United Kingdom. Of course there are other English dictionaries in other countries as well but I didn't have the time to list them all out. As Wikimandia suggested, local vocabulary corresponds to that country is used within its subcategory. But if the word municipality or its plural form is used, its definition should be that defined in English. And its definition, in my opinion, can be used as a general term for cities, towns, and maybe villages. Perhaps we should wait for more inputs before continuing the discussion. Consensus is hard to achieve between only two persons and arguments will be never ending.--Xeror (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The implications of deciding to recategorize are indeed to big to have only two people decide on it. Since it would result in recategorizing many tens of thousands of files. Also, I could have frased my point more diplomatic than I did. In my opinion it would be best to maintain a categorizing scale per country. If countries only use the rank of municipality, then that could be right below state or province. If a country uses further divisions in ranks, like county, metropolitan region, city, village or township, that should be possible too. Uniformity can help beingmore able to find files, I agree, so input by others may lead to a different solution. Or the one you suggest. --oSeveno (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that (as mentioned above) cities may be and in some countries are a subset of municipalities with special rights, privileges, or status. Hence I should like to propose that we keep this category for such countries where the former applies (e.g. England where city status is recognised or awarded by the crown), and make it a sub-category of "Coats of arms of municipalities". However, any category for a place that has not got such a special status (e.g. which is just a sizeable town, or is in a country where no city status is awarded) needs to be moved out. --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless categories - There's thousands if not millions of images with blurred/blacked out number plates ... In short I'm not seeing the need for these categories at all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk18:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such type of modification of photos is a very specific and substantial devaluation. This attribute is very more relevant than e.g. categorization by type of camera etc. Such categorization can make sense for both - for the users who want to search such type of photos as well as for users who want to avoid (filter out) such unrealistic damaged images. This attribute is at least so distinct and relevant as e.g. Reflections on objects. --ŠJů (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but no one is going to remotely care whether a plate is blurred or not and most people aren't specifically going to search for a blurred plate (they'd blur it themselves!), There's no need whatsoever for this category. –Davey2010Talk02:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the basis that these don't really help navigate to find useful information. Surely people will be looking for pictures of vehicles, not their number plates. If anyone wants to pixelate a number plate (a tiny part of these images) they can do it themselves. Sionk (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid reason to destroy a better distinguishing and replace it with some unclear and evasive one. It is very useful to distinguish various specific forms of censorship, retouching etc. However, a hierarchy of the existing categories should be analyzed and implemented and if needed, some new umbrella category can be created to group the existing categories as its subcategories. --ŠJů (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the umbrella category. I just hope someone is watching carefully to make sure no one accidentally puts a "pixellated" license plate image in the "blurred" license plat category. I'm not sure what we'd do if someone uses a white censor bar - will that go in the "blanked out" category or the "censor bar" category, or both? ;) Anyone have anything left to add, or can we close? -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of creating an umbrella category would be to upmerge the other categories to it, wouldn't it? Is that the intention? Sionk (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I find "concealed licence plates" just as pointless as this category name - Both sort of mean the same thing so we're not achieving anything by moving these are we?. I just don't believe anyone on planet Earth would go out their way to search for "blurred licence plates" or "concealed licence plates" or even any of the categories mentioned above (Why would you want to use a blurry image of something or a blurred out licence plate?) but anyway I guess I'm in the minority here, –Davey2010Talk15:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for discussion request: On 18th October 2017 the category 676 mm track gauge was moved to 2 ft 3 in gauge railways. This makes it difficult to identfy gauges as most people on this earth work metric. Second point is that the "track gauge" was replaced with "gauge railways". I cant find a discussion which approved this move. I tried to make proposition by moving the category to 616 mm or 2 ft 3 in track gauge but the person that moved the category on 18th reverted this on the 20th. I'm not searching an edit war but want to ask the community which way to follow:
keep track gauge rather than gauge railway for the category names?
revert mm to ft and in?
keep mm only?
move to xx mm or x ft xx in in the category name so that metric users as well as the few remaining imperial measurement users find their indication?
Restore to the previous long-established status quo: gauges that originate from Imperial units should stay that way. These are usually obvious as both are in "round numbers" - i.e. 2 ft 6 in (equal to 762mm) began that way and should stay that way, 750mm is functionally similar but designed by engineers working in metric. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Corris Railway opened in 1859 and used 2 ft 3 in. This gauge is rare, used by a handful of British narrow gauge railways. All referred to it as 2 ft 3 in, not metric (and it's 686 mm, not 676 or 616 mm - please don't start creating 676 mm categories). In 2013 Wikimedia (en:WP, Commons and probably de:WP) was troubled by a prolific sock, Tobias Conradi (talk·contribs) aka HSRtrack (talk·contribs) who was the first to create the incorrect 686mm category. I was not aware that we now make unchangeable decisions on the basis of what the socks want. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A solution with both measurements in the category name is more helpful in my opinion. I'm fully aware about history, but Wikicommons should also help people who don't know the whole railway history. I also think that 1435 mm is today a much wider known description for standard gauge.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC) I should add that in my opinion category names must be helpful rather than educational.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Oknazevad, stick with the units used by the railway operators, without conversion. Any conversion is unlikely to be exact. There's no reason to unify, because the world doesn't work like that.. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean by this, that the exact gauge must be taken in every case? Please keep in mind that the French tracks are built to 1435.0 mm, so the conversion to 4 ft 8.5 in is not exact.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. Mixing units is a recipe for disaster, as the aerospace industry has found on at least one occasion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still don't understand. If you say that mixing units leads to disaster, then I can't categorize a railway built to 1435.0 mm gauge as being 4 ft 8.5 in, which is 1435.1 mm.--Gürbetaler (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use Imperial units for Imperial gauges, (e.g. 15", 2', 2'4½", 3'6", 5'6" etc) and metric for metric gauges (e.g 600mm, 750mm etc). Named gauges should have named categories (e.g. Metre gauge, Cape gauge, Standard Gauge, Russian gauge, Indian Gauge etc), even if this results in some duplication. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if there's a clearly used name for it, "Cape gauge" - we should prefer that over 3ft 6in? Presumably with an explanation heading on the category page, although I note these have been getting removed too.
