Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10
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)
- 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
Category:Pilaf of Tajikistan and Category:Pilaf of Uzbekistan at the other, as the latter two are subcats of the first. In short the categorization / cat tree has issues. As I'm ignorant on the area (never been to Central Asia) I leave the discussion to others. BTW I also wonder if there is no relation between this pilaf and Category:Osh. --E4024 (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Stale discussion. @Off-shell: Could enwiki en:Uzbek cuisine article help to solve this category-for-discussion? This article mentions "palov", "osh palov"--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
- I think it's meant to be an analogy with Category:Potato-based food and similar, and would support renaming to Category:Yogurt-based food to match its parent. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- We seem to have a bunch of "X as a side dish" categories. Could it work like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yogurt is food. Why does it need a separate category? Wikimandia (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Possibly the intent was more "yogurt with other food", to distinguish from yogurt by itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thank you, Wikimandia, you brought the discussion to the natural conclusion that I hoped it to come. Category:Yogurt as a sauce is more than enough, even if the yogurt is just beside the food or on it, or having mixed with it, like in the case of "mantı". --E4024 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Possibly the intent was more "yogurt with other food", to distinguish from yogurt by itself. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- The cat-opener keeps silent. If you have any objection to the above, please say so, @Minerv: so that we may continue or close the discussion. --E4024 (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Minerv is not active since last year. We should close this discussion. --E4024 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Is this discussion still open? Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- It seems to be. I have a dream; I mean a proposal: Let's make a "Category:Yogurt-based dishes" or "Category:Yogurt dishes" or something similar. Look at the pic I'm adding now. --E4024 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Is this discussion still open? Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Rodhullandemu and Wikimandia: The nominated category to be deleted. Some files can be upmerge into Category:Yogurt as a sauce, the rest maybe into category:Yogurt. Also possible upmerging destination may be category:Yogurt dishes--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Jag har nu flyttar bilder till Category:Hamngatspalatset --I99pema (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @AugustMoon and I99pema: We have two standalone categories, but maybe explanatory hatnotes should be also added?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
These cats are too much detailed, unnecessary, not usable and tear apart too many files. Oursana (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- we even have Portrait paintings of sitting men with left hand holding books on tables. this keeps users from using cats. Please stop this--Oursana (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=Category%3APaintings+of+tables&searchToken=3yo21rn96va238k66obk5qx98
- all these cats are created (and used?) by only one user.--Oursana (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- I would merge the left and right hand cats, then we are still detailed.
- we also have Category:Portrait paintings of men holding open books
- so we need Category:Portrait paintings of men holding open books on tables to have not too many separate trees.
- And we should consider also the "reading" cats to prevent "duplicats"--Oursana (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
duplicate of category:Workshops (meetings) Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- It is not the duplication. There are several type of events called "Workshop". Workshops (meetings) mean the meetings for exchange opinions, and Workshops (hands-on seminars) (or its alias Workshops (seminars)) mean the lectures with practical trainings. These are clearly different type of events, thus both categories are required. --Clusternote (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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 (hands-on seminars) is equivalent to the "Training workshop" on English Wikipedia.
- 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.
- best, --Clusternote (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Why should things that are called workshops but are actually just meetings be separated from Category:Meetings? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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:
2. A meeting at which a group of people engage in intensive discussion and activity on a particular subject or project.
— "Definition of workshop in English" in Oxford dictionaries (online), 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)
- Yes → sub-categorize under Category:Workshops (meetings)
- Is this media (under Workshops (meetings)) about a kind of seminar ?
(i.e. there are the division of roles between the lecturers and audience)- Yes → subsub-categorize under Category:Workshops (seminars)
- Is this media (under Workshops (seminars)) about a kind of training workshop including practical training ?
- Yes → subsubsub-categorize under Category:Workshops (hands-on seminars)
- Is this media about the meeting titled Workshop ?
- --Clusternote (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC); [added italic part & images] Clusternote (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the purpose of the coexistence of the Category:meetings and Category:workshops (meetings)
Discussion about the appropriateness of this category and its daughter categories was started at Commons:Village_pump#.22White_Americans.22 KTo288 (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
BEGIN INITIAL DISCUSSION COPIED FROM Commons:Village_pump#"White_Americans"
Category:White Americans seems very problematic to me. I had never noticed it until today when someone added it to a couple of photos I'd uploaded.
