Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03

This page is for open CFD discussions started in March 2019.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/03.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2019-03.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache

Summary of open discussions

Current requests

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Pre-1882 Imperial coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire

Pre1882? Why? What happened in 1882? Sorry for my ignorance. E4024 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The official coat of arms was adopted by the sultan that year. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_Ottoman_Empire and sources given there. And I disagree on your bold move with regard to the title. It's self-evident that an empire's arms are "imperial", so this is a bit superflous IMO. The use of the term sultanic is practical, and based on parallel naming of other monarchial non-kingdoms' categories seen at e.g. Category:Royal coats of arms by country and Category:National coats of arms by country. - Ssolbergj (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What bold move? You just opened the cat. Did you ask my opinion? I do have reasons to be bold on Turkish issues. I did not learn our history from Wikipedia. I do not want to personalize things, but "bold move" is an insult. You have not been bold in your cat opening and then reverting me? Twice bold! (Sorry from others for the exclamation mark.) --E4024 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be noted that the user has moved the cat back to the title of their preference two minutes after a discussion has been opened. --E4024 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The three coat of arms at Category:Pre-1882 sultanic coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire (which I guess is the cat title) can just be upmerged into Category:Sultanic coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire. There is only two coat of arms there (the other picture is regarding the Treaty of Paris) and a separate category seems unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point of having a separate category is to differentiate previous quasi-official arms from the official arms adopted in 1882. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, keep but what? "Imperial" or "Sultanic" (sic). I have visited 19th century Ottoman Embassy archives and all the diplomatic Notes began with "The Imperial Embassy of the..." Never saw any "Sultanic" anywhere. (Sultana grapes, yes. BTW my text corrector underlines it with red every time I write "Sultanic"... :) --E4024 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may look it up in a dictionary, and a Google search for ‘sultanic’ + ‘ottoman’ gives many results. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssolbergj: If the issue is that these coats are not 'official', then the category should be renamed Category:Unofficial sultanic coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire. The problem is the clumping of different items by an arbitrary date. Josh (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssolbergj, Ricky81682, and E4024: Any objection to simply renaming it Category:Unofficial sultanic coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire to eliminate the arbitrary date issue? It does not seem there is a consensus to delete. Josh (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I guess. Otherwise, maybe they don't belong in the category at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raiffeisen International Bank Holding

I am bad in German and i don't wish to use google translate as most of the time generate broken English. However, according to the primary source (2017 Annual Report of Raiffeisen Bank International and the timeline) "Raiffeisen International Bank Holding" is a defunct company since 2010. The successor is "Raiffeisen Bank International". It seem better to move the cat to category:Raiffeisen Bank International, instead of create yet another cat as box in box in box. BTW Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich (Category:Raiffeisen Zentralbank) had been defunct in 2017 also. Matthew hk (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Matthew hk: Enwiki article is under the name en:Raiffeisen Bank International, but the company recent history seems to be not easy to understand (eg "reverse-merging" etc; more info in the same enwiki article)--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wirral Urban District

Delete as abolished in 1974. We only keep historical categories for media related to the history of such places and in 2019 the term is meaningless as a division of local government. All settlements within it are now within the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per discussion at User talk:Skinsmoke#Wirral Urban District this is only titled this was because of the Wirral Peninsula and Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. Otherwise it would be titled just "Wirral" similar to the fact that the category for the former unparished w:Municipal Borough of Buxton is Buxton. See Category:Unparished areas in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu and Crouch, Swale: Any further comments on this, or can we close and keep? Josh (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus either way yet. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands that this is essentially for the unparished area of which was formed from the urban district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: would Category:Wirral (unparished area) work for you? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is only the one unparished area and it is contiguous, fine, otherwise I foresee confusion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, see w:Civil parishes in Merseyside#List of civil parishes and unparished areas maybe we should move it to Category:Heswall (unparished area) or just merge it with Category:Heswall? like it was before. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we need to confuse things. I see no problem for a typical user going to Category:Heswall and finding it's the unparished area as well as the town they know. That might offend a few pedants, but fortunately, they are in a minority. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that its normal to have categories for former units such as Category:Cumberland and Category:Worksop Rural District but the latter is only used for images of it, not places it formerly contained. Given that the unparished area is the same as the former UD we should probably keep it for both since any maps of the former UD correspond to the current unparished area. If the boundaries change because of a parish being created then we may need to reconsider. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Rail Class 357s in National Express debranded livery