What about Japan? Should they be categorized directly under "Cape gauge", 3ft 6in, or some new term as "Japanese 3ft 6in" ? I'd be happy with either, but we ought to clarify that now.
Cape gauge should only be used for railways in the geographical area to which it applies, and not for all railways of 3'6" gauge. The same applies to Japanese gauge railways. As for the Swedish question, I see no barrier to a "Three Swedish foot gauge railways" category to cater for these, recognising that they are not the same as 3ft gauge railways in Imperial measurements. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Move all the categories back to metric measures, and so "Restore to the previous long-established status quo" for at least the last 4 years, to the contrary of what is claimed by Andy Dingley. The imperial system is used only by the USA, Burma, Liberia and partially UK. So the majority of people, even people with knowledge of rail transportation would be in the dark what gauge is showned because some think that world is only the anglo-saxons and they can impose its old measures units to the other 90% of the world, part that do not knows how much is a feet, a yard, an inch, a fathom, etc. Tm (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to the metric system that was imposed on Europe by Napoleonic France and from there spread via colonialism to the rest of the world. I like the metric system well enough (easy conversions based merely on order of magnitude are fantastic for scientific work), but let's drop the nationalistic nonsense and acknowledge that not everything is defined in metric units, nor hide the inherent inexactness of conversions between the systems. And if it's has a name, use the name, because that, not some arbitrary imposition of units, is what people will search for. Oknazevad (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oknazevad: «The metric system is a Napoleonic imposition!»
also Oknazevad: «Let’s discuss this calmly and reasonably.»
I don't think accidents in the aerospace industry are relevant. If anyone builds anything dangerous with specifications taken from a wikimedia commons category, they probably deserve whatever fate awaits them. That said, it seems silly to categorize track gauges as two separately gauges when they are clearly based on eachother, but are out by some tiny amount based on conversion. So proposed solution Base everything on the best common name. First, if there's a non-numerical name (Cape gauge) then let's use that, and use it to categorize all equivalent gauge size tracks, even if they are slighly different owing to conversion. Second, if no such non-numerical name exists, then I guess common name means two separate categories, one in metric units (for tracks created with metricized units) and one in imperial (for tracks created with imperial units). Third, a list of these by size would undoubtedly be useful. We could either have a category with that purpose with metric sort keys, or simply a gallery page listing each category with both measurement units. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May I once again draw your attention to the fact that category names should be helpful, not educational, the latter being reserved to explanation on the category pages. And categories should be found by all interested people, not only by railway buffs like we are. Of course I know that 3'6" equals 1067 mm. But any "normal" inhabitant of Japan, Tansania or Namibia will in the best case have the information that the guage of their railways is 1067 mm, as any French, Italian, Norwegian or Chinese will laearn that their railways have 1435 mm gauge. Only with this information in hand he will find out, in Wikipedia of course, that the origin of this odd figure is an imperial unit. Thus he should in any case easily find 1435 and 1067.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that contradicts my proposed solution. Unless you really think that two truly identical gauges should be in wholly separate categories because of where they happen to be. By that logic, we should categorize buildings in the United States according to their height in feet, because the average American would have access to that measurement. As I mentioned, I think we should have a gallery page with all the conversions to make it easy for anyone to identify the right category, no matter where the track is (people take pictures of tracks outside their own countries as well). - Themightyquill (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even the gauge names that exist are not widely known, perhaps with the exception of Standard gauge, cape gauge and meter gauge (the rest being classified narrow gauge or broad gauge). But Wikicommons is an international project and things should be easily understandable for all users, not only the British and American ones.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's important that they be understandable for all users. And since there is no category name that is going to be perfect for everyone, the challenge is to find the best compromise, and then create a means to ensure everyone can figure it out. That's what my proposal was. To be honest, I have my doubts that the average commons uploader will be categorizing images by gauge size anyway -- I certainly wouldn't -- but that's not especially relevant. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Use common name for each one - Gürbetaler states that "category names should be helpful, not educational" and I would agree with that. To my mind, that means keeping (e.g.) Category:2 ft 3 in gauge railways as such, not whatever the metirc equivalent is, as this was a gauge which AFAIK was only used in Britain and always referred to in imperial measurements. Therefore it is unlikely that anyone would search for it in metric. Of course there's no reason why conversions can't be provided on the category pages. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 2'3" is only used in the UK. On the other hand, gauges like 762 mm, 914mm, 1067 mm, 1674 mm etc. are almost only used in metric countries today. And in Wikicommons we speak about media of today, not about history. And then the conversion: Some people seem to have problems... 1 inch equals exactly 25.4 mm. Thus the standard gauge was 4 x 12 + 8.5 inch = 56.5 inch = 56.5 x 25.4 mm = 1435.1 mm!! :-)-- Gürbetaler (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, it should also be either "track gauge" or "gauge railways" but not a mix. If I remember correctly there had been a discussion, saying that "railways" implies more "a railway company" than "a railway line" or even "a railway infrastructure". And I think this is why the categories are named "xxx mm track gauge".-- Gürbetaler (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Metrics for all, because naming should follow a single format if possible and representation of fractions is cumbersome and not user-friendly.--Roy17 (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO metric should be the default. I'd leave redirects from historic Imperial or Common or whatever other local units names. I think exceptions from metric should be allowed for no longer used historic gages if they are well known by their old designation; eg 19th century UK gages discontinued long before UK went metric. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)
Both units with redirects, apart from where a clear name exists, like Standard Gauge, or round metric gauges, like Meter Gauge. The gauges where a name exists but only in a geographical region, like Cape Gauge or Irish Gauge, should be sub-cats of the main categories, as these are mostly sub-categorised by region anyway. For gauges used in both systems, no-one who uses one system will ever think of searching using the other system, and almost certainly won't know how to convert it anyway. Thus the redirects are important, and creating a neutral 'target' category makes sense so as not to entice a feeling that one unit is more correct than the other; as others have said, in each instance only one gauge is correct, so having both gauges in the category title means that the title isn't incorrect for any of its contents.
