Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in September 2019.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2019/09.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2019-09.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache
Summary of open discussions

Current requests

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

Category:Aircraft with rotodomes

[edit]

Merge back into Category:Rotodomes. There are aircraft without rotodomes, but there are no rotodomes without aircraft Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge back - rotodomes are not aircraft, they are aircraft components, so aircraft fitted with them should be categorised separately. Images showing whole aircraft with rotodomes should be diffused into Aircraft with rotodomes.PeterWD (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the selected images which best display rotodomes (rather than merely being "the aircraft types with rotodomes") you've been removing categorisation altogether. See [1]
The result of this is a trivial (and Commons-irrelevant) attempt to define a set of "aircraft with rotodomes" (A Wikidata job if anything, and not really workable under MediaWiki's limited categorization) and to depopulate Category:Rotodomes from the valuable images which might be illustrative of the concept. This is just planespotting, the opposite of the sort of archival approach we ought to be taking. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we do have both Category:Aircraft propellers and Category:Aircraft with propellers. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of imagery of demounted aircraft propellers. We don't have that for rotodomes. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but the vast majority of images in Category:Aircraft propellers are not of demounted aircraft propellers. It might actually be worth creating a category called Category:Demounted aircraft propellers. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley, PeterWD, and Themightyquill: Perhaps it is problematic to move Category:Boeing E-3 Sentry from Category:Aircraft with rotodomes to Category:Rotodomes as an E-3 is not a rotodome. Under our current structure, we do very much sort aircraft types by several different features (engines, wing configuration, whether they have a rotodome, etc.), so unless we change this, I don't think Andy's proposal works. However, I get where they are coming from on it, and I actually agree that this structure is not really best done using the Commons category structure and that some place like Wikidata is a much better place for this. I have done a lot of work to try and make this structure work, but I am not certain it is really the right way to do it. Under Category:rotodomes, we have images that prominently feature rotodomes (coincidently all on aircraft it seems, so a well meaning editor may well move them all to Category:Aircraft with rotodomes). Under Category:Aircraft with rotodomes we have various pictures of aircraft which include a rotodome in their design, but may or may not feature the rotodome prominently in the image. Perhaps one of the following might work:
  1. Rename to Category:Aircraft types with rotodomes and identify the category is an index of all aircraft types which include a rotodome, and should only contain aircraft type main categories. Then actual images that feature rotodomes could be under Category:Rotodomes.
  2. Delete Category:Aircraft with rotodomes. Move images featuring rotodomes to Category:Rotodomes, and create sub-categories such as Category:Boeing E-3 Sentry rotodomes (lots of images of these out there) for those types with sufficient images. Remove the actual aircraft type categories from the Category:Rotodome tree. Rotodomes on minor types or with few images can just live under Category:Rotodomes until sorting is warranted.
  3. Variant of number 2 above, but rename Category:Aircraft with rotodomes to Category:Rotodomes by aircraft type as a metacat, underwhich categories such as Category:Boeing E-3 Sentry rotodomes can be created and live.
  4. Delete Category:Aircraft with rotodomes and let aircraft types (or those that would be created under #2) live directly at the Category:Rotodomes level. This would be mildly confusing as aircraft types are not rotodomes, but otherwise workable. If we end up with media of rotodomes with and without aircraft we can make a sub-cat split at that point.
  5. Keep both categories as they are, move all images of rotodomes on aircraft to Category:Aircraft with rotodomes and live with Category:Rotodomes being a one-child category until images without aircraft in them come to light.
I am leaning to option 2 or 3 above, as they seem to offer a clean structure without the types needing to be under rotodomes. Merged them as Prop A above. Josh (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A further option, per your initial point, would be to keep both. Place aircraft type categories into Aircraft-with-rotodomes (so it's a metacat) and rotodome detail pics into Rotodomes. One would be a subcat of the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest another option, to simply add a new subcat "Views of rotodomes" or similar title, that might contain partial images of aircraft featuring useful views of installed rotodomes. Category:Rotodomes would then contain perhaps no images, only two subcats.PeterWD (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal A
Category structure Intended contents
  • media depicting rotodomes of any aircraft without an existing sub-category
    • media depicting rotodomes specifically of the named aircraft type
This proposal would replace the confusing Category:Aircraft with rotodomes with type-specific categories as appropriate. All content under Category:Rotodomes would then indeed be of rotodomes. Josh (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal B
Category structure Intended contents
  • media depicting rotodomes, regardless of aircraft presence
    • categories of aircraft types which include a rotodome in their design
This proposal, based on a suggestion by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) makes no changes to category names or structure, but to change the definition of what contents exist in them.
My concern with this proposal is that it does not add any clarity to the names and structure, and relies on a subjective ruling on what constitutes "in detail" enough to allow inclusion. Josh (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal C
Category structure Intended contents
  • listed subcats
    • categories of aircraft types which include a rotodome in their design
    • partial images of aircraft featuring useful views of installed rotodomes
This proposal, based on a suggestion by PeterWD (talk · contribs) simply adds a new category Category:Views of rotodomes to contain images focused on radomes ("partial images of aircraft featuring useful views of installed rotodomes").
@PeterWD: I am not sure that Category:Views of rotodomes works that well, as that would typicaly be for specific viewing conditions. I am pretty sure it would qualify as redundant to Category:Rotodomes. Users would have no idea what to find in either of the two by their name. Josh (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
stale discussion. @Joshbaumgartner @PeterWD@Andy Dingley: which proposal should we choose? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option A first, but Option B would be acceptable if not optimal. I'm not inclined to Option C nearly as much, but all 3 are probably better than the status quo. All per my comments I added to each above. Josh (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diagrams by subject