This label is incorrect. These trains are in c2c National Express livery. The current Trenitalia c2c livery is similar but noticably different. c2c trains went straight from one to another. they have never been in a national express debranded livery. 2A00:23C5:6E14:A000:BCB5:FF65:2346:A852 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a debranded version of the National Express livery. It's the same livery as the 379s were delivered in. @Geof Sheppard: . -mattbuck (Talk) 20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the side effects of the UK franchising model has been that, when a franchise changes hands, trains are often running for several months or years in their predecessor's colours. In Commons this is often treated as a different category. However I've just opened a random half dozen images from this 'unbranded' category and they all clearly have National Express logos. I suggest that we ought to go through them carefully and move any branded ones to a new Category:British Rail Class 357s in National Express livery and then see whether there are any unbranded ones left.

By the way, do we have any pictures showing the Trenitalia scheme? Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Mattbuck and Geof Sheppard: What exactly constitutes a 'debranded livery'? Does this just mean the paint/color scheme but no actual logos or branding, or does this mean a vehicle operated by the company but in some other scheme? Should the name be changed? Josh (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshbaumgartner the original meaning was that the branding had been removed, for instance when someone took over the franchise and removed all the old TOC's names but hadn't repainted. I'm pretty sure that RAIL magazine and other sources used that terminology. A "vehicle operated by the company but in some other scheme" would be listed as (eg) National Express Baumgautner livery or some other name as appropriate. The livery names throughout the schema generally include the original TOC's name and then a descriptor, but just transferring from one TOC to another does not make a train a different livery, we have other categories for that. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattbuck: Thanks for the explaination! So then any issue with going through and moving the actually branded examples to Category:British Rail Class 357s in National Express livery and then if there are none without a brand, we can eliminate this category? Josh (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshbaumgartner that would be an issue, as the "National Express livery" refers to a different livery, pictured right. This features light grey/white in diagonals with dark grey doors, whereas the debranded version is just white with dark grey doors. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are both "National Express livery", just different National Express liveries!

I think the one used on the 357 is more common - it certainly looks more like their road coaches. As both have National Express branding we shouldn't call either of them "debranded". Geof Sheppard (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Store railway wagons

I feel like the scope and purpose of this category needs to be discussed as opposed to a simple rename without discussion. My concern is that it seems to be being used as a catch-all for any railroad car/wagon not in immediate use, whether it is in storage or not. Several of the images in the category are clearly not stored but rather have been converted to entirely new purposes. It seems to me that either the scope needs to be redefined and the category name with it, or some of these images don't belong here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the apparent lack of input or interest here, I would suggest this category be deleted as ill-defined and therefore not useful in organizing images. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stored vehicles are those that are depicted in a state of storage, meaning they are not in active service and are being retained for possible re-use or re-purposing in the future. I think that is a sufficient description to warrant keeping. Josh (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Stored railway wagons. Even if we ultimately decide to delete, it should be named correctly until such time as that call is made. Josh (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After all this time I am unfollowing this discussion as I frankly don't particularly care anymore. But as I do so I'd note that the reason this came to my attention was that it was added to this upload of mine, of a very old Alaska Railroad car (I believe they changed the livery to our state colors of blue and gold upon statehood in 1958) that is over a hundred miles fromt he nearest rail, has no wheels, and has an addition on top that woud clearly make it entirely unsuitable for being re-introduced to service. This is in no way "stored" it has been repurposed as part of the ice making pant at our fish processing dock. Like several other entries in this cat it is a more obvious member of Category:Repurposed rail vehicles. The difference should be defined on the cat's main page if it is kept. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colorful

Category:Arts occupations

Is Category:Arts occupations distinct from Category:Art-related occupations‎ ? Themightyquill (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I agree, these should be merged. Josh (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the difference with Category:People associated with art‎? JopkeB (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: People can be associated with art without it being their occupation, so I see the purpose for that one. Josh (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exist today:

Others:

The first four must be merged into Category:Arts occupations. Allforrous (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous, JopkeB, and Joshbaumgartner: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413:

Merge Category:Art-related occupations into Category:Arts occupations.
Merge Category:Art-related activities into Category:Arts occupations as well. All of the current contents are occupations. However, Activities and Occupations are distinct concepts, so if actual arts-related activities (not occupations) are identified, this can be re-created as a distinct category.
Merge Category:People in arts occupations into Category:Arts occupations. Technically, people in an occupation and the occupation itself are distinct concepts, but practically in this case, it seems hardly a distinction at all between the contents. If someone can truly identify the kinds of content to make a 'people in' category meaningful, it can be re-created at that point with more meaningful scope than the current iteration.
Keep Category:People associated with art as this includes all manner of people that are not professionally employed in the arts.
Keep Category:Visual arts occupations as a sub of Category:Arts occupations, just as Category:Visual arts is a sub-category of Category:The arts, in accordance with the Hierarchic Principle

Josh (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Josh. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposal of Josh. JopkeB (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Starr Environmental

Hidden cat. Please look at the structure of subcats 1997 to 2005 ("empty" ones) and the later years. (Many individual files are categorized both by year and in this general cat BTW.) I think something has to be done, but what? No experience on hidden cats... E4024 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I haven't touched this cat in a fair bit of time but last I remember was an IP adding cat redirect tags on each category (thereby screwing with the category). Will elaborate later. Hiàn (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday I'm more convinced that we should do something to prevent IPS from opening cats, although I know RD is something different. --E4024 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look at the situation and it looks like either mass editing or bot moves are required. There's a mess of duplicates (from ~1997-2002) and it looks like there's been intermingling between the main cat and the sub-cats. I'm not going to suggest something at the moment but I'll try and tag the dupes within the next few weeks. Hiàn (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are thee kinds of cats

Many photos have not yet been properly categoriced, therefore every single picture must be sorted by hand. I would prever a solution in which the pictures are sorted by year as there will be pictures of 2019 and it would be a real problem to find and categorice them in a category with more than 77.862 images. Therefore I think the pictures from Category:Starr Environmental should be sorted by year in the Category:Starr Environmental 1997 to Category:Starr Environmental 2018 categories, while categoricing them properly, than Category:Starr Environmental should be deleted as it is essentially the same as Category:Images from Forest & Kim Starr which mentions the full names of the Fotographers and therefore has the better name and therefore ist the better mothercategory for Category:Starr Environmental 1997 to Category:Starr Environmental 2018. Kersti (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The files from Starr Environmental 2010-2018 can probably be moved to the Images from... category safely without fear of duplicates. The files from 1997-2010 will likely need manual reviewing for dupes. Hiàn (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote before you agreed? I said that is better to sort tham by year! --Kersti (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, haha. The year stuff works, too. Hiàn (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, the empty categories can be speedy deleted, no? Josh (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not! I will fill them while I do the work. There are thousands of pictures for each of them. Kersti (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kersti Nebelsiek: It is preferred to create categories only as media is added to them, not ahead of time leaving empty categories waiting around. Empty categories attract speedy deletion requests. That said, if you need some time to work on this go ahead, just be aware that empty categories sitting around are like a big red beacon attracting well-intentioned maintenance folks to come clean up. Josh (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago there were six more empty cats. I don't know exactly when I will add the first photos to the empty categories, but I think it will be within days. Kersti (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support categorization and support deletion of empty categories. After more than nine months since the last comment, I think we can delete the empty categories. I wonder if a bot or someone using AWB could categorize these images given the very large number but there's no reason to delete the categories just because they are hidden. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03

Contents

Category:Pre-1882 Imperial coats of arms of the Ottoman Empire

Category:Raiffeisen International Bank Holding

Category:Wirral Urban District

Category:British Rail Class 357s in National Express debranded livery

Category:Store railway wagons

Category:Colorful

Category:Arts occupations

Category:Starr Environmental

Navigation menu

Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/03

Navigation menu

Search