Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Chapelle Sainte-Élisabeth-de-Hongrie de Ventiseri

[edit]

Crette catégorie fait double emploi avec la catégorie "Category:Chapelle de Piediquercio", préexistante. Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne vois aucune objection à une fusion, mais je ne sais pas le faire. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr.Latreille: Quel est le nom correct? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom correct ? Cà dépend des conventions. La catégorie que j'ai créée en premier utilise une référence de localisation, ce qui pour moi est le plus pertinent pour qui fait une recherche sur la ... localité (cette chapelle est dans un petit hameau perdu - mieux vaut dire tout de suite lequel). L'autre fait référence au "saint patron" de l'édifice, info intéressante, mais à mon avis secondaire (je veux dire : qui doit venir en second). Mais, je le souligne, ce n'est que mon avis. Accessoirement, je m'aime pas les noms trop longs. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr.Latreille: Merci. Je comprends que ajoutant le nom "Piediquercio" aid d'identifier l'hameau, mais normalement, nous utilisons le nom propre. Dans ce cas, le nom propre "Chapelle Sainte-Élisabeth-de-Hongrie de Ventiseri", non ? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom propre, nom correct, et aussi nom d'usage (comment les gtens du lieu la nomment-ils?), y a-t-il une règle officielle? une règle propre à WP:fr ? La seule certitude, c'est que la chapelle (ou l'église, ou cathédrale) existant à tel endroit a été dédiée à tel saint patron. Et souvent on mentionne les deux pour la nommer (Notre-Dame de Paris, vous connaissez ?). On a donc a priori le choix.
Reste qu'il faut, dans notre cas précis, fusionner deux catégories. Et je répète que je ne sais pas faire. Que celui qui le fera choisisse le nom qu'il retient. Je ne le contesterai pas. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr.Latreille: il n'y a que deux étapes en fusionner des catégories: d'abord recatégoriser des images à la catégorie retenue et après rediriger ou supprimer l'autre catégorie. C'est tout, mais avant faire ça, il faut déterminer la catégorie à retenir (ou peut-être à créer si aucune suffit). --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Fr.Latreille and Themightyquill: Category:Chapelle de Piediquercio is redirected to Category:Chapelle Sainte-Élisabeth-de-Hongrie de Ventiseri. Is this French-only category-for-discussion solved?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with things as they are. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have prefered a shorter name, but it seems that many people like a name with patron saint AND localisation. As you want it... Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tsurumisaki

[edit]
See also: Category talk:Cape Tsurumi.

I'm sorry for renaming this category to Category:Cape Tsurumi before I read the note page, but I requesting renaming this category to Category:Cape Tsurumi strongly. Because the name of this cape can be "Tsurumizaki" in Japanese also, see [1] or [2]. そらみみ (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the only reason, Category:Tsurumizaki can easily be redirected here. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But in Japanese, this means "Tsurumisaki" could be divided as 2 words: "Tsurumi" and "saki"(cape).--そらみみ (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I would in principle support the category being named "Cape Tsurumi" (with redirects from Tsurumisaki and Tsurumizaki), the discussion at Category talk:Cape Tsurumi suggests that Tsurumisaki can not be divided. Perhaps おいたんし can explain? --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For each caracter of "鶴御崎" (Tsuru-mi-saki), "鶴"(tsuru) means a crain, "崎"(saki) means a cape, and "御"(mi) is a prefix added to "崎"(saki). "御"(mi) in combination with "崎"(saki) shows that the cape is a sacred or beautiful place (See wikt:御#Japanese). Accordingly, "御"(mi) and "崎"(saki) cannnot be devided. --おいたんし (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being late, I think maybe 御 is a character just representing the kana み, not having really meaning. Because name of the district near this cape is "鶴見" (same pronunciation, but different kanji), and according to this website [3], the most commonly name of this cape used to be "鶴見崎", but changed to "鶴御崎" after WWII.--そらみみ (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current name of the cape is not "鶴見崎" but "鶴御崎". "鶴御崎" cannot be divided into "鶴御" and "崎". --おいたんし (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So according to the principle 3-1 of English-translation by Geographical Survey Institute (置換方式の適用が不能又は不適当な場合「固有名詞的部分の文字数が短い、単体で使用されることがないなどにより、置換方式では日本人が理解できない場合」は追加方式。それ以外は置換方式。), maybe "Cape Tsurumisaki" is right.--そらみみ (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships of Holland America Line

[edit]