As for the appending to the measurement, I would be in favour of the ...gauge railways (so the entire string is in form of x ft y in and z mm gauge railways / x ft y in or z mm gauge railways), as very little of the actual media or subcategories of a gauge category will be actually referring to the gauge in the abstract, but to individual instances of railways where that track gauge is in use. Any media which does refer to the gauge in the the abstract can just as easily refer to the railways of that gauge in the abstract, but a photograph of a railway using a 2 ft track gauge does not portray the track gauge, but portrays a railway, which has that track gauge.
Thank you. I think this is the only correct and widely understandable solution, taking the history and the modern reality into the category name. And add redirects.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. According to this source, today respected as most authorative for Europe, the binomal name Euphrasia officinalis L. is nom. ambig. meaning ambiguous, so it should be avoided. Explanation: botanical names may differ from author to author and source to source, but in resolving the "most used" or rather, most scientifically correct names (situation is different from species to species) evaluation is made by a group of leading, internationally recognised experts. In case of this species see them here. Plantlist.org is very good source, but we must use and compare more of them if available. So I suggest Euphrasia rostkoviana should be the "main" name used.-Jozefsu (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. But I wouldn't dare to do the merging personally, so please someone more experienced to deal with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozefsu (talk • contribs) 27 December 2017 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete all - There's no reason for the chain of categories, created by a serial over-categoriser, linking Category:Boats in Pembrokeshire to Category:Oil tankers in Milford Haven. Milford Haven is a deep natural estuary in Pembrokeshire with a number of oil terminals. There are no other cargo ships because the cargo there is oil (there are unlikely to be other pictures of different ships available). --Sionk (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - there's a good basis for all of these categories, and no basis for deleting any of them. The categorisation is deliberately consistent with equivalent categorisation for other countries, other ports, and various types of ship. If the categories are deleted, a person looking, eg, for images of cargo ships / oil tankers in the United Kingdom will not be able to find any of these images easily if browsing for such images by beginning with Category:Cargo ships in the United Kingdom, or Category:Tankers by port. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a deletion nomination based on an inaccurate premise. Since posting my previous post, I have found images on commons of various sailing and steamships, and also an LNG carrier, in Milford Haven, and have now appropriately categorised them. There may already be other images on commons of non-oil tanker ships in Milford Haven that I haven't found yet. Also, the website of Pembroke Port confirms that oil and gas ships are not the only types of cargo ship served by the port at Milford Haven - there is a total of three quays for other types of cargo ships, and also a ferry port that also serves cruise ships. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for finding the LNG tanker. But there you go again, creating a category and a new chain of categories for one picture. That's what I mean by overcategorisation. Sionk (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not for one picture. Even if there aren't any other such pictures on Commons yet (and I haven't finished looking yet), the new category encourages other Commons contributors to upload more of them. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahnfrend: Categories are not designed to encourage uploading, they are designed to group together images that we have, or possibly to link to wikidata items. I'm glad that you've found images to populate some of these categories, but we're now left with:
In other words, you've created 4 categories to house 1 image, and there has been no growth in the number of images since last October. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm leaning towards using deer. Amqui prefers deers and said that the other cats in Category:Cervidae by location should be renamed as well. Some categories in Category:Cervidae should be changed as well if we want to use deers. Thoughts?