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams.

Merge Category:Diagrams by subject with Category:Information graphics by subject Themightyquill (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: So long as Category:Diagrams are a valid subcat of Category:Information graphics, wouldn't it be valid to maintain their respective "by subject" indices? Josh (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The line between diagrams, schemas, charts and information graphics is thin at best and poorly defined. I think it's better to keep "by subject" to the broader category. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill and Joshbaumgartner: First of all, I do not understand why this proposal was placed to this one category, not to the top category of the whole tree of Diagrams, or to whatever of sister categories of this category.

I do not want to interfere in a dispute between native speakers and judge how an educated and acquainted native speaker can understand that word and how an uneducated or quirky native speaker can understand that word. I would just like to remind that Commons is not a project of English native speakers, but an international project where English serves as an international language of communication and its use must be subordinated to this purpose. A dialectology of English is not essential for this purpose. Now we must all - native and non-native speakers - assume and respect the fact that currently and since a long time ago, the whole category tree of Category:Diagrams is consensually used in the same sense as in the en:wiki article Diagram and its ca 50 language equivalents. Above all, however, I want to oppose any other chaotic and ill-considered interventions that disrupt the consistency of the project. Chaotic craating of new categories and emptying of old ones (instead of proper discussion and possible proper relocation), disrupting the logic of the categorization consistency and structure, disrupting of interwikis etc. The use of the word "diagram" in the current meaning is widespread in many items and fields, into hundreds and thousands of subcategories, and a possible change of interpretation and renames would mean a gigantic amount of work and almost certainly would mean a significant disruption of the whole system not only in Commons but also in en:Wikipedia, Wikidata and links with other projects.

I'm not sure whether simple and short definitions from general language dictionaries are the best proof of the full range of meaning of technical terms. On the one hand, some of these dictionaries also mention a graph of a mathematical type as one of the meanings of the word "diagram" (and this type of dictionary certainly cannot be expected to exhaustively describe all existing and possible types of such diagrams/graphs/charts). Also from the long-standing consensus in Wikipedia and Commons, I would conclude that even among native English speakers, there are many people who understand the word diagram in the sense in which it is used and understood throughout the world. Eg. Venn diagram, Hovmöller diagram etc. are apparently called "diagrams" and count among diagrams also by educated native English speakers. Btw. the Chart article says: "A data chart is a type of diagram or graph, that organizes and represents a set of numerical or qualitative data." So I dare say that to the significant majority of native English speakers, this meaning must be at least somewhat known.