I have found two Categories with similar subject, i.e. "Ships of Holland America Line" and "Cruise ships of Holland America Line‎" could they be merged into one? Gillfoto 18:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Are all the ships cruise ships, or are any of them not cruise ships? If they're all cruise ships, then maybe we can eliminate the non-cruise category. In either case, anything in the cruise ship category shouldn't be in the other category. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Images of these ships can be taken during their lifetime as liners and the time as cruise ships. Most of them have not all the time been cruise ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Holland America Line had also other significant ships like the Bilderdyk. I think, also the cargo ships are interesting.--Wolfgang Fricke (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gillfoto, Auntof6, Stunteltje, and Wolfgang Fricke: given Stunteltje's and Wolfgang Fricke's replies, i suppose the solution is to keep both cats? and research can be done by users to check whether a ship had been both a liner and a cruise ship in its lifetime, and add such a ship to both cats?--RZuo (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Houses in the United States built in 1975

[edit]

Why is this category "Houses in the United States built in 1975" and the subcategories "Houses built in Arizona in 1975‎" and "House built in California in 1975" ? In other words, why isn't this category Houses built in the United States in 1975 like the subcategories? Mjrmtg (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the category-names for Houses built in the United States because many older houses where not built in the USA (for example in California or in Alaska) but they are Houses in the United States which are built in xxxx --anro (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least all categories for houses built by state should be renamed in the same way --anro (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming the state/territory cats to something like "Houses in <place> built in <year>". --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. When implementing user:Auntof6's principle "Houses in <place> built in <year>", there seems to be several thousands renamings. So we shouldn't rush with such massive renamings without obvious consensus or compromise--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

support Houses in <place> built in <year>, which prevents factually wrong titles like Houses built in South Sudan in 1990. RZuo (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heiliger Wandel

[edit]

merge with Category:Return from Egypt, preferredly to later Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the description on the category, those are not the same thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: The German category description at Category:Heiliger Wandel lists "Rückkehr aus Ägypten" ("Return from Egypt") as an alternative name. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of Renaming Categories or merging them, we should put our resources into multi-language displays of categories. "Heiliger Wandel" is an own name and a regional and religious term of this motive of art and religious despiction. It should also stay searchable under that name. Use Wikidata and Wikidata Infoboxes to make that possible ((Q1424655). "Return from Egypt" does not have a Wikidata Entry.--Wuselig (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a redirect would be enough to keep Heiliger Wandel as searchable. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also gives two other alternate names, which I took to mean that the term could apply to any of the three (translated, they mean Return from Egypt, return from the temple, and walk of the Holy Family over the mountains), and even to anything showing the Holy Family walking together. At least one of them, this one, doesn't show Mary or Joseph, so it can't be the return from Egypt. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this one shows Mary & Joseph (with the white lily) and in addition 2/3 of the holy trinity. Not sure what you mean (did you mean this one?)
But you are right, that the German description does list three different meanings. And therefore it will not be justified to do the proposed merge. I for my part would like to withdraw the proposal. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the file I linked is called "St Peter und Paul" so I was thinking they were the adults in the image. But you're right, it does look like it could be Mary and Joseph. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peter and Paul is the name of the church. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Heiliger Wandel is a broader category than Category:Return from Egypt, the latter should be a subcategory and the images should be moved accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read it that way. The way I read it, "Heiliger Wandel" refers to Jesus, Mary, and Joseph walking together. That could be on the way back from Egypt or at other times. If anything, Category:Heiliger Wandel could be subdivided by what specific event is depicted (for example, Category:Heiliger Wandel (return from Egypt)), if that can even be determined. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mózg Józefa Piłsudskiego

[edit]

Not English, should be "Józef Piłsudski's brain" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I renamed. In addition, I suggest to delete this Polish name. Then, CFD can be closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocket pistol

[edit]

There is missing a definition. And as far as i read the en article there doesen't exist a clear definition. Sanandros (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but the pocket pistol exist and some many picture are named "pocket pistol" (search on commons picutre to confirme) and if seach on web is a pistol so little maybe for use to woman concealable or easily hidden. Maybe to trasformate on a subcategory. --Numobeer (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that we name things pocket pistol but what I doubt is that it is usefull to categorize it as such.--Sanandros (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Sanandros: enwiki en:pocket pistol exists. I think we can close this CFD as keep?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what is with the definition?--Sanandros (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i agree this phrase, just a bit less vague as "small pistols", might lack a precise definition which we could rely on to determine its scope. but on the other hand, there are many "pocket something" cats Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Pocket and there doesnt seem to be a problem. RZuo (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spinsters

