Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06

This page is for open CFD discussions started in June 2019.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/06.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2019-06.
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:Cimetière de Medingen

disambig, see Category talk:Medingen, Luxembourg, move to Category:Cimetière de Medingen, Luxembourg 2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 01:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the only Medingen in a French region. I'm not sure I see the need. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the move, but if I'd rather call it Category:Cimetière de Medingen (Luxembourg) --Jwh (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that either.

@Themightyquill: Sometimes cemeteries in Luxembourg have categories in English, others are in French, see i.e. the categories in Category:Cemeteries in Clervaux. Is there a system for that? For example, in the WP in Lëtzebuergesch Medingen is named lb:Méideng, not Medingen. And Luxembourg is on Commons Lëtzebuerg, no French page. So it’s not trivial with those French names either. The category in Lëtzebuergesch for cemeteries in Luxembourg is named lb:Kategorie:Kierfechter zu Lëtzebuerg. So I don’t know, why these mostly are in French here. See also w:Languages of Luxembourg and w:Luxembourg#cite note-1: "no official language in Luxembourg", Luxembourgish as "national language" and French and German as "administrative languages". Category:Kierfecht zu Méideng would also be right then.

I think cemeteries are in nearly all villages, therefore I think it should be better that the name is clear at one sight, in which language ever. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 19:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. Yes, it could be in other languages (possibly "Cimetière de Medingen" is a formal name?) but so long as it's in French, it doesn't need disambiguation, because all the other Medingens are in Germany. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! --Jwh (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Cimetière de Medingen to Category:Cimetière de Medingen (Luxembourg), assuming Cimetière de Medingen is the official name of it. I am not sure that relying on language alone to disambiguate location is a good plan. I would think that all places with a similar or substantially similar name (regardless of the language each is depicted in on Commons) should have location disambiguation information in parenthesis unless there is some compelling reason to not do so. Josh (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I rather support User:Themightyquill's view. Category:Cimetière de Medingen, Luxembourg would be misleading, because no other "Cimetière de Medingen" exist. Sidenotice: translating of such short-named cemeteries into English seems to be trivial: eg uncontroversial name should be Category:Medingen Cemetery, but it is the topic of some other CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560

Someone put {{Category redirect}}s on this category, and some related categories, like Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560M.

There have been multiple discussions triggered by attempts to amalgamate multiple instances Category:Taken with.... I think these discussions have all concluded this is a big mistake. There are strong arguments for basing our categories on the machine readable exif data. It is unambiguous. It does not require human judgement, anyone can add this info. Counting on someone's opinion introduces more scope for error.

Proponents of this amalgamation claim they KNOW that models of camera that embed different data in the exif are actually the same camera.

This is naive. Cameras can look identical, and yet have different firmware. Cameras can look identical, with the more expensive model having faster memory, or more memory, or both faster and more memory. Two models of camera may look identical, but have justifiably different model numbers, because the later cameras firmware introduces new features, to match new features found in competitor's phones.

When competitors think they know two cameras are identical they can put reciprocal hatnotes on the categories. Geo Swan (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was discussed, in 2014, at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560M. allo002, who made the 2014 nomination, also put the {{Move}} on Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560M. Geo Swan (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: What are you proposing we do with the nominated category? Josh (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Joshbaumgartner in my opinion for all cameras that embed a machine readable name in images' exif data we should use the actual machine readable name as the identifier. If some models of camera embed that name, then it should never be redirected to a related category.
  What to do when some deeply ill-advised {{Move}}, or {{Category redirect}} has inappropriately mixed images snapped by different cameras? Well, could we set a robot to restoring all images to the category for its embedded camera name? Geo Swan (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Geo Swan: That sounds reasonable. It might be good if there were a template that could be placed at the head of these categories explaining that this is a literal category exactly matching the exif data and not subject to further interpretation/merging/etc. If someone wants to create categories to group similar exif identifiers as a parent cat, that would seem fine, and Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560 and Category:Taken with Samsung GT-S7560M can be sub-categories of Category:Taken with Samsung Galaxy Trend, but they should not be emptied and redirected the way it has been. Josh (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assouindé

Redundant with Category:Assinie? Themightyquill (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: it seems that en:Assinie or Assinie-Mafia is a town (maybe also a commune) and Assouindé is a village near the above-mentioned town. See eg www.airfrance.us--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkey photographs taken on 2016-11-24

Empty category Sakhalinio (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This whole category tree name structure seems poorly thought out to me, since we might end up with pictures of turkeys taken by date. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the naming structure is problematic. This one should be "Photographs of Turkey taken on 2016-11-24", or even just "Turkey on 2016-11-24" (or whatever subset of the date we feel is sufficient). Above I have linked a couple of discussions that also address this kind of naming convention. The problem exists for many places. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Auntof6: I agree, the name is a problem. Unfortunately it exists for most countries under Category:Photographs by date by country and I suspect it is built into some templates and such so it would take some work to go in and change, but would be worth having a centralized discussion to restructure. Josh (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was introduced by User:TommyG's special:diff/293868907.--Roy17 (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I merely merged the functionality of {{Taken in}} with the the template {{Taken on}}. See the discussion page for the template. The category tree was already established, but I agree that the naming is rather odd. TommyG (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical subdivisions by country