The main reason it seems problematic is that unlike, say, Serbian ancestry or sub-Saharan African ancestry, "whiteness" is a very contentious concept. The contentiousness can easily be seen by the fact that subcats include Category:Arab Americans, Category:Central Asian diaspora in the United States, Category:European Americans, Category:Genetic studies on European American (shouldn't that just be a subcat of Category:European Americans?), Category:Middle Eastern diaspora in the United States, Category:North African diaspora in the United States. With the possible exception of European Americans, considerable numbers of members of these groups would neither consider themselves white nor be considered so by others.
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 ! talk 19:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I would delete that category. Indeed problematic and I don't see it as useful. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's apparently a topic with a long an complicated history in the US. There's a White Americans Wikipedia article, and apparently the United States Census Bureau still uses the term. --ghouston (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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 ! talk 02:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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. — Jeff G. ツ 03:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- If we are going to eliminate the category completely, there is quite a bit of work to do. Also, because removal of a category is hard to reverse, I'd want to make sure there was a pretty solid consensus for that. That would also presumably mean removing Category:White Americans in California, Category:White Americans in Maryland, Category:White Americans in Washington, D.C., and Category:White Americans in West Virginia, right? - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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 ! talk 02:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia has an article about "white Americans"[1], which seems to be just as much an "ethnic group" as Category:African Americans (a group which has very heterogeneous origins as well). Maybe it should be redirected to Category:European Americans, though the two are not entirely synonymous. FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- @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 ! talk 20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
- And, for the record, I'd have no problem with redirecting to Category:European Americans, which would also then presumably mean simply removing it from (for example) Category:Arab Americans. - Jmabel ! talk 23:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- The African American category has the same problem with random photos of random people, see for example[2][3]. But seems we pretty much agree then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'd like to know what seperates this from other defined diaspora categories? It's a mirror of the category on English Wikipedia. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
END INITIAL DISCUSSION COPIED FROM Commons:Village_pump#"White_Americans"
BEGIN PROPOSAL AND POLLING COPIED FROM Commons:Village_pump#"White_Americans"
Proposal: completely eliminate Category:White Americans, Category:White Americans in California, Category:White Americans in Maryland, Category:White Americans in Washington, D.C., and Category:White Americans in West Virginia. Rationale is explained above. In some cases, one or more of the parent categories may need to be used as a substitute. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support, as discussed above. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support, undefinable. BTW I'm European, but I'm not "white", that's a Trump-style assumption to make. --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support as per above. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
{{S}} per above. — Jeff G. ツ 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)- Category redirect to Category:European Americans and its children is a better idea. — Jeff G. ツ 23:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
END PROPOSAL COPIED FROM Commons:Village_pump#"White_Americans", continuation of polling can follow here
- Support per above. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category:European Americans, per discussion above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- For what it's worth, I reverted the change of Category:White supremacy in the United States's categorization, so Category:European Americans now again can be defined as a topical category containing subcategories for specific European-American ancestries. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh... I only now notice that there is no longer a Category:European-American society - User:Dash9Z, who's apparently quite active in this subject area as of late, had moved it to the present Category:European Americans. I still think that "White supremacy in the United States" should be removed from that category, maybe into Category:European diaspora in North America (where there is already a subcategory "White nationalism in North America")? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- With files like File:White American by state in the USA in 2010.svg, there should be some kind of relevant category to put them in. --ghouston (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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
- Point of order, isn't Trevor Noah merely a South African, working in the USA? Geo Swan (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I Support deletion of Category:White Americans in California, Category:White Americans in Maryland, Category:White Americans in Washington, D.C., and Category:White Americans in West Virginia, but Oppose deletion of the Category:White Americans, because as long as there is White Americans (Q49078) item on Wikidata and articles like White Americans we need a place to keep the images related to them, like File:New 2000 white density.gif. However, I also oppose categorizing any people (categories or images) into this category. As --ghouston said it should be reserved for graphs related to statistics collected by "US Bureau of the Census". Renaming it to "White Americans (US Bureau of the Census)" could make it more clear. --Jarekt (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Just have it mirror English Wikipedia. If it can be clearly defined there, why couldn't it be clearly defined here? - Bossanoven (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Geo Swan has astutely pointed out at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/12/Category:Irish Americans that Category:Muhammad Ali is a subcategory of Category:Irish Americans, a sub-category of Category:European Americans, a sub-category of Category:White Americans. Certainly, someone of partial European descent is not necessarily considered "White" in the United States by anyone. I propose to categorize graphs, etc, in Category:White Americans, but not people or anything that categorizes people. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 ! talk 19:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's probably very little that legitimately belongs in a "White American" category. Category:European Americans surely doesn't. E.g., Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Dutch and American, that makes her European American, but does anyone call her "White American"? --ghouston (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure deletion makes sense, since it's a term used by the American government and it seems appropriate for an image like File:White_American_by_state_in_the_USA_in_2010.svg. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 ! talk 03:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 ! talk 03:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'm not sure deletion makes sense, since it's a term used by the American government and it seems appropriate for an image like File:White_American_by_state_in_the_USA_in_2010.svg. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, see my posts above. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Unless I've misunderstood, one post of yours above suggests deletion, the other suggests a category redirect to Category:European Americans. In the case of the former, what do you propose to do with images like File:White_American_by_state_in_the_USA_in_2010.svg? In case of the latter, don't you think it's problematic since "White Americans" as a legal category includes non-Europeans? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: These included "White Americans" who are "non-Europeans", where are they from? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Middle East and North Africa. Also, not all Europeans are "white", e.g., Ayaan Hirsi Ali as I mentioned above. --ghouston (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: These included "White Americans" who are "non-Europeans", where are they from? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Unless I've misunderstood, one post of yours above suggests deletion, the other suggests a category redirect to Category:European Americans. In the case of the former, what do you propose to do with images like File:White_American_by_state_in_the_USA_in_2010.svg? In case of the latter, don't you think it's problematic since "White Americans" as a legal category includes non-Europeans? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Yes, see my posts above. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Yes, according to en:White Americans: The United States Census Bureau defines white people as those "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa." - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
There is inconsistency with the naming of the subcategories, such as, Category:Coats of arms of cities, such as Category:Coats of arms of cities and municipalities of Armenia, Category:Coats of arms of municipalities and cities of Serbia Category:Coats of arms of cities and villages of Russia, Category:Coats of arms of cities and communes of Romania, etc. Basically, it needs to be reorganized.
I propose renaming this category Category:Coats of arms of cities by country, which exists as a subcategory of "Category:Coats of arms of municipalities by country." Each country should have its own subcategory with an identical name, ie "Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of CountryName". Then within that, you can find appropriate subcategories as unique to the country, such as Category:Coats of arms of cantons of Switzerland, Category:Coats of arms of parishes of Jersey, Category:Coats of arms of gminas of Poland, Category:Coats of arms of powiats of Poland, etc. This would involve renaming some categories and creation of others, such as Category:Coats of arms of communes of France. Categories like Category:Coats of arms of cities of England should still exist as for the most part it has been properly categorized into actual cities by UK standards. However, it should be a subcategory of Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of England. What do you think? Wikimandia (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- What will you do with the images that are currently in Category:Coats of arms of cities? You will make country subcategories for them? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
2020s check-in
[edit]To my ear, 'city' carries less political precision than 'municipality'. Arlo James Barnes 21:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Also nominating:
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, –Davey2010Talk 18:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. –Davey2010Talk 02:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep per ŠJů; this is most helpful for people who want to avoid this kind of image. Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Your comment makes no sense ? ... Why would they want to "avoid" images with unblurred licence plates ? .... I'm lost on that one. –Davey2010Talk 14:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- The category is "blurred out", not "unblurred". Peter James (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your helpful and insightful comment, Your comment has really helped here so thank you!. –Davey2010Talk 22:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- The category is "blurred out", not "unblurred". Peter James (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your comment makes no sense ? ... Why would they want to "avoid" images with unblurred licence plates ? .... I'm lost on that one. –Davey2010Talk 14:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into supercat-"users who want to search such type of photos" will sift through to find what they want.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@ŠJů, Davey2010, and Sionk: In lieu of deletion, what do you think of Kintetsubuffalo's suggestion? Could we merge these categories? Or at very least, create a parent cat to group them together? Category:Concealed license plates or Category:Obscured license plates ? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- OK, the missing Category:Concealed license plates created and filled. --ŠJů (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Sionk: Well, the purpose of the umbrella category could be just to group the above categories together. ŠJů seems determined to keep these sub-categories. They do currently fit in different category trees: Category:Censor bars on data, Category:Images with blanked out components, Category:Intentionally blurred images, and Category:Pixelization. I'm fine with upmerging, but if we do so, we might end up will all those 112 images of blurred licence plates to end up in both Category:Concealed license plates and Category:Intentionally blurred images, etc. I think, however, we could make a good case that everything in Category:Censor bars on license plates should go in Category:Images with blanked out license plates. There's effectively little difference, and I'm not sure this would really be considered "censorship" in the normal sense/connotation of the word. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Stale discussion. There is no consensus to delete. After creating the umbrella category Category:Concealed license plates, I guess the compromise is made--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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, –Davey2010Talk 15:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Stale discussion. I suggest closing as no consensus to delete - additional suggestion to make this a hiddencat. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
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?