[edit]

The word "spinster" has two different meanings: a person who spins fibers (which meaning is obsolete) and an unmarried woman. This cat seems to be categorized for both, but it should be for only one. Whichever one it is, I think this category should have a different name. Auntof6 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinster as an "old" unmarried woman is both derogatory and ultimately subjective based on context. At which age does someone become a spinster? Would we include bio categories here, or just photos? I don't know to what degree "spinster" (as in one who spun wool) was every considered a profession. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category intending to refine its placement but apologize for not getting to it until now. I propose the following: for the occupational role, "spinner" should be used as a subcategory of "spinning". The word "spinster" as a social category can be seen as derogatory, or not. I suggest that it be retained as a category under "women by family role." There are photos that specify that a woman in the photo is a spinster (family role). These are valuable in showing the life of unmarried women. The user will benefit by finding all these photos in one place. I will place a few lines of text at the top of the page stating that the page is for a spinster in the sense of family role only, and also that the images should be either identified in the caption as "spinster" or "unmarried", or the modern person in the photo identifies as a spinster or unmarried person. That will, I hope, at least cut down on the number of photos prematurely categorized into the category. Opinions? Downtowngal (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is "spinster" a role? Just being unmarried doesn't define what you do in a family. And why not call it "unmarried women" instead? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking about it from the point of view of the user. If you were looking for a picture of an older unmarried woman from the 16th century, and you went to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women, where would you look first? I suggest that "Women by family role" is the best higher category because you are looking for a woman who is defined by her social relationship. Until recently, a woman who was not married (and past the age of marriage, whatever that was) was a distinct social category that people would notice when they painted or wrote about her. The problem with using "unmarried woman" is that it is too general and susceptible to abuse. Every single person who posts a picture of a modern-day unmarried woman age 23 potentially could choose that category. I think the category should be restricted to women who are identified in the image already as "spinster" or "unmarried", or who see those as a modern identity. I recognize that there is a disconnect between the historical meaning and the present meaning, but I think we should not lose the opportunity to create a distinct category that documents women's history by opening it up to every modern female >18 years who is not married. Downtowngal (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As there has not been any more discussion, I have made the change described above, and I have created the category "Spinners (people)" for images of people spinning. I request that this Discussion be closed. Thank you. Downtowngal (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two years later, there has been no discussion so I will again close this discussion. Downtowngal (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Downtowngal: You participated in the discussion, so I don't think you can close it. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't I close it? It seems that nobody else is interested in the subject, and the Wikipedia page "Spinster" matches the Commons category "Spinsters," leaving the Commons category "Spinners (people)" for thread-spinning people, as I proposed. I ask sincerely, what new evidence could be brought forward to change these category definitions? Downtowngal (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Informants of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Liquidation of Ministerium für Staatssicherheit.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Flags of the GDR Ministerium für Staatssicherheit.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Rank insignia of the GDR Ministry of State Security.

Can we not change that cat to a gallery cat? Otherwise we have files in the intelligence cats which are completly unrelated to the intelligence topic.--~~ Sanandros (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess he means that you have pictures like File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1990-1006-020, 1. FC Dynamo Dresden - Rot-Weiß Erfurt 3-0.jpg in the Category:Intelligence (information gathering) because of Torsten Gütschow > Informants of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit > Ministerium für Staatssicherheit > Intelligence agencies > Intelligence (information gathering). But in my opinion that's part of the category structure and nothing to solve isolated for that category. --Indeedous (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what I mean. And that's what I don't like. Because he was at that point no more an informant.--Sanandros (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a basic part of our categorization system, and affects almost all categories if you dig far enough. Sub-categories aren't always connected by examples of a broader category, but also by related categories. Quick example: Category:Charlie Keller is clearly not a horse, but he's in Category:Horse trainers, which is in Category:Horse training, which is in Category:Use of horses, which is in Category:Horses. There's no way to avoid it. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is a way out if we use more galleries.--Sanandros (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or as alternative we delete this cat as it doesen't show any informats in action. And the Charlie Keller cat has the same problem which I think is also not correct.--Sanandros (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But why should we use a gallery for this, but not for Category:Horse trainers? And if for those two, then why not for basically other category. Category:Sculptors is a subcategory of Category:Sculptures - should we not put any pictures of sculptors in Category:Sculptors unless they are actively sculpting in the photograph? What does it matter if Category:Torsten Gütschow is a great-grand-child category of Category:Intelligence agencies? Why is that a problem? Obviously Category:Torsten Gütschow shouldn't go directly in Category:Intelligence agencies, but assuming he was actually an informant, I don't see the problem with his category being in Category:Informants of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yea actually all are a violation of the Selectivity principle on com:categories we have on de wp for that topic categories and object categories where one can differetiate between a topic where something which belongs to a broad category goes in and the object category where only things are categorisied which are realing that object.--Sanandros (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the way almost all categorization is done at commons. If you want to change this, I would suggest you bring it up on at the Commons:Village pump and try to get consensus on a new policy as it certainly extends far beyond this one category. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is an unspoken consensus but anyway we could already do it with the current policy if we apply it strictly. I'm mostly interested in my fields to keep them in order.--Sanandros (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unspoken or not, it's the consensus that this is not a problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with themightyquill. This "problem" is nearly universal to the Commons category tree. Fixing it would require extensive changes to the core structure of the Commons category tree and common practice. "Is-A" relationships are not transitive over multiple levels in the category tree and that's just how it's going to be. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yezidis