Is Category:Historical subdivisions by country redundant with Category:Former subdivisions by country? If not, what should go in each, and should one be the sub-category of the other? Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: They are redundant. I do not see the need for either, as I am not sure that 'former' items should be segregated from 'current' items. If I am looking for an item, I should not have to have pre-existing knowledge of its current status in order to find it. None-the-less, that is a very different discussion, and so long as they exist, I support merging 'historical' into 'former' here. Josh (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Sure, but if you're looking for a map of the current provinces of a country you want to make sure you're not looking at a map of the provinces that haven't been used in 20 years. =) Sometimes the type doesn't change but the quantity, borders and names change a lot. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Agreed, but not sure how this cat structure would assure me of this. An old map of the United States may not have even the current number of states represented and state borders may not be current, but I can't see it getting placed in Category:Former subdivisions by country as the states shown are still going to be current states. There are several states and provinces which are 'current' (they exist today) but maps of which from the past would show very different borders than their current ones. In that case you get 'obsolete' maps in the 'current' subdivision tree. My understanding was that Category:Historical subdivisions by country would be for subdivisions that no longer exist as such today. As for particular maps, they are a snapshot in time and should have their date of creation (or at least date they are intended to illustrate) clearly identified so users can know how relevant they are to what they are looking for. I suppose we could have 'current maps of X' to split these out at that level, or some such, if someone felt it was needed. At any rate, these categories are for the subdivisions as a whole, not just maps of them. For now though, do we merge 'historical' into 'former' or 'former' into 'historical'? My preference is for 'former' as it seems more clear for an entity like a subdivision, but I'm not strongly decided. Any preference? Josh (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know for other countries, but for Italy historical subdivisions are not necessarily "former" subdivisions. They are just the way how a certain region of space within a city is commonly called by people since long time ago, even if it has never been an official subdivision of the city. See for instance it:Quartieri di Napoli#Altri toponimi. --Horcrux (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Horcrux: Thanks, that's useful. That is certainly a difference that we might try to protect. But currently, Category:Former subdivisions of Italy seems to contain many similar categories, no? So if that's the intended distinction, we're not doing it very well at the moment. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: You are absolutely right, a big (and, possibly, coordinated) work should be done in this direction.

I'm going to link this thread to the Italian village pump and the WikiProject Italian Municipalities on Italian Wikipedia. --Horcrux (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the matter was developed like a leopard's spots, thus when the frame became clearer there were already two different category systems often overlapping. The problem is not having both category trees, is rather confusing "historical" with "former". "Historical" deals IMHO with a obsolete concept of country, like i.e. the Roman Empire, the Ancient Greece, the Ancient Egypt, and so on; "former" is about a country that has basically the same features of a today's country but is no longer in existence, i.e. USSR, Austrian-Hungarian empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ottoman Empire, and so on.). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, that you are using "historical" in place of ancient, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Not necessarily "ancient", but more like "traditional". Taking the category Mergellina‎: it was a former fishermen town called Mergellina‎. Then it was embedded in the city of Naples, but too small to be a district (which is Chiaja. Nevertheless, the area is still called "Mergellina" and is a very well identified part of the city. It is kind of an unofficial district, but with an historical ground. We should maintain this distinction only for undisputed names (but maybe in English "Historical" is not the right word. --Ruthven (msg) 15:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Category:Historical regions is a category of Category:Former locations, and Category:Historical regions of Italy is a subcategory of Category:Former subdivisions of Italy but not of Category:Historical subdivisions in Italy. Category:Historical subdivisions in Italy is a sub-category of Category:City subdivisions in Italy but doesn't specify city in its title. These Roman and Neapolitan subdivisions seem not totally different from Category:Quarters of Paris. Obviously, "quarters" doesn't work in the italian context, since they are the actual functioning subdivisions. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill, Ruthven, Blackcat, and Horcrux: : Coming at this from a somewhat different direction, I see there is a distinction between Regions and Subdivisions:

Regions are any defined area regardless of its official standing.
Subdivisions are territories which are officially demarcated by an administrative authority, whether under a separate local administrative body or for administration by a larger administrative body.

Thus the current categorization of Regions under Subdivisions seems backwards, but that is a topic for another CfD. In reality, all subdivisions are regions, but not all regions are subdivisions. This should apply for those specific to a property such as 'historical' or 'former' as well.

The other dichotomy we face is between 'former' and 'historical'. Are they the same or distinct?

"Former" appears to be more applicable to entities that no longer exist, intimating that they had a distinct end at some point. This kind of clear-cut definition is very applicable to legally-constituted and defined entities such as subdivisions.
"Historical" appears to be more about the context of a region's definition, implying that the region it is applied to is primarily defined in a historical context, though it may still technically exist currently.

Based on this, I have a hard time seeing a purpose for historical subdivisions as a class. Subdivisions are officially defined entities, and that official definition is either "current", as it is an actively maintained definition by some government authority, or it is "former" in that it used to be actively defined but no longer is. "Historical" does not seem to apply to subdivisions, except as another way to say "former".

However, this is a different story when it comes to Historical regions which makes a lot of sense given the nature of the much broader category Regions.