Deer is an irregular plural form like sheep and fish, if we wish to change this category due to being an irregular plural form, next we will be renaming sheep to sheeps and fish to fishs. I don't know about you guys, but Deers flags my autocorrect and Deer doesn't. ~riley(talk)07:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Cervidae is not even synonymous with deer. Moose are cervidae. Deer is ambiguous, because animals like "Rangifer tarandus" might be considered deer in one place (Europe) but not another (North America, where they are called caribou). I'm find with deer in art, but otherwise, let's use Latin. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But "England in the 7th century" is filling a vacuum, when there is no clear alternative description. But "Cumbria in the 1960s" is being used instead to displace a more appropriate use of "Lancashire in the 1960s" (presumably Westmoreland and Cumberland too). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is some point when it's anachronistic to have county categories outside the existence of that category (Wales has recently had a load of 18th century engravings from the National Library). So why not tie this to their actual creation date? Or are we going to put Wordsworth into "18th century in Cumbria" too? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pivox is known (at least by me :) to open -sometimes- unnecessary, or even "absurd" (in the good sense) cats. However, this time it is a good cat. Because if there is a Category:Historic houses in the United Kingdom, we must also have this cat. It is also good that the same user has opened the Category:Historic houses in Turkey by city, because we have many historic houses in many cities of Turkey. This also reminds us of the fact that the UK cat I mentioned above, as well as the Turkish cat, do not have a mother cat for "countries". I'm sure we have many similar houses in many countries (too many in the States), even we've got Category:Jordan Historical Houses! Therefore we need a "mother cat". Let's leave it here as a "work-to-do". OTOH, User:Pivox has added Category:Castles in Turkey as a "see also" cat to the Category:Historic houses in Turkey! If instead of that one, he had added Category:Old houses in Turkey that I, myself, invented, the said cat by Pivox would not be filled with unnecessary "old house" pics. For example User:Sakhalinio could have added my oldies cat to File:Tirilye Bursa 20170821.jpg instead of "historic houses"... What kind of historic house would be in that shape, no protection, it's about to fall down! If we return to Category:Historic houses in Turkey, it is full of this kind of absurd files. Indeed what we should add in there could be (for example in the same Bursa, Sakhalinio, Başak, the house in Mudanya where the Armistice was signed) or in Istanbul the one where the Ayastefanos Treaty was signed, or all those beautiful houses in Anatolia (Samsun, Sivas, Erzurum, Trabzon, Diyarbakır, etc) that had the honour and pleasure to host Mustafa Kemal Atatürk! (Of course the house-museum of Atatürk in Selanik should also be in a "historic houses" cat. Resume:It's good to make cats, but we should also feed them, with the right food. Now I'm going to add the Pembe Köşk to this good cat by Pivox. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. Whenever possible, we should avoid categories like <Historic houses>, <Historic buildings>, because "historic" is ambigious term. However, we still have more than 130 categories with the name <Historic houses/buildings>. The parent Category:Historic houses by country is not well-developed--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Romania Colegiu Național (National College) is a pompous title that means "very good highschool" (with a baccalaureate graduation of over about 85%). Only Colegiu (College) means "good highschool" (with a baccalaureate graduation of over about 70%). Liceu means "poor highschool" :D (with a baccalaureate graduation about 50%), but all have the same curriculum, have grades IX-XII and are finalized with a baccalaureate exam. None is the first step of higher education, such as US colleges.
Commons:Categories#Category_names is quite clear: "Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form." In this case, I don't see that the school has a clearly established English variant. Highschool is clearly an ad hoc translation. Whether it's pompous or not is hardly relevant. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The English version is demonstrated by paper documents that do not appear on the internet. Not Google is the ultimate source of documentation. Should I contact the director to send you an official statement, signed? I can do that. Via OTRS, or how else? --Turbojet (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not I am the one who wants to be in English. When addressing the world, all Romanian educational institutions use English exclusively. All scientific papers and official documents for international cooperation are drafted in this language. The purpose is for the partners to understand what it is about, not to look at the texts in Romanian without understanding anything, as I do not understand anything when I look at a text in Finnish or any other language that is not in use international. And the fact that you have not found on web is due to the fact that in Romania the pre-university education is managed by the state, the distribution in schools is centralized and based on home address and school performance, it is not the option of the pupils or the parents, so there is no need for information on the net. Web pages of schools are made out of obligation, too often only in Romanian and are not updated with years. Universities have some autonomy and interest in attracting students, so more information is available on the net. --Turbojet (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in Romanian terminology, "college" means "top high school", not "university college". The term "college" with the meaning of university education does not exist in Romanian, as a result the term "college" is misleading for English speakers. I agree that you put what category you want, but you will assume the meaning of the category. I did my duty to explain to you. --Turbojet (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The name "National College", "College" or "High School" of the same school may change from year to year depending on whether the school meets the performance criteria or not. At the beginning of each school year, the Ministry of Education gives an order on how to name the school in that year. As a result, the title of the articles and the names of the categories may need to be flipped frequently. --Turbojet (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a very performant high school. As high school, it meets the criteria to be called "National College" in Romanian. But it's not a college. --Turbojet (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Oh, I'm so sorry for not following up on this and thanks for taking care of some of them. It looks like there are three categories left to deal with, the ones with a range of centuries. I'm not inclined to have a category with a range of centuries like that unless it's defined that way by the museum. Let me see if I can find out if that's the case. If not, I'll figure out how to rename/recategorize those. How does that sound? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: No problem at all. My guess would be that those categories are so named because the museum attributed the art to "Anonymous artist, mid-X century to early-Y century" or whatever. I'm not sure what to do either. I assume they are not all referring to the same artist. The other issue is Category:Anonymous, British, 15th century. We have no category tree for art of the united kingdom before the 18th century (now subject to a different discussion). We have no category tree for British until Great Britain was formed in the 18th century. Can we assume it's from England rather than Scotland or Wales? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Polack" is a racial slur in English usage. The official name of the district is "Polatsk District" and that is the usage elsewhere. The change from that usage to Polack is gratuitous and offensive. Billofocham (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell how deal with false positive in cases when English text is infused with words on different languages based on Latin alphabet, instead of using transliterations. But this is common practice as far as I could tell from Commons categories and English Wikipedia. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Polotsk is transliteration from Russian. Polack is Belarusian state standard of transliteration of Cyrillic (Полацк) names to Latin (actually, it's mentioned in w:en:Polotsk). In such transliteration c is sound like ts (same as in Polish language), so there no racial slur in this case, since this is not about English language. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the "Wikipedians" category was for images of people, not for user pages. Perhaps we could make that the subject of discussion. The identity of the creator is not relevant to the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Sitting by legs" makes no sense to me. Would users be looking for this category and its sub categories, like "Sitting with hands between legs" and "Sitting with legs laid on furniture"? Maybe I'm missing some important element of categorization. Kalbbes (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have so many "girls, boys, teenagers, women, old men etc" categories that I noticed a huge country like the United Kingdom with so many people files in Commons had no "Male people of the United Kingdom" or "Female people of the United Kingdom" cats! And I opened them! (Please don't thank me. :) Doing similar things, all off us in his/her own way, dividing people among necessary/unnecessary age groups, we have forgotten to make the basic cats for "people by gender" or is it I that cannot see that? Those people who change age groups every now and then for peoples of all the world then should not forget one or the other country out of "by country" cats. Now I invite them to make the "by gender" cats for some 200 countries and also complete the age/etc divisions for all countries. Now according to the cureent situation -for example- my country almost had no young people/by country cat until half an hour ago. I'm lost. All those young men and women that in most cases have articles in WPs and are famous for being young and beautiful or handsome (I mean models, singers, TV actors etc) suddenly were left out of the scene. I know I'm writing conflicting things because I'm confused of so many cats. What I want to ask people is please not to leave aside any country (not referring to Niue or similar low-population paradises) when you create "by country" classifications. OTOH, today I added the picture of a couple of youngsters from Azerbaijan and felt the necessity to make a cat each for "Adolescent girls" and Adolescent boys" OF Azerbaijan! Then I noticed all similar cats were "IN". I met these youngsters in Ankara and they are "from" Azerbaijan, but not "in" Azerbaijan, living in Turkey. How do we tackle these issues? I believe instead of "of" or "in" we could use "from", stressing the nationality. Please note that there are several problems in the vicinity of the talk I opened. (Oh, yes, I've seen similar discussions, discussions that go nowhere because very few people participate and then we have "small" consensuses that dry away like small streams in summertime.) Criticise me, but contribute also; please let's altogether bring a fresh, agreed standardization to the "people" cats. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the national cats in this mother cat should better use "of" instead of "in". We have cats for "Girls of" this or that country, "Women of" this or that country. Then why do we have here "Adolescent girls in" this or that country? E4024 (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any any particular reason why "Adolescent girls by country" and "Adolescent boys by country" both uses completely different age definitions? I would like to for both to use the same definitions for the sake of convience. @Sanya3: --Trade (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Units are organizations. Troops are individual people.
It seems possible that there are air defence troops/units that are not anti-aircraft.
Could there be Russian anti-aircraft units that are part of something other than the Russian Ground Forces? I'm not familiar with how the Russian military is organized, but I believe that some countries have anti-aircraft abilities aboard ships, which would not be ground forces.
Auntof6 is right. Nickel nitride, the structure in Russian Armed Forces categories have a flaw. See Category:Ground Forces of Russia - there's a lot of units in that category, and at the same time there's a Symbols subcategory, etc.
It seems obvious for there should be something like:
Auntof6, in Russian Armed Forces 4 parts of anti-aircraft forces: Air Defence Troops of the Russian Ground Forces, Air and Missile Defense Troops of the Aerospace Forces + AA-units in the Air Force and Coastal Troops of the Navy. — Nickel nitride (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If all the gulas in this cat are "surimi" (sucedanéo de pescado) this should not be categorized as "fish dishes" or better be categorized "also" as "pasta dishes". I believe. E4024 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usuarios de España, a mi gusto esto es un spaghetti con sabor a mar, algo; de hecho sus ingredientes son: "proteína de pescados y cefalópodos, agua, aceite de girasol, harina de trigo, sal, proteína de soja, proteínas vegetales, proteínas de leche, albúminas de huevo, glutamato monosódico, aromas artificiales, estabilizadores (goma xantana), ácido láctico y tinta sintética" según El País. Quién sabe qué porcentaje tiene la harina en este producto? Usuarios de España, alguna contribución? --E4024 (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Users from Spain, to my taste this is a sea-flavored spaghetti, something; in fact its ingredients are: "fish and cephalopod protein, water, sunflower oil, wheat flour, salt, soy protein, vegetable proteins, milk proteins, egg albumin, monosodium glutamate, artificial flavors, stabilizers (xanthan gum ), lactic acid and synthetic ink "according to El País. Who knows what percentage of flour is in this product? Users from Spain, any contribution?