[edit]

Yezidis or Yazidis? E4024 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely weird that we have a tree like this:
I don't have a preference, but it would make sense to use one spelling. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
maybe Yazidis, since https://www.yazda.org and https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yazidi also use Yazidis.--Roy17 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than two years of discussion (I mean lack of it) and people make redundant cats like "Yazidis in Iraq" and "Yazidis from Iraq" in the meantime. Shall we close some discussions please? Josh? (Tú eres el único que corta el queque aguí. :) --E4024 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this discussion is still active but I endorse Yazidis ("A" spelling) over the "E" spelling. I think "e" is the spelling in the (French-influenced) Kurdish alphabet and in French, but "Yazidi" is more normal in English. (Ping: @E4024: , @E4024: ) GPinkerton (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: There appears to be clear consensus for this change (and I agree with it). I think you are good to make the change. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scales

[edit]

Shouldn't this be a disambiguation category? Some of the items in it are for weighing, some are for other kinds of measuring or evaluating (for example, a lot of what's under medical scales), and then there are musical scales. Those are not the same kind of thing, so I think it should be a disambiguation page. We could even include Category:Fish scales, Category:Scales (ratio), Category:Tornado scales, and possibly other things. Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Musical scales aren't about measurement, are they? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Time project

[edit]

Could we find a more accurate and more helpful name for this category? And maybe some additional parent categories? Themightyquill (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be changed. But have no idea now. --FML hello 19:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and FML: we are really stucked with this category. It is sure that this is a set of files probably depicting the sun moving in time. And we also know that these files are drawn by Felipe Micaroni Lalli (using probably CorelDRAW!® or Inkscape)--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Category:Time diagrams by Felipe Micaroni Lalli? -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Occasio

[edit]

Is this redundant with Category:Kairos (Time) ? Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: philosophical stuff. Hints:

Category:Timing

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Time diagrams.

Is Category:Timing redundant with Category:Timekeeping ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're the same. Timekeeping means keeping track of the normal advance of time. Timing can mean measuring how long something takes, such as a race. It can also refer to other things; in fact en:Timing is a disambiguation page.
On a related note, I think the clock-related subcats under Category:Electronic timing probably belong elsewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying "timekeeping" means tracking at what time (of day) things happened, while "timing" means how long (duration) things take? I'd say the difference is pretty slim in practice. But then Category:Stopwatches should be in Category:Timing not Category:Timekeeping? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Timekeeping is keeping track of what time it is. The Wiktionary definition is "the measurement of time, or determining what the local time is". It doesn't have anything to do with events. I agree about stopwatches, because they don't know the time of day. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I see that would be a clear way to divide things, but it doesn't match with the text at en:Timekeeper, which seems to include both definitions (e.g. "time remaining during events such as sports matches" and en:Time clock.) Maybe moving Category:Timing to Category:Duration or something similar would make sense? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'd agree Time is more general (about for example how long something is or the time between 2 dates etc) while Timekeeping is something we do, for example, by saying that its 10 O'clock or not being lake for something. Timing is generally when something happens or keeping track of how long something takes etc. So yes Timekeeping and Timing should be a sub category of Time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ak Sarai palace in Shahrisabz

[edit]

