Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in December 2017.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2017/12.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2017-12.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Gulas

[edit]

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]

As far as I can tell from es:Angula, it's not pasta. It's fake eel produced using surimi. Maybe it should be a sub-category of Category:Angulas. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2018 (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?
translator: Google Translate via --Estopedist1 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Districts in Hungary

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Cities and villages in the Kingdom of Hungary by county.

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.
translator: Google Translate via --Estopedist1 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
What do we do with the subcategories and the maps, then? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Category:Raw blood dishes of Chile

[edit]

User:3BRBS, you made a cat for just one file, alright. But then you added it to Category:Meat dishes of Chile... "Blood" is not meat. Maybe you should make a cat for "Offal dishes of Chile". I know some of them like pernil and arrollado de huaso, chunchules, y ubres etc but I have heard that in early morning hours at the Mercado Central (o Mercado de la Vega Central?) the workers prepare some head-of-a-pig soup or something like that... E4024 (talk) 14:32, 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]
I made all the changes that seemed logical, based on your comment, hope you agree. Cheers! 3BRBS (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 07:09, 14 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]
I never cut open a blood sausage before cooking it, so I have no idea. I presume is somewhat cooked.3BRBS (talk) 15:11, 22 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]

Category:Ancient Hostels in Egypt

[edit]

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]
I've tagged Category:Pilgrim houses (and sub-categories), Category:Hospices in Jerusalem, and Category:Pilgrim buildings (lodging) for further discussion. Should we be using "Pilgrim hostels", "Pilgrim houses", "Pilgrim lodgings" or some other term to encompass this idea? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: We call "casa dos romeiros" here to buildings which are built for the purpose of housing pilgrims that come to visit a sanctuary.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and DarwIn: we have eg Category:Casa dos Romeiros (Ponta Delgada, Madeira), which is categorized under Category:Pilgrim houses. Maybe the latter category name gives solution to the nominated category?--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been going on for seven years now, has anything been decided yet? Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 16:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tree diagram of hierarchical astronomical system

[edit]

Is a duplicate of the category Category:Mobile diagrams, which is a specific term for "Tree diagram of a hierarchical astronomical system" as it resembles a mobile. All entries in this category I already *copied* to Category:Mobile diagrams. Torsch (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference on "tree" or "mobile" but I wonder if Category:Mobile diagrams could be improved to indicate that it's referring specifically to Mobile diagrams of astronomical systems, ie, to indicate we're not talking about diagrams for mobiles (not even for Category:Mobiles of planets of the Solar System!) or for mobile phones. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Torsch: Any thoughts on this? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2020 (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]

Category:Moson-Danube floods in 2013

[edit]

Értelmetlen kategória. Nincs kötve csak egy 'felső' kategóriához. Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2017 (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.
Remélem sikerült megérteni. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
@Pallerti: Nekem is jó, sőt bárcsak valaki megcsinálná. Ha helyesen hát: hajrá! De az egy kategória alatt egy kategóriát ezután is cfd-zni fogom. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 20:14, 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]

Stale discussion. @Globetrotter19 and Pallerti: could any Hungarian user explains the situation of this stale discussion? Noticing also @Regasterios, Grin, and Elekes Andor: --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2021 (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.

My opinion Category:Flood in Győr (2013) category was correct, this is not. We should move back the pictures to Category:Flood in Győr (2013) and categorizing under Category:History of Győr, Category:Moson-Danube in Győr and Category:Rába in Győr + current Category:2013 floods in Hungary. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grin's summary. --Pallerti (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bedford K series

[edit]

This includes the M series, which is similar - should it be moved to Category:Bedford K series / M series? Also the categories are "K series" but "O", "A" and "S" - should these be consistently named, and if they should which is preferred? For example File:Poor old Bedford K Type (6563198661).jpg is a K Type according to the Flickr page but looks more like an M series, and I'm not sure about File:The Fiat 500 and Shropshire's Mobile Library (19321981075).jpg, which is one of these but currently "unidentified". There's some information about the K, M, and O series (and also the A and S series) at https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Bedford:_Lorries. They seem to be described in various ways: letter alone, or followed by "type" or "series", or preceded by "model", as well as more precise model, if known. Peter James (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Stale discussion. @Peter James and Pibwl: currently we already have Category:Bedford M Series and parent Category:Bedford trucks. Any loose ends yet? Noticing also user:Davey2010, user:Mr.choppers--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember what was the problem with these trucks... I have no further opinion. Pibwl (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2021 (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. –Davey2010Talk 11:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per User:Estopedist1 and others, this one appears fully resolved. Thank you for tying up loose ends. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arts and crafts

[edit]

The relationship between Category:Arts and crafts, Category:Crafts and Category:Handicrafts is definitely not clear in this tree. The current organization scheme is:

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 handicrafts could be merged into crafts. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I might suggest a disambiguation to:
I'm not sure how to fit these together with Category:Applied arts (currently a redirect) or Category:Decorative and applied arts. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2018 (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 [1]. 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:applied arts → de:Angewandte Kunst (bad named, accurate plural: Angewandte Künste) → fr:arts appliqués
    = short for arts appliqués à l'industrie (see here; preceded the introduction of en:industrial design
  • 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]

Category:Rural houses

[edit]
Lo que queda de la casa de los abuelos maternos...

Mea culpa? Perhaps yes, but I was only trying to contribute to categorization. Now I see the "Note that the parent category for peasant farmhouses is Category:Farmhouses. For buildings of the agricultural upper class, please use Category:Manors" at the head of Category:Farmhouses by country. Should we sacrifice my cat and accommodate it somewhere around here? E4024 (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: what is rural house? Enwiki has zero links to this word. Probably should be merged to farmhouses as already suggested above--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2020 (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]
@E4024: I guess "village house" falls into en:Wikipedia:NONDEFINING (also, in enwiki 0 links to en:village house), hence "Village house" could be not acceptable--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anorak

[edit]

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: yes, solution per enwiki and in plural--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2020 (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]

Category:Asteraceae botanical illustrations

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Periparus ater (illustrations).

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]
I like Josve05a's suggestion of Category:XXX (botanical illustrations). Category:Botanical illustrations of XXX would also work. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:03, 2 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]

Stale stale discussion. @Josve05a, Orchi, Themightyquill, Pixeltoo, Estopedist1, here are my thoughts and suggestions regarding the title formats I've seen in this category tree:
  1.  Oppose Asteraceae - botanical illustrations. The hyphen is incorrect and unnecessary. Begone!
  2.  Oppose Asteraceae (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)".
  3.  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.
  4.  Support Asteraceae 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?
Sinigh (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/12&oldid=863458147"