Szerintem ez egy felesleges kategória. A város és megye tökéletesen megfelel közigazgatásilag a 'comonsnak'. A járás néha csak város néha több. Ha csak város akkor felesleges, ha falvak és városok is vannak és pláne ha a város neve is azonos akkor teljes lesz a káosz (Horvátország a tökéletes példa). Már igy is elkezddött Rakás járási hivatal kategoóriát készített a városháza járási hivatalnak egyszerre külön szinteken pedig mindkettő kormányépület. Globetrotter19 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an unnecessary category. The city and county perfectly correspond to the 'comons' administratively. The district is sometimes just a city sometimes more. If only a city is superfluous, if there are villages and towns, and especially if the name of the city is the same, then chaos will be complete (Croatia is the perfect example). The Rakás district office, which has already started, has created a category for the town hall district office, and both government buildings are on separate levels at the same time.
I think, the maps and all other categories are,-at least,-in County level catagorized, so the simpliest will be all 'districts' deleting. (By the way the name 'district' also weird to me becoz in Hungary the city parts also district. The Hungarian 'Járás' what refer here the 'district' is more like 'municipality', but again I think this is a misleading category, so unnecessary). - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ñachi is served raw, while prietas are cooked, therefore are different categories. On the other hand offal seems more accurate than meat, nevertheless, I think it was not necessary to list "Category:Raw blood dishes of Chile" in Commons:Categories for discussion, it would would have been much easier and practical to just leave me a regular message on my discussion page.3BRBS (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, now the categorization tree seems well defined. Also, thanks to the changes, I couldn't find a bloodsausage category, therefore I presume it hasn't been created, do you want to do so?3BRBS (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You read my mind. This morning I logged in thinking about opening a general blood sausages cat, but then I desisted. I don't eat pork. I'm not the best person to categorize pork products. (Until recently I thought black pudding was made with bitter chocolate! :) I think you should -maybe after finding more pics- open a cat on "Sausages of Chile" (chorizo español etc). Also consider categorizing prietas (i) as sausages "and" (ii) as a dish: Prietas con papas etc. BTW when the prieta is produced is the blood cooked? (Sorry, even talking about morcilla/prieta makes me feel bad; I'm more a sucuk-pastırma person. :) --E4024 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. @3BRBS: the category name <Raw blood dishes> is unique in Commons database, and currently it is one-member category. I suggest to upmerge the only file (File:Ñachi Chile.jpg) and this two-level category tree to be deleted.--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't agree. Ñachi is a word from native origin, and therefore, not obvious to associate with <raw blood dishes>. I was hoping that other raw blood dishes must exist in the world, it's hard to believe that there isn't another one. 3BRBS (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hostels should not be capitalized, IMHO. Take this as an opportunity to discuss other things around the cat. If nothing else, we will only change the name. E4024 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the word "hostel" applies as it is being used on commons. At the same time, I can't think of a better word for a place used to accommodate pilgrims. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to English Wikipedia mobile diagram is a specific term coined by an astronomer. But with a distance of two and a half years I think the better approach would be to make category "mobile diagram" a redirect to the other category. In any case there should be only one of the two categories. Torsch (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Torsch: yes, merging of these two categories is obvious, but I wonder that Google gives 0 hits to the term/phrase "Tree diagram of hierarchical astronomical system". The term/phrase "mobile diagram" is more used, but it is ambigious, as was showed by user:Themightyquill--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Globetrotter19: A győri árvíz kapcsán általad betett Danube floods in 2013 kategóriát akartam kiváltani, mely kategorizálásnak már az indikációja is homályos a számomra. Ha ez lezajlik, akkor már csak a Danube floods in 2013 kategóriát kell megvizsgálnunk, ami ugyanebben struktúrában, ugyanebben a kategóriafában van, emiatt nem pontosan értem a törlési indokot, de biztos vagyok benne, hogy a törlési megbeszélés végére megértem majd. --Pallerti (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pallerti: Tényleg úgy tünik, hogy nem érthető! A commons alapelve: 1 kép vagy 1 kategória kedvéért nem csinálunk kategóriát, pláne nem úgy, hogy egy kategória alá egy kategóriát teszünk. Ez remélem érthető.
Amúgy meg, szerintem a Duna Győrben vagy átnevezve a Mosoni-Duna Győrben kategória passzol a kategóriához.