Saray (Sarai) means palace. No need for the word "palace". Also if it were part of the formal name, then it should begin with P, not p. Lastly, "in ..." is not very much in accordance with our naming practice, and possibly not necessary. Are there several "Ak Sarai"s? (For easy ref to colleagues, "ak saray" means "white palace".) E4024 (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Many Wikipedias has article of this palace, but not enwiki. Several name variants exists: eg en:Shahrisabz mentions "Ak-Saray Palace"; Wikidata entry uses the name "Aqsaray Palace". Maybe user:Mardetanha can help?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fine Art

[edit]

The definition on this category matches neither the definition indicated at en:Fine art nor the way I've heard the term used in the past. Even if we change the description to match the usual meaning, the term might be too subjective to be meaningful on Commons. Auntof6 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "fine art" is an established enough terminology that we should attempt to represent it in the category tree. The current category description appears to match enwiki quite well (in fact having been largely copied from there). I do think the correct name is Category:Fine art. The main difficulty will be finding the correct categories to child to it, as e.g. Category:Painting includes both "fine" painting and decorative painting. It might be hopeless without someone to champion it and try to sort it out. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:William Riker

[edit]

The only images in this category were cosplay. Unless we get a photo of Jonathan Frakes in his uniform, there isn't going to be anything that belongs in this category until 2083. B (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the images of cosplay belong in this category? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not directly and I don't think it would be there at all. We wouldn't put photos of furries in the categories about the animals they are depicting - if they are there at all, they are buried under "animal xyz in art", "animal xyz costumes", etc. Category:Cosplay of William Riker didn't exist until after I started this CFD ... and I don't hugely like having the over-categorization of individual cosplay characters. There is potential educational value, I suppose, in having images that are examples of cosplay. But this isn't a cosplay fandom site. If we have libraries of photos of cosplay of a particular character, then we're getting into a weird fetish more than we're getting into education. --B (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that images of cosplayers playing a particular character belong somewhere in that character's category tree, including furries if they represent an identifiable animal (buried in child categories is fine). If the cosplay images are out of scope, you may nominate them for deletion, but as long as they exist they should live in this category. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iustitia

[edit]

Suggest move to "Justitia (goddess)" see talk Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Infant bicycle seats

[edit]

Currently, this category contains lots of images of Category:Bicycle child carriers carrying children who are really too old to be characterized as "infants". I suggest we need two categories, Category:Infant bicycle seats should be a subcategory of Category:Bicycle child carriers. Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images where a non-infant is a passenger...
  1. File:Bicileteada_(8262077556).jpg -- when the child is old enough to hold on themselves I suggest we no longer consider them an "infant"
  2. File:Alexei Nikolaievich of Russia and boatswain Derevenko.jpeg
  3. File:Cycling_in_Chicago_08.jpg
  4. File:Green_Travel_Day_22_September_2010_Jersey_8.jpg
  5. File:Remarkable_bike_with_a_kid_passenger_seat,_and_extra_robust_front_basket.jpg
  6. File:スーパーよさこい_タテカン_(30340683738).jpg
  7. File:ママ用チャリ_2016_(28315207524).jpg
  8. File:Bicycle_in_The_Hague_24.JPG
  9. File:Barcelona lEixample 14 (8314885776).jpg
  10. File:Barcelona lEixample 14 (8276342077).jpg
 Support Category:Infants redirects to Category:Babies, which is a sub-category of Category:Children, so children is broader, including both infants and older kids. I'm not necessarily convinced we need Category:Infant bicycle seats at all. Do we have examples of bicycle seats that work for babies but not for 1 year olds? Can we just merge to Category:Bicycle child carriers (or Category:Child bicycle seats or Category:Children's bicycle seats)? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support --DALIBRI (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Am I correct that user:Themightyquill and user:DALIBRI supports to merge Category:Infant bicycle seats and Category:Bicycle child carriers. Enwiki article uses the name en:Children's bicycle seat. I would support the merging in favor or Category:Children's bicycle seats --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's a logical subcategory for Category:Children's seats. All the parents categories of both can stay. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Karine A

[edit]