Thus I would recommend discarding Historical subdivisions (yes, I note that the parent category does not even exist) and deviding their contents between former subdivisions and Historical regions as appropriate, as we can see with the examples yet raised:

A place like Mergellina that Blackcat brought up is an excellent example to work with. It clearly is a region, not a subdivision, as its definition is not a specified delineation of government administration, but instead a cultural and historical one. It is primarily historical in context as today it has been absorbed by larger entities. However, of course it still exists per se. Thus I think it is very appropriate to categorize it under Historical regions, but not under former subdivisions. It is not apparent, but perhaps if indeed it was at one time officially defined as an administrative territory by one of its previous governments, then it would also belong under former subdivisions.
The quartieri of Italy mentioned by Horcrux also are interesting. Some of the quartiere are former subdivisions as they (at least the original 12) were officially defined in 1779, however, their number and existence outlasted their official demarcation, and thus the 30 that later existed are Historical regions also. These were morphed into (again official) circoscrizione from 1980 to 2008, and those belong under former subdivisions. They have since morphed again into municipalita which are current subdivisions.

Comment Throughout all of the above, I am using terms 'region' and 'historical' in their generic sense. Obviously, some governments use the name "region" as part of their naming of subdivisions, which can be confusing.

TLDR: Split Historical subdivisions by country between Former subdivisions by country and Historical regions by country as the first is a conflation of the later two. (see principles) Josh (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Provinces of Romania

Move to Category:Historical provinces of Romania Themightyquill (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I guess that provinces are no longer a current feature of Romanian sub-division, but then why the need to disambiguate 'historical' (I think 'former' is the preferred term) provinces from non-existant current ones? Josh (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to indicate that they are no longer in effect to someone browsing Category:Provinces by country or Category:Subdivisions of Romania? Not strictly necessary though, I concede. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Looking deeper here, I wonder if this category shouldn't just be deleted, and its lone subcat Category:People of Romania by province renamed to Category:People of Romania by region. The cats under this such as Category:People of Banat are under their respective region (Category:Banat in this case, which is under Category:Regions of Romania). What do you think? Josh (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are great points.I agree completely with the move to Category:People of Romania by region. This category (and the remaining images) could be moved to Category:Former subdivisions of Romania in Category:Former subdivisions by country. Does that work? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: act what seems best here. Unlike that someone opposes--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unusual characters

What characters are “unusual”? There is no definition given, nor do I think one is possible because usuality is subjective. Some of the non-ISO Latin letters (which are categorised here) are used in big languages and in my opinion can't be considered unusual anymore. A user of IPA would think many reversed letters (also here) are quite usual. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: anything that's not standard ASCII. Useddenim (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Non-ASCII Latin script characters, or some slight variation of that. Everything written in Greek, Hebrew, Cyrillic, Arabic, Devanagari, Chinese, etc. does not use standard ASCII, but we shouldn't go branding other alphabets as "unusual". Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nyttend: We already have Category:Non-ISO Latin letters to serve this purpose. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a similar ISO list for other alphabets? This is already a parent category for the one you linked; if there are ISO basic letter lists for several alphabets, we could have a category for non-ISO characters in each alphabet, and this could be the parent for them. I suppose it might also hold non-alphabetical and non-logographic characters, e.g. ☂ and 🤖, if we don't have a category for images of them. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This cat absolutely is not meant to refer to any and all non-ASCII characters, for the reasons pointed out by Nyttend (it could be even be argued that ASCII did include some unusual characters back in the day, such as the then-rarely used "@" and the curly brackets, while leaving aside then-common things like "§" and the long dash). This cat is meant for whatever characters are felt to be unusual within their own usage scope, not as a measure total frequency in an unbound universal corpus.