@Globetrotter19: A Duna Győrben nekem furcsa lenne, mert én úgy tudom, hogy a Duna egyáltalán nem folyik Győrben. Arról nem beszélve, hogy a képek többségén látható folyó, ami a Danube floods in 2013 kategóriában volt nekem a Rábának tűnik. --Pallerti (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pallerti: A Mosoni-Duna is a Duna része. Ha jól tudom. A képek egy része lehet Dune lehet a Rába is az igaz. Nekem az előbbi ugrott, be de így utólag...Talán 2013 floods in Győr a jó kategória cím és szerintem akkor be lehetne tenni a Danube in Győr vagy Mosoni-Danube in Győr kategóriába (utóbbi valóban szabatosabb) és a Raab in Győr kategóriába is. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Globetrotter19: ...naaa, azért egy 120 km-es fattyúágat ne vegyünk a folyó részének úgy, hogy saját földrajzi megnevezése van, önálló vízgyűjtő területtel és mellékfolyókkal – ennyi erővel a Rába is a Duna része, ami a Mosoni-Dunába torkollik. Nekem mindegy ennek a katnak a léte/nemléte, csak ne legyenek a Rábát ábrázoló képek tucatszám a Duna kategóriában, mert azt ezután is visszavonom. --Pallerti (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Globetrotter19: Nem pontosan értem, hogy mi az, amit másnak meg kellene csinálni ahhoz, hogy neked jó legyen, de engedelmeddel több energiát nem szánnék a Rába folyó Dunába kategorizálásának megbeszélésére inkább kivárom türelmesen, amíg a neked elvártak alapján valaki megcsinálja azt a valamit, ami neked jó lesz, a továbbiakban pedig sikeres cfd-ézésket kívánok – bármit is jelentsen ez. --Pallerti (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
shrug* It is not clear by cursory look. There were floods at Győr, where multiple rivers or surface waters are, namely Moson Danube, Rába and others. Category names didn't all reflect well what was on the picture, namely images from Rába told to be in the category with a name Danube within, which was seen by Pallerti as a problem (and I agree, it's miscategorisation); it is not obvious to me from the discussion which was (were?) the original category(ies?) and where have the articles moved. My uninformed opinion would be that images shall be (re-)categorised to both Flood in Győr XXX and the respective water body name (like Rába in Győr), provided that there are enough images to fill a category (like Globetrotter19 said). This name seems to be too narrow/overspecific. grin✎08:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The situation: this category content pics about floods in Győr 2013, but the name not reflected to this. Formerly, I created a category "Flood in Győr (2013)" with Category:History of Győr, Category:Danube in Győr, Category:2013 floods in Hungary. After its created Category:Moson-Danube in Győr (my guess it was questionable, but acceptable, Moson-Danube is the "holtág"=a backwater of the Danube, the main Danube passed outskirt of Győr, the backwater flews across Downtown of Győr). After this Category:Flood in Győr (2013) renamed to Moson-Danube floods in 2013, to a name without any Győr related category (+missing other related cat(s)). BTW some of the related photos not taken at Moson-Danube, bcoz there are multiple river in Győr and pics shows these.
I think there should be general category Bedford K/M series (or K/M/O series), but I believe there also should be individual categories for trucks, that can be positively identified. There is an article Bedford M series and it should have a category. I haven't compared all details, but it seems, that they can be identified by wheels? (if they are visible) Pibwl (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would say individual series categories are better as having everything in one cat doesn't really help someone who's looking for a M series truck - If you're not confident that the filenames/categories are correct then rename and recategorise them or failing that put them in a Category:Unidentified Bedford series trucks category - not ideal but putting everything in one cat imho isn't great either. –Davey2010Talk11:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, the descriptions indicate almost the reverse relationship. The description for "Arts and crafts" is Kunsthandwerk, a type of handicraft. The description for "Crafts" is Handwerk and "a pass time or profession that requires skilled work." The description for "Handicrafts" is "a type of work where useful and decorative devices are made completely by hand or using only simple tools." And perhaps most confusingly, Category:Applied arts redirects to Category:Crafts. Themightyquill (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I most often see "arts and crafts" used to mean small projects that don't require any particular skill. They are often done at home, at school, or at camp, often by children. They include things like taking materials commonly found around the house (paper bags, string, construction paper, paper towel cores, paper clips, etc.) and making something with them, often something "only a mother could love".
A craft, on the other hand, does require skill, and results in something decorative or practical that most likely has value beyond appreciating the efforts of one's own child.
Just from the name "arts and crafts", it could seem logical that art and craft would go under it, but that would not be the case with the above definition. If it's not to have the meaning I described, then maybe there shouldn't be a category that combines two things, and the term should only be used for the Arts and Crafts Movement.
I think, I've used the article's or category's name from the English Wikipedia then in 2007, or maybe there even was a red link. (I'm not native English speaking). I don't care about moving/renaming. Please note all subcategories, some not mentioned yet like Category:Arts and crafts on stamps. --Kungfuman (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Themightyquill, I am afraid the commons community shall not be able to resolve the multiple problems of this category tree without reviewing all category definitions as well as the definitions in WP:en, WP:de, WP:fr, Wikidata ... and sourcing them with reliable sources. The understanding of craft (de:Handwerk, fr:Artisanat) seems to be distinct for the different native-speakers. Owing to the lack of sources the interlinks and Wikidate translations may not be accurate. After my different dictionaries
en:crafts → de:Handwerk → fr:artisanat = after :en:craft à trade or a [simple] pastime (not sourced, is pastime the correct definition ???) = in my (not reliable) opinion in Germany and in France a separate sector of manufacturing activities requiring extensive professional training or apprenticeship and mostly but not necessarily aesthetic sensibility (i.e. electricians and butchers are craftsmen), and also a workshop and specific tools.
en:arts and crafts → de:Kunsthandwerk → fr:artisanat d'art = IMHO in the beginning a movement to promote crafts by raising the aesthetic / artistic value of crafted products. In France this intention goes back as far as the middle of the 18th century and the opening of the écoles gratuites de dessin (with evenig and weekend sessions for working craftspeople) such as the École Royal de Dessin (1767) in Paris [13]. Since 2003 the artisanat d'art-related activities are officially recognized by a label in France (see: fr:Liste des métiers de l'artisanat d'art en France).