Why do we need a reidirect? I'd delete it as Karine A existed before this operation and is still existing on the ground of the sea after the operation. So if there are pics abut that ship we should categorise them in an independet cat. Sanandros (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with moving to separate ship category with Category:Operation Noah's Ark as a sub-category. I've just redirected Category:Karine A affair to Category:Operation Noah's Ark because the wikipedia article is actually at en:Karine A affair. If we're not going to create a ship category, however, then there's no need to delete the redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have File:KarinA6012002.jpg which actually shows the ship but is also part of affair so if we categorize them in both cats we have an overcat case. Karine A has also a IMO. So we could do a ship cat but I'm not an expert in that.--Sanandros (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Sanandros and Themightyquill: if only one file for the ship named "Karine A", there is no need to do one-member category. The nominated category can be kept or deleted, I prefer deleting to hold a red link for the ship. Besides, because enwiki is under the name en:Karine A affair, we should also follow the enwiki (currently Category:Karine A affair is a redirect)--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a category for the ship, even if its only content is Category:Operation Noah's Ark, allows Category:Karine A to be placed in relevant ship-related categories. It would be weird to have Category:Operation Noah's Ark under Category:Ships by name (flat list). -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can do following. Keep Karin A as a ship category with IMO Number. Keep the affaire in a seperate cat and having a topyic cat for both. That's how we do it on de wp.--Sanandros (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barefoot female, sole exposed

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01/Category:Topless and barefoot female.

Category:Barefoot women, soles apparent already exists. If there is a difference between "soles exposed" and "soles apparent", I don't understand it. Maybe "Barefoot women with soles of feet visible" is better wording for both? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference, either. At least one file is in both categories. How about the even simpler "Soles of women's feet"? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that title, but I suspect there may be subtleties apparent only to foot fetishists. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are such subtleties, but do we need to take them into account when naming categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up, World's Lamest Critic. I agree with Auntof6. The parent category is Category:Human sole (foot). Let's choose a sub-category that is closest in possible to name as that. Category:Soles of women's feet or Category:Women's soles (foot) or whatever. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be like putting all files in Category:Barefoot women into Category:Women's feet. Category:Barefoot women, soles apparent‎, as plural, allows one or more; much like for that reason Category:Topless and barefoot women is better than Category:Topless and barefoot female.   :-/   DMBFFF (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pregnant women with nude abdomen

[edit]

Propose renaming to "Pregnant women with visible abdomen" or "Pregnant women with abdomen uncovered". "Nude abdomen" is odd phrasing and implies that exposing the abdomen is a form of nudity. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for "uncovered" or "unclothed". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership

[edit]

Suggest renaming to Trans-Pacific Partnership. Category is almost entirely is about the now defunct w:Trans-Pacific Partnership and not the 4 country TPSEP that came before it. The smaller amount of files that have to do with the TPSEP can go into a new category for that agreement. RA0808 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @RA0808: specific topic. I am  Neutral. Per enwiki, there seems to be three agreement:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just merge all files to be in third category, and {{Category redirect}} the first two? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theaters in New Zealand

[edit]

The standard New Zealand spelling is "Theatre", as in the United Kingdom. Both this category and the following others should be changed accordingly:

--Grutness (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support a change in spelling. New Zealand spelling is in-line with Australia and the United Kingdom (and therefore England etc) which have categories with this spelling - example Category:Theatres in the United Kingdom Other related categories are likely to use this spelling - example Category:Theatre Companies in New Zealand I think this change would support the categorisation structure to be as systematical and unified as possible Pakoire (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the category should, for consistency, match the usage in the UK and Australia. Otherwise we're going to get NZ users mis-categorising photos and not finding NZ theatres in their searches, not realising they should be using American spelling. Especially since every one of the theatres in this category spells their name "Theatre". —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the spelling of the category should be the standard NZ spelling. The Universality principle quoted above is not relevant here as it refers to suppressing "local dialects" i.e. regional or small community differences in terminology. Standard spelling for an entire country is not a "local dialect". MurielMary (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the proposed change in spelling. As expressed above this New Zealand spelling is in-line with Australia and the United Kingdom and is advantageous as it will assist New Zealanders being able to easily discover New Zealand content. Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support the spelling change. New Zealanders will not automatically think to use American spelling when they don't find what they are looking for, and nor should they have to. The categories should be renamed. DrThneed (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above comments that the category's spelling be consistent with New Zealand/Australian/British English. --Gertrude206 (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the spelling change. Such localization may seem important to local communities (like New Zealand or Australia) but only confuses the mass majority of others. We should stay unified and don't make differences in English spelling based on local variations. We have contributors from all over the world here who accepted that category names should be in English even if it doesn't reflect names in their mother languages. Such spelling changes only make it confusing to them and the others. Imagine category Category:Baby carriages by country - will we have "Prams in XXX" or "Puch chairs in XXX" because that's how they may be called locally? There is no problem in calling a specific category for a local theater in the correct localized spelling, however, the main category tree should follow the same spelling. Local variations provides a complication for the majority of people (both readers and Wikimedians). I don't see why this should be an exception to generally accepted official policy Commons:Categories#Universality_principle. Please initiate a change of the policy rather than changes on a case-by-case basis, we need to keep in mind the big picture. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category should clearly not be renamed. As pointed out by ghouston, the universality principle (official Commons policy) clearly and unambiguously militates against this exact thing. I would also like to note that I am extremely curious about the large outpouring of similarly-formatted support for this proposal when CFD is chronically underattended and usually struggles to get more three editors together for anything. EDIT: I'm assuming the editors involved were canvassed. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness, Ghouston, Pakoire, Giantflightlessbirds, MurielMary, Ambrosia10, DrThneed, Gertrude206, Podzemnik, and BMacZero: What should we do with such categories? The Universality Principle says, "The categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, and local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible." The question here that whether local spellings count as "local dialects and terminology" or not. MurielMary says they don't. I had created {{Topic by country-gb}} as a stopgap for categories using non-American spellings, as {{Topic by country}} mostly uses American spellings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Organizations. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that if it stood alone, "local dialects and terminology" could be interpreted in a way that doesn't cover so-called "British" spellings, the first six words of the UP clear up any confusion: "identical items should have identical names". Regardless of how prevalent different spellings are or what the factors are that divide them, Commons has to pick a single one and use it universally. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Look at Category:Petrol stations in North America by country, in which every country has petrol stations, except the USA, which has gas stations. This seems sensible—even though these are all "identical items" so contradict the Universality Principle—because imagine the uproar if US Commons users were told to rename all those photos "petrol stations", for "consistency". It would be nice if those arguing for consistency acknowledged they're almost always arguing for "consistency with US English spellings" because of the historical accident of where Commons originated and who got to set up the first categories. I suspect this is where a lot of the EngVar acrimony comes from. Having a redirect to Theaters in New Zealand from Theatres in New Zealand in practice solves the problem of searchability and applying categories, so unless someone can come up with a practical reason why this won't work for those of us in NZ, the community primarily affected by it, I guess we can go with the US spelling. Another example of the mess that is Commons categorisation. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that as the primary users of these categories, the categories should be renamed with NZ spelling and then redirects created to assist users of American English to find them. The desire by some to insist that some mythical uniformity stops us renaming them to the English that we use, and people most likely uploading the photos use, is frustrating. We have Category:Theatre stairs by country‎ for goodness' sake, created to host pictures of theatre stairs from Germany. How does that make sense and Theatres in New Zealand doesn't? DrThneed (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the top level catagory Category:Theaters is the British spelling of theatre for Australia (Theatres in Australia by city‎) and the UK (Theatres in the United Kingdom by city). New Zealand English also follows this convention so the proposal to change is an alignment and the precedent exists in Commons categories. It would be strange to re-label Theatres in Australia by city‎ and Theatres in the United Kingdom by city would it not? I suggest editors based in those countries might disagree with a change to Theater.
It would make a positive difference to people most likely categorising images based in New Zealand if the spelling aligns with the names of the venues and the way the buildings are described in source information. Pakoire (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Giantflightlessbirds, DrThneed, and Pakoire: I want to hold all the CFDs related to ENGVAR for now, as I have made a proposal at Commons talk:Categories#Use of English varieties in category names. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arcades in Marseille

[edit]

Le teme anglais "Arch" signifie "arcade". Cette sous-catégorie n'a pas lieu d'être. Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J'ajoute que le terme "arcade" en anglais signifie "galerie marchande". Il y a confusion totale dans la définition de ces catégories et le rattachement des fichiers qui y figurent. (Pour mieux comprendre, voir les autres catégories par ville, correctement remlplies). --Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Fr.Latreille: the nominated category seems to have only arcades in the sense of architecture. Or is there any problem yet?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. The word 'arcade' has two meanings (in French as well as in English), and I thought the 'amusement' one was preferable. It seams I was wrong. The end. Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SVG flags of the United Nations member states - 2002

[edit]