Thank you for your comments-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Information (can be checked by everybody): The Category:5 ft 6 in gauge railways and Category:4 ft 8½ in gauge railways were created on 20th October 2017 by Andy Dingley and the Category:2 ft 3 in gauge railways by the same person on 18th October 2017. Thus not really long-established.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Gauges should be named for the units in which they were defined. Anything else is a conversion and not exact. Oknazevad (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- So we have two standard gauges? European and Chinese engineers build tracks with 1435.0 mm gauge, not 1435.1 mm = 4 ft 8.5 in.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- No, you shouldn't, they are not the same. It's either 4ft 8.5 or 1435.0mm. Not both. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- What about Sweden and "Swedish three foot" gauge? Just metric, or with a name based on the origin? Which would be more familiar to Swedes? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oknazevad: «The metric system is a Napoleonic imposition!»
- also Oknazevad: «Let’s discuss this calmly and reasonably.»
- LOL -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: I've created Track gauge sizes to help anyone located the correct category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- That's ludicrous. Nobody built or builds railroad tracks to 0.1 mm accuracy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: I've created Track gauge sizes to help anyone located the correct category. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
As a side issue, I think all the categories should be consistent in using either "in" or "inch" - I'd prefer the latter. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment Can we not use both units in the category title? so they would appear like Category:1000 mm, 3 ft 3.37 in track gauge ? A radical suggestion that will annoy everyone I know Oxyman (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, User:Andy Dingley recently moved a lot of cats under Category:1067 mm track gauge trams to imperial units, despite the facts that Japan use metrics (Google 軌間 1067), and this cfd is not settled. (cat move logs).--Roy17 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, Roy17 has been trying to troll me for weeks, the Japanese tram correction was addressed here: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/09#Category:3_ft_6_in_gauge_trams and are you still running that unauthorised 'bot? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Japan works at 1067 mm, not at 1066.8 mm! -- Gürbetaler (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, Roy17 has been trying to troll me for weeks, the Japanese tram correction was addressed here: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/09#Category:3_ft_6_in_gauge_trams and are you still running that unauthorised 'bot? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- While I’m partial to metric, I can live with your inches and your feet and your yards and your furlongs-per-fortnight. I don’t care which you guys decide it’s best — e.g., Category:1600 mm track gauge, Category:5ft 3in track gauge, Category:5 ft 3 in track gauge, Category:5′ 3″ track gauge, Category:5' 3" track gauge, Category:Brazilian broad track gauge, Category:Australian broad track gauge, or Category:Irish broad track gauge — just make sure they all these exist as redirects to the one you chose, and if several of these are decided to exist (a bad idea), then at least add "see also" links in them all. Of course sorting keys should be in millimeters, with trailing zeros. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- I think that a project page as a subpage of com:WikiProject Transport to clarify this naming custom. A bot to create the redirects would also be helpful, if any willing bot creators are there. WT79 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:Euphrasia rostkoviana. These names are synonyms for the same plant, but it's not clear which name is "main" (both are classified by The Plant list as "unresolved" – [4], [5]). Anyway, one category should contain all files, the other should be turned into a redirect. --Vachovec1 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- A difficult situation. It doesn't make sense to have two categories for the same plant. Yet if we merge, how do we handle wikidata links to both sv:Stor ögontröst and sv:Läkeögontröst? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:Euphrasia officinalis. These names are synonyms for the same plant, but it's not clear which name is "main" (both are classified by The Plant list as "unresolved" – [6], [7]). Anyway, one category should contain all files, the other should be turned into a redirect. --Vachovec1 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Which plural to use? Deer or deers? Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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?
- @Amqui: You might want to add this page to your watchlist. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 12:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- "Deer" is the standard plural. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- I prefer renaming fish to "fishes". :) --E4024 (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'd prefer Category:Cervidae in X, which switch from Category:Cervidae by location to Category:Deer in X? Deer could be kept as a redirect. Deers is nonstandard, and shouldn't be considered. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Stale discussion. @Themightyquill and Riley: The nominated category is redirected to Category:Cervidae in Canada. We probably can close this CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Canada now stands alone with Cervidae; all other countries use Deer. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Are you looking at the same Category:Cervidae by country that I am? I count almost equal numbers of "Deer in" and "Cervidae in". -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Themightyquill: Hmm. I was looking at what links to this CfD: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/10/Category:Deer_in_Canada . - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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)