That said, I do agree that the wording "unusual" is problematic and should be either changed or at least clarified in the cat page (which is exactly what we are preparing here), although in this case it would seem that, based on what this cat is being used to tag, we have a pretty solid idea of what unusal means in practice, even if we cannot easily define it in theory. (Ditto for most other subcats under Category:Unusual typography.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anything needs to be done here. The characters tagged with this catefory are "unusual", whether we can define that precisely or not. There is no need to be over-zealously rigid here. Evertype (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Evertype: Why are they? Non-ASCII Latin letters like Ä are quite usual in my opinion. Then, again, the reference usage scope isn't defined. Some would even consider Q unsual. Also, the scope is too broad. Most characters would fall here right now. I think it is better to create more categories like Category:Historic letters and Category:Unencoded characters, where it is clear what woul fall in them. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're entitled to your opinion, but it is an absurdity to suggest that non-ASCII letters like Ä or Q are actually unusual, even if they are not used in all orthographies. You're banging a drum here, and making a lot of noise, but I do not think that you have demonstrated that there is an actual problem. Certainly your assertions about Ä or Q are not backed up by anything. You're fighting a fight that's not worth fighting. Evertype (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Evertype: Firstly, the same argumentation could be applied to you. You didn't respond to my suggestion about creating more well-defined but related categories. Secondly, Ä is non-ASCII while Q isn't. Still Q is used much less in German than Q. As I (as well as others) said, there is no reference system. Latin is unusual to Devanagari users and Devanagari is unusual for Latin alphabet users. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not intend to respond to passive-aggressive arguments. The category is fine as it is, in my expert opinion, if that means anything any longer on the Wikipedia. Your arguments about Ä and Q remain specious. I don't know what sort of new taxonomy you want to make but if you are confused about what such an obvious thing as an "unusual character" is I have my misgivings about your ability to create something useful. I think Tuválkin is right. There's nothing that needs fixing. Evertype (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Evertype: The arguments refer to the letter frequency, but they differ between language. I still think “unusual” is subjective, how you understand the word depends on what alphabet you use natively, what characters you use in your business, etc. The symbol File:Transponaturtecken.svg may be quite usual for a professional corrector. Give me a strong criterion where the line between usual and unusual is, then I'll think the category is fine (although the name could maybe be changed to one that would describe that criterion more). Tuválkin says “I do agree that the wording "unusual" is problematic” so he thinks there IS something that needs to be fixed. Also the fact that we couldn't agree what defines usuality yet does show in my eyes that the name should be specified. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously what is "quite usual for a professional corrector" is not a "usual character" in the context of a generic encyclopedia. I recommend you drop this and do something useful. Evertype (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Evertype: Can you explain what is then? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Categories should not be created to group items merely because they cannot otherwise be sorted into existing categories (miscelaneous, other, unusual, uncategorized, etc.) within the main category structure (there may be a reason for a maintenance category or such). Also, hopelessly subjective categories which inevitably lead to confusion for contributors and other users should be avoided (unusual, interesting, cool, nice, etc.) in the main category structure. Even the other word, 'characters' is too broad (and 'unusual' does nothing to clarify it--heck, I've been called an unusual character on more than one occaission). "Characters" as a category redirects to Category:Graphemes which is a far more appropiate word. Graphemes should be sorted under the most specific appropriate objective category. Subjective categories such as the nominated one should be deleted and their content upmerged and sorted appropriately. Josh (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. I am not oppose for deleting. But the problematic may be also the parent Category:Unusual typography itself. The latter category has no hatnote to explain what means "unusual"--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages with maps

Rename to Category:Pages using Kartographer maps. The current name sounds like that of a content category (as if it's meant to hold map-related pages), but this is a tracking category for a specific extension. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Seems a reasonable change to me. Acabashi (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend and Acabashi: Closed (no objections; rename Category:Pages with maps to Category:Pages using Kartographer maps) Josh (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend and Acabashi: Re-opened I am concerned that this move may have far-ranging effects. In fact it appears to be a hard-coded maintenance category. See Tracking categories and Template:Location for more info. Unless we a confidnet that such a move won't break a whole bunch of templates and functions, I think this one is best left alone. Josh (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not hard-coded—the category’s name is the content of MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category, which can be changed at any time by a sysop. It should not cause any issues (if it does, that’s a software error, which should be fixed, but this scenario is really unlikely), except that updating 14.5 million pages causes significant load on servers, but it should be manageable (and has nothing to do with software-level tracking category status, moving e.g. Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0 would have similar impact). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacsipacsi: Thanks for clarifying! You are right, 'hard-coded' is not the right terminology to use. It sounds like it is doable, but I wanted to raise a little visibility and give the chance for some more input on this CfD before we close and make such a far-reaching change. Josh (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tacsipacsi, would you mind voting, if you have an opinion on the proposal itself? It would help if we could have a second "move" or if you could balance out the first one by explaining why this is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I don’t know. I don’t think this to be a such huge issue that’s worth the effort moving it, but I understand some do think so. So I don’t want to prevent the move, but I can’t support it, either. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thank you for explaining. Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I would find a category for Kartographer maps alone very usefull, because it would at least give me a chance at finding examples. With media with just a set of coordinates piled on, it's practically impossible. --Hjart (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjart: Practically all (99%+) pages in this category should contain Kartographer maps—but many of them are map links (which show the map itself upon click), not map frames (which are visible in small size even before user interaction). Splitting these two types to different categories cannot be done within Commons alone (it would require software changes), but links and frames can be queried otherwise separately. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacsipacsi: ~90% are from Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps. ~20% are from Category:Categories with coordinates. What I would like to find are examples of manually added Kartographer maps, such as Category:Viking ring forts (which is in Category:Pages with maps only). Is there any other way to do that? --Hjart (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjart: You can use PetScan to exclude pages with certain templates. But this conversation is becoming really out of scope here, so in case of further questions, please ask somewhere else (e.g. on my talk page). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Every time I see this category in the list I have that nagging sensation that I've committed a categorization error because the file has no cartographic connotation save being tagged using the Location template. A rename in this instance improves UX and ultimately its usefulness as metadata. @Nyttend and Joshbaumgartner: Is this rename still planned for execution in the near future? — ⚞🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk⚟ ^{My recent}
_mischief 21:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mind hasn't changed in the ten weeks since I created this nomination, but I really shouldn't close the discussion and move the category myself. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to suppress Category:pages with maps on files who have Category:media with locations before moving the category? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, suppression based on page metadata (namespace, root page name, page language etc.) is possible, but based on the page content itself (like other categories) is not. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, don't see a reason not to move it. Today was the first time I noticed this category, and it seemed odd to have it in an image without any maps. It took me a minute to realize that it was related to the coordinates on the page. —Ynhockey (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a protected edit request for MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category so when a sysop has the chance to fix it we can hopefully close this discussion successfully. Josh (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The category is filled generally by all pages using location templates. Category:Pages with coordinates would be a better name for such purpose. For the future, location template can use a different map application of more various maps. --ŠJů (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ŠJů: This category is populated by the Kartographer extension itself, not the templates. If the templates switch to another backend service, this category will simply become empty. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should every backend service should its own tag-categorization of pages with coordinates? --ŠJů (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - What other backend services are there that categorize pages with categories? I’m not aware of any, only Kartographer. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sju, can you find any extensions/services that are using this category without depending on MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category? Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the shorter category name. --Jarekt (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support These pages (mostly) don't have maps. The name as it stands is incorrect and misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Pages with coordinates as a new name. --JopkeB (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, better title that is less confusing. Sahaib (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per everyone else that supports it. What is that now, 8 for and 2 against? I think that's enough support to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

what's the point of this category? it basically is the same as https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3ALocation or Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Location?