It is not clear what the purpose of this type of categories created by User:RainbowSilver2ndBackup is. Sandstein (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, these don’t seem to be defining characteristics, and should probably be gallery pages instead (if they have any use at all).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. @RainbowSilver2ndBackup: Feel free to create a gallery page with these images at SVG flags of the United Nations member states - 2002 or some equivalent. There's no reason to have a category for the member flags of the UN for each year. There isn't that much change on a yearly basis. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The user has created a number of similar categories over at SVG flags of the nations at the Olympics, without any apparent purpose, rationale, but with every evidence of no knowledge on the subject: there are several years were no Olympics took place, two categories for years before the Olympic Games were re-established in 1896, a Hungarian flag from 1915 categorized in the 1890s, etc. These should probably be all deleted. Constantine ✍ 23:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. The year means when Foo country joined with United Naitons. The parent Category:SVG flags of the United Nations member states by year of membership has 42 subcategories. If the user:RainbowSilver2ndBackup or other user don't do a joint-gallery, we probably have to delete this 42 categories. Sidenotice: Category:SVG flags of the nations at the Olympics by NOC recognition needs another category-for-discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2500s mountains of Poland

[edit]

No 2500s mountains in Poland. Polish NW peak of Rysy has 2499. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to en:Rysy, its middle summit is just over 2500m. Is that incorrect? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Middle summit has 2503 but lies only in Slovakia. On the Polish-Slovakian border lies NW summit (2499). Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marcowy Człowiek, that's interesting. I certainly see your point - there are no 2500m peaks in Poland, nor any 2500m points of land in Poland. But on the other hand, it is a mountain of Poland and it is over 2500m, even if that peak is in Slovakia. It's a weird situation. I won't necessarily oppose deletion though, since no one else seems to feel strongly about it. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree that both points of view might be taken. Moreover, there is one eccentric who systematically loads stones into his backpack and carries them up to Rysy NW in hope of giving Poland a 2500s summit. He most probably won't succeed but it makes a funny anecdote. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcowy Człowiek: Hahaha! That's amazing. Thanks for making my morning. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll voice another vote of "meh", though I'll note that there have been some attempts to change the height to 2500m on enwiki. I'm unsure if those edits are correct, they are not explicitly sourced. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surroundings

[edit]

Propose deleting all "Surroundings" categories (list below). en:Surroundings defines surroundings as "the area around a given physical or geographical point or place". That means that, for example, Category:Surroundings of Schongau is for anything around the German city of Schongau. Not only is it probably not helpful to categorize by what something is hear, but what are the criteria? How near does something need to be to be part of the "surroundings"?

In practice, these categories seem to be used in different ways.

As a result, the action needed if these categories are deleted may be different in different cases.

In short, I don't think the "surroundings" categories are or can be well enough defined to be useful here.

Here is the list of categories (In case it's of interest, I have left in the number of entries as of the time of this request):

categories included in request (click to display)

Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Auntof6, this seems rather ambiguous and surely pretty arbitrary, atleast for cities. I could maybe imagine it (or some equivalent) for buildings, but maybe Category:Yards (land) fulfills that need? Certainly Category:Churchyards does for churches. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if it's really in a yard that's part of the same property as the building. If a yard is part of the property of, for example, a cathedral and is on the cathedral grounds, I would usually include it in the the category for the cathedral. I suspect, though, that some of the stuff under surroundings of buildings is countryside that's in the vicinity of the building. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rear Admirals of India

[edit]

Similar to the Category:Vice Admirals of India, this category creates confusion. I propose that this category be merged into Category:Admirals of India and then deleted. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something about India that makes this category less valuable than the 5 other "Rear Admirals of Country X" categories in Category:Rear Admirals ? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it would cause confusion. Rear Admiral is a specific rank. There appear to be sufficient files to support its own category. Images of an officer as a Rear Admiral belong here, and if they get promoted and an image is taken of them at the new rank, that image can be under the new rank category. Josh (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has emptied this category in the meantime, however, en:Indian_Navy#Rank_structure shows that Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral, and Admiral are all distinct ranks in the Indian Navy, and therefore I believe they should be distinct categories here with the appropriate people sorted into them as long as there is media to populate that structure. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classic men's clothing

[edit]

What makes clothing "classic"? Most of these items weren't worn in classical antiquity. Redundant to Category:Formal clothing. Sandstein (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that classic is not a good word, but isn't there something to the idea of "Western formal clothing" that transcends borders but doesn't include all formal/ceremonial clothing from around the world? (e.g. Category:Black tie but not en:Category:Homongi) Maybe something to match en:Western dress codes or en:Category:History of clothing (Western fashion)? Category:Western formal clothing? I want to be careful not to end up with fancy versions of the items in Category:Western wear. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2018/11&oldid=941809692"