en:handicrafts = has a good introduction and a clear definition in the english version but erroneous interwiki links = IMHO handicraft concerns everything but the upper mentioned, i.e. any kind of hand-made (handicrafted) object created by adult amateurs or by children, requiring more or less skill but no specific training, no specific working place, and only few simple tools. That would be in german de:Basteln (verb) or Bastelei (noun), in french :fr:bricolage ??? (in school part of Travaux manuels) I hope this helps. I am not a native english-speaker and I am not able to edit articles in english. --Bohème (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Handicraft should be a non-diffusing category to Category:Crafts, as all handicrafts are types of crafts but not all crafts are handicraft (as clearly stated above). But is the concept of a non-diffusing category possible in Wikimedia Commons? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I finally have a reply after two-and-a-half years, then let me attract attention to Category:Village houses (which is yet to be made! :) and its "supposed" subcats like Category:Village houses in Turkey and elsewhere (Spain, Iran, etc). As not every peasant owns a farm or a manor, I think "village" (or "rural"?) houses may be developed as a subcat of "something" (villages/houses?) to name small, poor houses on the countryside. We have many pics in the related cats. Gargarapalvin? --E4024 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I do not agree such type of idea that if there is nothing about something within the ENWiki, then it is null. As @E4024: mentioned, village or rural house is generally used to define the houses in where out of the city and they are mostly jerry-built. A farmhouse or manor is really different things. --Gargarapalvin (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The explanatory text says to look up anorak and parka on enWP, but the former is a redirect to the latter—which also accords with my own understanding of the terms as basically synonymous. As we don’t generally use singular forms of common nouns, I think this cat should be renamed to Anoraks and made a redirect to Parkas instead of being its parent. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Odysseus1479 and Estopedist1: They are distinguished on some wikis, such as dewiki. Several sources on the internet suggest that traditionally, there has been a difference between them, but in the modern world they have been merged. There does seem to be an agreed-upon physical distinction (the one described on the category page), so I think the categories should be kept distinct - but neither should be a child of the other, they should just use {{Seealso}}. This doesn't really capture the modern merger, but I can't see a better way. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All these categories (and others) should be renamed to (e.g.) "Acourtia (botanical illustrations)" or simply Acourtia (illustrations)" per conventional naming structure on Wikimedia, by using parenthesis, and not hyphens for disambiguating and subcategorizing. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term "botanical illustrations" should be retained in any case. It is usually an indication of the origin of botanical scientifically recognized textbooks. Otherwise, this very extensive category: Botanical illustrations by taxon should have to be renamed in „illustrations from botanical textbooks“. Orchi (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry But I don't know what are the conventional naming that Jonatan Svensson Glad is referring to. On the Wikipedia in french language parenthesis are used almost in case of disambiguation. I think parenthesis are not necessary in this case. --Pixeltoo (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)--Pixeltoo (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stale discussion. @Josve05a and Orchi: I agree with User:Pixeltoo, that eg "Acourtia (botanical illustrations)" is rather nonconventional use in Commons (only 27 categories with such name). On the same time, eg "Asteraceae botanical illustrations" or "Astera - botanical illustrations" are used 100+ times. It seems that the hyphen is mostly used at genus--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAsteraceae - botanical illustrations. The hyphen is incorrect and unnecessary. Begone!
OpposeAsteraceae (botanical illustrations). I think parentheses are unnecessary and that they should primarily be used for (actual) disambiguation as opposed to subcategorizing. It also seems generally counterintuitive to have clearly topical information in parentheses. Imagine "Category:Cats and dogs (oil paintings)".
Weak supportBotanical illustrations of Asteraceae. The "of" construction is a very common category title format. It's intuitive because it starts by telling readers what the subcategory contains more specifically, which is a good format for the main category of the particular species of type of species. But looking at meta categories with subcategories of a lot of species or types, it seems better to start with the name, to make the sometimes long lists of subcategories easier to navigate. See e.g. subcategories in Category:Botanical illustrations by family.
SupportAsteraceae botanical illustrations. This format is, in fact, also common on Commons. Here, the name is a premodifying noun, i.e. a noun that behaves like an adjective, fittingly making "illustrations" the main word. See e.g. the premodfying proper nouns in most subcategories in Category:Newspaper people by newspaper. It's certainly not ideal as a standard format for category titles, but it has some clear benefits in this case in that it places the name of the organism first while also being grammatically and typographically correct and/or appropriate.
In conclusion: in this case, the "Asteraceae botanical illustrations" format is kind of good, actually. Do you see what I mean?
See also: Category talk:Colorful. 
Keep, and hatnote to be added (also a inferior Category:Gazpacho (band)). Objections?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Support ThomasPusch (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose hiding ("hiddenising"). ThomasPusch (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Delete but as Jmabel says make sure files end back up in the right category. Abzeronow (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I'd recommend merging the two categories. Even if one is meant to mean the parish, and the other the village - the similar names mean that distinction cannot be drawn.
1. IWRM workshop (meeting).
2. A Wikipedia workshop (seminar)
3. A soldering workshop (hands-on seminar).JPG)
.jpg)
Antoine.01
overleg(Antoine) 16:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_Wig_(5878924631).jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baltimore_Police_Arrest.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Weak support Botanical illustrations of Asteraceae. The "of" construction is a very common category title format. It's intuitive because it starts by telling readers what the subcategory contains more specifically, which is a good format for the main category of the particular species of type of species. But looking at meta categories with subcategories of a lot of species or types, it seems better to start with the name, to make the sometimes long lists of subcategories easier to navigate. See e.g. subcategories in Category:Botanical illustrations by family.