in view of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T343131 , i think this should be

Delete. RZuo (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that too. Personally, I use this category to check if categories or files are geocoded. (Took me some time to find out that it's called "Pages with maps".)

for files, Petscan could probably work with Template:location
for categories, another alternative would need to be found. Or this could be limited to categories and Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps dropped instead?

At least for Petscan, the benefit of this being a single category is rather limited, as it's not possible to query subcategories of categories it includes.

Another alternative might be "page metadata", but -- looking at PetScan -- it can't be used to query and the information isn't always present. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it should be renamed: Special:Search/map shouldn't list 40 million files. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the previous discussion, I'd add a request to change the category at MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category to Pages with coordinates. If we agree this should be limited to categories, then a check for namespace should be included. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people can use categories a lot more easily than complicated search strings or use Special pages or Petscan, me included (let alone end users). So I plea for keeping this category.
Would renaming affect Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories? If yes: then that should be solved.
I am stil PRO renaming this category to "Pages with coordinates". (But it involves a lot of files, subcategories and other pages, so I hope there is a tool to implement this change.)

JopkeB (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have no problem using as many cats as possible, but User:Ladsgroup they have a problem with the database.

i dont know what this cat is useful for. if you want to find in a cat all files that have coords, you can just use the link "Map of all coordinates on OSM" provided by {{Geogroup}} (which i integrated into Template:Category helper). RZuo (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you present a usecase requiring this category. Renaming this shouldn't require more than editing MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a precaution, I asked on COM:VP/T and User:DB111 (who does many cool mapping tools) if they need the category somehow. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how do you use this cat now, that doesnt involve the use of "complicated search strings or use Special pages or Petscan"? RZuo (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly: I cannot remember that I did. But I can imagine that it can be used for maintenance and searching for files that have not geographic coordinates, for example together with a search term like a location or your own uploads ("Search not in category" in the tab "More", and then change the search string to your wishes, which is easier than figuring out other methods of searching). JopkeB (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we could define a link to search non-geocoded images in a category. This would even be easier. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good! Where would that link be found, also in the "More" tab? JopkeB (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some testing at https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Kartographer-tracking-category .

It seems it's possible to base categorization on namespace and the following would only categorize pages that are not files: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File||Pages with coordinates}}. Shall we go for that? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: I really do appreciate your efforts. But could you please be somewhat more specific, so that a layperson like me can understand it too? Is this an elaboration of your previous proposal or is it a new one? If I say yes to your proposal, what exactly am I saying yes to? What does the tool(?) do, what do I get when I would use it (a list of search results, or does it change something in a page?), when should it be used (in what situations), what problem does it solve, can you give examples? JopkeB (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a way to implement the various proposals above: the name change (first mentioned 2020), the removal from files (based on the proposal by @RZuo, given the absence of a usecase for that usage).

The search for files with locations would be with Special:Search/building hastemplate:location (or with a gadget doing the same as suggested above). Enhancing999 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This link works well for files with geographic coordinates. Is it also possible to have an equally simple search string for files without geographic coordinates? JopkeB (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you can "minus" the search parameters. RZuo (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should the search string exactly be? Because building -hastemplate:location does not do the thrick, you still get files with geo coordniates. JopkeB (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's Special:Search/building -hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates", otherwise {{Object location}} gets skipped. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! This works well. So the search strings should be:

For files with geo coordniates (object and/or camera location): search term hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates"
For files without any geo coordniate (neither object nor camera location): search term -hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates"

As far as I'm concerned you can continue with developing and implementing the proposal. JopkeB (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is not necessary and too much to have this on the "More" tab, it will not be used that often. Perhaps one Help page for geographic coordinates, including (or with links to) all the pages and links for this subject? On Commons:Editor's index to Commons I see about a dozen links to more information. JopkeB (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a gadget, users can choose to activate it. Improving documentation is always helpful. Maybe the documention of {{Location}} and {{Object location}} should mention it too. Currently neither mentions "Pages with maps". Enhancing999 (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To implement this, I made the edit request at MediaWiki_talk:Kartographer-tracking-category#Change_of_category_(2024-06) and created the category description page at Category:Pages with coordinates. Currently there are 30,108,659 files, 65,542 pages and 2,192,714 categories. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Category:Pages with coordinates has already been made. Are we going to implement some actions before this discussion has been closed? My conclusion uptil now was that we want to get rid of this category, whatever name it has, because it causes technical problems (I forgot where I read it) and there is now a good alternative (searching with hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates"). So please, be patient. JopkeB (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it for files, yes. This is what the above does. MediaWiki will take several weeks to complete the change, so yes, patience is needed. We will have two active category description pages in the meantime. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HK G36 in Albanian service

I dindn't find anything that albania is using the G36 so I think in this pic which was done during an Europian stabilisation mission is the albanian solder using a G36 of Germany or Spain. Sanandros (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: It would seem that this category would depict Albanians using the HK G36, so seems legit to me. I get that it might not be officially adopted by the Albanian military, but at least in this image, there is an Albanian soldier using it. Josh (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider for these kind of cats only official service. Especially for the US, which does exercises all over the world, we will have a huge cat including pretty uncommon weapons like PM-98.--Sanandros (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Delete, I agree with user:Sanandros--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon Generation 1 characters

Name seems to be wrong. Characters are the human figures. The pokemons are called species (enwp terminology) or creatures. Same problem: Category:Pokémon Generation 2 characters. Roy17 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 Maybe you should check https://www.ranker.com/list/complete-list-of-all-pokemon-characters/video-game-info and also I owned those items it personal collection. If you think I can not use those images for article then let me know. I just want to know reason you should be able to explain it for me to understand more.

and reason that Nintendo used word " Characters" This might explain more "Traits of Character" Character demonstrates that a word may have many and varied meanings and yet still be easily understood by most listeners when used in disparate settings. We have little trouble distinguishing the meanings of the noun in “she had a fine and noble character,” “Bill is always joking; he’s such a character,” and “He was the last characterto appear in the play,” not to mention its many other applications. Character comes ultimately from the Greek charaktēr (“mark, distinctive quality”), which passed through Latin and French before landing in English. The Greek noun itself is derived from the verb charassein, meaning “to sharpen, cut in furrows, or engrave.” The literal sense of the noun (“an engraved or imprinted mark”) existed in Greek, Latin, and French side by side with the figurative one (“a distinctive quality”), and both senses were borrowed into English early on, with a variant of the figurative sense appearing first.

and here are youtube link for references.

Here are 802 Characters from Generation 1 - 7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfTMC-C48yU

I also want to give you one example "Pikachu" is One of Main character in Pokemon. Here also to let you understand more about Pokemon Characters from

Fandom https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Pokémon_anime_characters

I hope this could be enough for understand why I have created those Categories. Category:Pokémon Generation 1 characters for 151 Characters And Generation 2 for 100 characters and Etc. Regards,..Tris T7 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and Tris T7: Closed (no resolution to limit 'charaters' to human depictions) Josh (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: that's not true. Commons call the pokemons Category:Pokémon creatures. Human figures are not normally subdivided by generations. So if categories by generations are created, and in fact being used only for pokemons, they should follow the existing structure and be named creatures.--Roy17 (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I'd like to reopen this to allow more discussions.

Whether or not to create categories by generations? Which word to use, characters/creatures/species/pokemons? Use Arabic numerals or Roman numerals? None of these questions have been answered. I'm not a big fan of pokemons, so I could only draw comparison to en:Category:Pokémon_characters en:Category:Lists of Pokémon. Perhaps other users have different thoughts.--Roy17 (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17: Sounds like a fine discussion to have, it didn't seem to be happening so I closed the discussion as unresolved. I think you might have more success by making a new CfD with a specific proposal or set of proposals rather than reopening this one which seems to lack direction. Josh (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. We should follow enwiki, where parent category is en:Category:Pokémon characters. One subcategory is en:Category:Pokémon species. We probably need an user who knows this Pokeman stuff in more depth, in order to establish acceptable category tree--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

en:Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Red and Blue was created this year by Cukie Gherkin. However, there already was a category for this in other Wikipedias, see also fr:Catégorie:Pokémon par génération and Category:Pokémon by generation (Q10039062). enwiki categorizes by game, while other wikipedias by generation. They would be the exact same thing, except for gens VII and VIII. Web-julio (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1, Joshbaumgartner, Roy17, and Tris T7: opinion? Web-julio (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language learning

How do we name a category that represents education (learning and teaching) of a language? Right now we have Spanish language learning, Foreign language education, the whole Category:Language courses, etc. Enwp standard is w:Category:Language education, XX-language education, which I prefer. Roy17 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Language education for the broad concept. Maybe create a new Category:Language learning as a subcat of the first if there is media that really primarily depicts a person in the act of learning. Josh (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Category:Second language education for clarity. Joostik (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joostik: your move was wrong. This category is for education of any language in the broadest sense. Education of a foreign language is a subset of this. This cat itself should probably be renamed to Language education as Joshbaumgartner suggested, but more importantly I opened this CfD to ask what the format of education of a particular language should be. I prefer for example English-language education, Yiddish education.--Roy17 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language education and Category:Spanish language education seem appropriate to me. Category:Second language education seems like a reasonable subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the format Category:English language education Category:French language education Category:Spanish language education...

For the more specific subcats about education of a language for foreigners, a format of "English as a second language" "French as a second language"... seems good? Roy17 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2015-07-14 community meeting in Union City, New Jersey

In February 2018, Robert Weemeyer made this category move, without my consent, and without alerting me, even though I am the category's creator. My understanding is that Wikimedia Commons allows uploaders the latitude of choosing their own date format for categories, which unlike the date on each photo's page, does not have to be in the international date format. I don't know why he changed this one category out of all the subcats in the Evens in Union City category, but in so doing, he made that one category inconsistent with the other 31 subcats in that category, which makes little sense. On June 9, I tried to begin a discussion with Mr. Weemeyer on his talk page, in which I politely asked him to change it back, but he has not responded, despite the fact that he continues his Commons activities. Nightscream (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Nightscream and Robert Weemeyer: "7.14.15" does not match up with any of the common date formats for use in category names, so I get why someone would want it to be in a more commonly used format, and 2015-07-14 format is widely used for date-specific categories. I was not aware of any special category name privledges granted to uploaders. Of course they have great latitude in determining an appropriate category for media they upload, but it still has to follow COM:CAT as far as I am aware. If you know of some different standard out there, please do share it. The inconsistency is an issue, but the solution may indeed be to rename the 31 subcats to the YYYY-MM-DD format as well. That said, it would have been better for the other user to engage in a discussion on the matter, so thank you for bringing it here for that. Josh (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: "...but the solution may indeed be to rename the 31 subcats to the YYYY-MM-DD format as well."

And what about all the other countless categories I've so created? Like the ones here, to name one example? Are you going to rename all of them? In any event, why did Robert just rename the one?

Also, where in COM:CAT does it say anything about date formats in cat names? I couldn't find "date" or "YYYY" anywhere on the page, and neither of the two appearances of the word "format" pertain to dates or cat names. Nightscream (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: Yes, all, even if they are 'countless'. The fact that a change involves a large number of files or categories is not a reason not to make an appropriate change. There are several tools and experts available for those cases where particularly large quantities are involved. Josh (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Yet another example of how classified government secrets and user passwords can be safely stored by placing them in a second question, since no one will ever find them.

I made two questions/statements, and you answered the first, while ignoring the second. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: Surely you do not expect me to answer for another user as to why they chose to take a particular action, do you? I'd have about as much luck knowing that as I would knowing what the heck you are talking about government secrets in the first sentence! I thought this was a normal discussion about date formats, but it took a wild turn there for sure. Josh (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: No, I don't. And I never said otherwise. here you came up with that, I have no idea, but the second of the two questions/points I put to you in my 06:14, 11 July 2019 message is still right there, in black and white, yet you act as if the act of making it the second point makes it invisible. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: Sorry, I have no idea what you are on about. If you can clarify a specific question or comment you would like answered, I would be happy to address it. Josh (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: LOL! Wow, it really is invisible to you, isn't it? You genuinely cannot see the second question I asked you in my 06:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC) post above, even though I specified the message by its date and time stamp, can you? LOL. You're telling me that if you scroll up to that message, you can't see the second paragraph? Or that you responded to it with a non sequitur about "expecting you to answer for another user..." ? Okay, Josh. Whatever you say. (Wink, wink.) Nightscream (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: Where you asked "In any event, why did Robert just rename the one?"... yes, well I have no interest in riddles and playing winky-winky guessing games with you. It would be far more constructive if you actually explained your rationale for the category name you feel is correct. Josh (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for rename

Rename all ##.##.## formated categories under Category:Events in Union City, New Jersey from '##.##.## Event' to 'Event on DD MONTH YYYY' format (e.g. Category:8.21.12 public hearing in Union City, New Jersey to Category:Public hearing in Union City, New Jersey on 21 August 2012) where disambiguation is necessary by date and remove date for singular events (e.g. Category:10.12.12 Erick Morillo Way dedication ceremony to Category:Erick Morillo Way dedication ceremony). Josh (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Replicas of firearms

Can we define this category something like "Media relating to replicas, i.e. models or reconstructions that are full-size or nearly so, and may try to be as close to the original in all aspects as possible. For Replicas of building in an experimental archaeology or educational aim, see Category:Reconstruction (architecture)."? as in the parent category Category:Replicas and then can we take out models, toys and airsoft guns (and similar things)? Sanandros (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Sanandros: the parent is Category:Replicas of weapons, so the name of the nominated category should be OK?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes with that I don't have a problem but with the air soft guns and toy guns in this cat. But as nobody answered I'll simply take them out.--Sanandros (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 in Benrath Maerz

German language category - and even misspelled. Also most subcategories are affected.. Ies (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:March 2019 in Benrath. Josh (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 in Benrath Februar

German language category Ies (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:February 2019 in Benrath, also other month-year-location categories here. Josh (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 in Benrath Mai

German language category Ies (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:May 2019 in Benrath. Josh (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 Januar in Benrath

German language category. Also mots succategories are affected. Ies (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:January 2019 in Benrath. Josh (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for the subcats, that is, for any intersection of a date and a place, should we go with "YYYY-MM-DD in [place name]" or "[place name] on YYYY-MM-DD" or "[place name] (YYYY-MM-DD)" or something else?

the established consensus for month and place intersection is Month YYYY in [place name] like what you see under Category:2019 in London.

I'd go with "YYYY-MM-DD in [place name]" to be consistent with month cats and year cats.--RZuo (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BMG 50

I think this category redirect should redirect to Category:Browning M2 - the category for the actual weapon. Someone decided it should redirect to the weapon's ammunition. That seems like the tail wagging the dog, to me. Geo Swan (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. In this case the mmunition is used by several different weapons so it is not clear whether one would be looking for the weapon or the ammo, so I suggest making it a dab instead of one or the other. Josh (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshbaumgartner excuse me, but isn't BMG short for "Browning Machine Gun"?
This weapon is something like 100 years old. That the designers of newer weapons have chosen to use the ammunition for the older weapon doesn't seem that relevant.
These other weapons - how many of them are those specialized sniper rifles? Haven't they only had production runs of thousands? How many BMG have been manufactured? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Yes, that is my understanding of the TLA. None-the-less the term 'BMG 50' is not the official designation of either the weapon nor the ammunition, but a common term that could refer to either. Neither the age of a subject nor the quantity of it manufactured (I am pretty sure that the number of rounds of ammunition manufactured is way more than the number of weapons built) are really relevant to giving one prominence in this case. Since it is reasonable that a user entering 'BMG 50' may be looking for the weapon or for the ammunition, a disambiguation page is more appropriate than a redirect in this case. Josh (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Specific topic. Some notes: enwiki en:BMG 50 is redirected to the gun "M2 Browning". Wikidata BMG 50 talks about astronomical object, but we probably haven't files about this object. Can user:Sanandros want to say something?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for deleting it. Becase if search for BMG 50 in google books and in google I don't get the weapon.--Sanandros (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglo-Scots

Is Category:Anglo-Scots redundant with Category:English people of Scottish descent ? Themightyquill (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Perhaps actually the opposite, though not clear exactly. en:Anglo says, "Anglo-Scot, often shortened to Anglos, is used to refer to people with mixed Scottish-English ancestry, or people with English ancestry born in Scotland" and also, "Anglo-Scot is more often used to describe Scottish sports players who are based in England or playing for English teams, or vice versa". I am not sure it has any value as a category at that point. If someone has both English and Scottish ancestry, they can be under both 'of English descent' and 'of Scottish descent' categories, no need for this intersection when it is so diverse in actual usage. Josh (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. So we should sort the content in a more useful way and then either delete or disambiguate? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States photographs taken on 1860-07-04

This request is actually for all categories named "United States photographs taken on <yyyy-mm-dd>", but my examples will be specific to Category:United States photographs taken on 1860-07-04, the category I am attaching this request to. (I picked that one because it has the earliest date.)

Note the following about Category:United States photographs taken on 1860-07-04:

One parent category is Category:July 1860 United States photographs.
That parent category has a description that says (with my bolding of the relevant part) "Images taken in the United States during this month of 1860 (not the date of the upload). With CatScan, this allows one to browse any United States-related category by year or month. Images should be placed directly in this category, not in subcategories. Note: Images from 1860 should be also added into the appropriate province, territory or city category of Category:1860 photographs of the United States."
This seems to mean that the parent category was intended to contain only files, not subcategories. However, in looking at the various month/year parent categories, I see some that contain only files, some that contain only subcategories, and some that contain both (such as this one).

So there is a contradiction here: categories named "<Month> <year> United States photographs" that say they want only files, but which sometimes contain subcategories. I think we should resolve this contradiction. Here are some suggestions on how it could be done:

Allow subcategories, and remove the relevant part of the note on the "<Month> <year> United States photographs" parent categories.
Change the setup of the subcategories so that they are not placed in the "<Month> <year> United States photographs" categories. We might be able to just remove those parent categories, or we might need to put them in different categories instead.

Note that there are many categories involved (over 4000 of the specific-date subcategories, for example), but they are all defined by templates so we wouldn't have to change each individual one.

Your thoughts? Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @Auntof6: it is really hard to grasp what you exactly propose. Do you want to change something in {{USA photographs taken on navbox}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian Air Force on Republic Day parade 2006

Files in this category needs to be renamed as the name doesn't really describe the file in anyway. Any suggestions? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest File:Italian Air Force on Republic Day parade (n), where n is a number. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question @大诺史: Are these images of the Italian Air Force participating in the 2006 Republic Day Parade, or is this an Italian Air Force parade held on Republic Day in 2006? Josh (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I believe that it is Italian Air Force participating in the 2006 Republic Day Parade. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@大诺史: Then I suggest renaming the category Category:Italian Air Force in the 2006 Republic Day Parade and I support the files being given intelligible names to match. Josh (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. @大诺史: this discussion seems to be files-focused, not category-focused. The nominated category name is in then line with the subcategories of Category:2006 Republic Day parade (Italy). I added Category:Files of Italy with bad file names to the nominated category--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood Building, Hong Kong

All the by-year cats should either be deleted or renamed as Hollywood Building, Hong Kong in YYYY. Shops cat should be deleted or renamed as Shops of ... Roy17 (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. These are images of the building in a year, not images of a year in the building. The shops category formatting doesn't conform to commons standards. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and Themightyquill: Also agreed. However, I'd like to clarify the best name for Category:Hollywood Building, Hong Kong - Shops. Is it:

* Category:Shops in Hollywood Building, Hong Kong

* Category:Shops in the Hollywood Building, Hong Kong

* Category:Shops of Hollywood Building, Hong Kong

* Category:Shops of the Hollywood Building, Hong Kong

I find the second option to be the best, grammatically, but I don't know if there is a reason to exclude the "the".

– BMacZero (🗩) 03:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with Shops in Hollywood... This format seems to be followed by other cats of shops in HK too.--Roy17 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]