If it were really the case that the word "infographic" has the meaning in English that the word "diagram" has in Commons, Wikipedia and the rest of the world, then it would really be possible to solve the situation by renaming the categorization tree of diagrams. However, I am afraid that the word 'infographics' means, in the first place, graphics which do not correspond to that meaning. Pictograms, signs, logos, navigation symbols, coprorate liveries etc. etc. Thus, deleting the categorization tree of diagrams will cause the diagrams (in the present meaning) to be mixed between all kinds of graphic informational symbols, signs, logos, drawings, cartoons etc. And even if in native English the word "infographics" evokes primarily graphs, it would be misleading to the rest of the world, causing frequent miscategorization. E.g. in my country, "infografika" is a term primarily for "communication using symbols and signs" (even though graphs and other mathematical diagrams can fall under infograhic in a broader sense). But that's not my main argument - my main argument is a long-term consensus on the Commons and the English Wikipedia. --ŠJů (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů and Joshbaumgartner:
  1. I think we should be using "Information graphics" not "infographics"
  2. I think "Information graphics" is a broader category than "diagram" since it includes maps, but depending on the definition of diagrams vs graph vs chart, may also include other things not included in the category "diagrams."
  3. As alluded to in #2, I think the meanining of "diagram" is somewhat ambiguous, particularly with "charts" and "graphs". Is a pie chart a diagram or a chart? Are family trees charts or diagrams? What about timelines? Are charts diagrams or something else? And graphs? And that's just in English. The word is used (in some form) in many languages, and there the definition may also vary. You'll not that "pie chart" in Czech is "Kruhový diagram." Information graphics, by comparison is explicit in its meaning - it's a graphic image created to convey information. I don't think anyone would dispute that graphs, charts and diagrams are all information graphics.
  1. Given #2 and #3, I think "Information graphics" is where narrowing by subject should begin, not in a subcategory like "diagrams."
Finally, I don't really see this creating a tremendous amount of work or disruption. It would make things clearer. It would make things easier to sort, and easier to find. I don't think any of these categories are signficantly linked via wikidata. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Yes, "Information graphics" is a very broad category which include whatever – including pictograms and symbols, informational cartoons, typefaces, informational use of colors and shapes etc. That's why Commons needs also a specific category tree for the narower meaning which means "diagrams" in the common sense, i.e. de facto mathematical graphics. Such a categorization tree has existed here for a long time, it works, and so far the vast majority of users and editors of Commons and en:Wikipedia have respected and understood it. No one has come up with a better idea yet, and on the contrary, your attempts have brought chaos and inconsistency into the system. As we can see, some of the linked dictionares mention that meaning and count "graphs" and "charts" among "diagrams". The problem is that you copy only the references to dictionaries everywhere, and at the same time you do not explain your interpretations and thought processes. However, it does not follow from these dictionaries that the current practice and consensus are incorrect. And even after a long communication with you, it is still not clear what you actually consider a diagram and what you do not, and why. Collins Dictionary mention: "a chart or graph explaining or illustrating ideas, statistics, etc." – Exactly! or "a pictorial representation of a quantity or of a relationship" – Concise! How does it imply that we should mix diagrams with other infographics, as you did?
At that moment, I see no better solution than to respect the meaning of the word "diagram" which is consensually used in en:Diagram#Gallery of diagram types and the current Commons category tree. You are right that maps are a very specific type of diagrams (they are more "realistic" than purely theoretical diagrams) and therefore do not have to be directly between diagrams of a purely mathematical type and can be moved up one level among other infographics. After all, even in the COVID-19 categories, maps were separate from the beginning. --ŠJů (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding you. What references to dictionaries have I copied? What long communication have we had? Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? If you are unclear about what I consider a diagram or not, see point #2 for an explanation - it's an ambiguous term with varied, conflicting definitions. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). Concerning the definition of diagram; there has never been any agreement on the Commons.

One non-native speaker of English basically took over the editing of the diagram page on English Wikipedia in 2008 and steam-rolled that page into his non-native definition of diagram. No one bothered to correct it since then, and I rarely fight tag teams in Wikipedia articles anymore.

The Wikipedia article on diagrams has references. The version I am looking at today was last edited on July 10, 2020. None of the current references are dictionary references. Most of the references are inaccessible online. The 2 references that are currently accessible online are not used to show that tables, graphs, and maps are diagrams. So the Wikipedia article is incorrect in saying that tables, graphs, and maps are diagrams.

This is an example of this: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We can not use the Wikipedia article itself as a reference on the Commons. We have to look at the actual references in Wikipedia articles.

  • See: en:dictionary. In that Wikipedia article the major dictionaries with long histories are described and named. Those dictionaries do not describe tables, graphs, and maps as diagrams:

Find the major dictionary definitions with this Google search:

Those major dictionary definitions of diagram:

Oxford dictionary:

Collins dictionary:

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Cambridge dictionary:

So ŠJů is basically inventing a new English definition of diagram.

Infographic is now an accepted term in common English:

Oxford dictionary:

Collins dictionary:

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Cambridge dictionary:

--Timeshifter (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, quoted in Collins above, shows exactly why this will not be easily resolved by a dictionary:
  1. a geometric figure, used to illustrate a mathematical statement, proof, etc.
  2. a sketch, drawing, or plan that explains a thing by outlining its parts and their relationships, workings, etc.
  3. a chart or graph explaining or illustrating ideas, statistics, etc.
In short, the question is which of these equally valid senses of the word we mean to use here on Commons. A reference work cannot tell us that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On that same Collins page farther down it has the traditional definition of diagram. From Collins English dictionary. For British English.
And on the other 3 dictionary pages for diagram, the traditional definition of diagram is used.
So maybe the word diagram is in transition. But infographic is well defined now.
And the latest Webster's definition is using the traditional definition of diagram.
This is creating real problems with parallel category trees that confuse the average native English speaker used to the traditional definition of diagram. See example here:
Category talk:Infographics about the COVID-19 pandemic
We have a perfectly fine word, "infographic", where COVID-19 charts, diagrams, maps, and graphs can all be categorized within without confusion.
And we have the example of this category discussion about merging the 2 parallel category trees into Category:Information graphics by subject.
--Timeshifter (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the definition of diagram is considered to be the same as the definition for infographic, then that means there will thousands of COVID-19 tables, graphs, and maps that will be unnecessarily categorized in both of these COVID-19 categories:
Category:Infographics about the COVID-19 pandemic
Category:Diagrams about the COVID-19 pandemic
This is where this latest discussion on diagrams and infographics began.
--Timeshifter (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: Then Category:Infographics about the COVID-19 pandemic should be removed from those files as COM:OVERCAT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Infographics has been an accepted category since 2008. See:
Category:Information graphics
There is no question about the fact that maps, tables, and graphs are infographics. So they are correctly categorized in infographic categories.
If you look at the diagrams category you see the wikidata definition: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". That is the traditional definition of diagram. See:
Category:Diagrams
You say we should keep the status quo. What is the status quo? Define it for me. Do you mean the status quo as defined by decades of traditional dictionary definitions? Or the new status quo as invented in the last few years by a few non-native speakers of English who are trying to use their language's definition of diagram as a new status quo.
Currently, the Covid-19 diagram category is a subcategory of the Covid-19 infographics category. That is the traditional logic. Even ŠJů recognizes that because he made it that way. No one can logically claim that the infographics category is a subcategory of the diagrams category.
--Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My definitions from the peanut gallery (per request). I am a native speaker of American English. 1) diagram - it used to be a hand drawn (but now computer drawn) figure / sketch / drawing / architectural plan to illustrate an idea or object's details. In my opinion it does not include graphs. Well known diagrams are Venn diagram, flow charts, tree diagram. 2) infographic - a rarely used term for an informational graphic. A graphic used to convey information. This is a superset to diagram. It includes: diagram, chart, graph (XY, linear, bar, etc.), pie graph, etc. To summarize, I agree diagram should be "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole" and infograms should be "maps, tables, and graphs" along with diagrams. Change to what @Timeshifter: is advocating. Royalbroil 02:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Royalbroil: Category:Diagrams currently has this Wikidata definition of diagram that you quoted:
"plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole"
The above definition has been on Wikidata since this Dec 1, 2018 edit:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q959962&oldid=803250119
A simple solution might be to place {{Diagrams}} on all diagram categories.
Just as {{Propaganda}} is placed on many propaganda categories.
Possible message produced by {{Diagrams}}:
Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Tables, graphs, and maps are not diagrams.
--Timeshifter (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea. I wonder what the other commenters think: @Themightyquill, Joshbaumgartner, ŠJů, and Jeff G.: . Royalbroil 12:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do we do with Category:Charts, Category:Charts by language, Category:Charts by type? Are Category:Eye charts diagrams? Category:Record charts? Category:Nautical charts? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I don't think I would put Category:Eye charts as a subcategory of diagrams. Eye charts are just lines of text at varying sizes. I think it is correctly categorized under Charts by type. And also under Information graphics by subject.
Category:Nautical charts are categorized under both maps by type, and Information graphics by subject. Because many nautical charts have more info than just map info.
Category:Record charts is categorized under charts. It seems to be correctly categorized according to the chart definitions at Category:Charts.
Category:Charts by language seems to be correctly categorized under Charts. And also under Information graphics by language.
Category:Charts by type seems to be correctly categorized under Charts.
--Timeshifter (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: So Category:Charts will not become a sub-category of Category:Diagrams? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Currently, Category:Charts is a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. I agree with that. Charts are not a subcategory of diagrams if the traditional definition of diagrams is used. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Themightyquill: What do you think of this solution? You started this discussion, and you initially wanted to merge all of the items in Category:Diagrams by subject into Category:Information graphics by subject. Instead of trying to merge everything I suggest merging items like tables, graphs, and maps into subcategories of Category:Information graphics. A simple way to do that would be to add the {{Diagrams}} template to all diagram categories and subcategories. Have a look at the latest version of the template. Over time nearly all tables, graphs, and maps will end up in subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Statistics, Charts, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think it's a mess and will continue to be problematic, but I don't see any better solution for now. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill, thanks. Royalbroil, I think you already agreed to using {{Diagrams}} on diagram categories. What do you think of it now with the current wording:
Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Tables, graphs, and maps are not diagrams. They should be moved to subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Charts, Statistics, etc..
--Timeshifter (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the updated wording. Royalbroil 00:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the wording of the template according to the Diagram article which represents the long-standing Wikipedia and Commons consenus and usage. Timeshifter's wording and view are in stark contrast to them. The general consensus is that diagrams are not just expanded views, but also all other types of diagrams. This is confirmed not only by the long-term consensus and usus on the Commons and Wikipedia, but also by the many quotations that the colleague brought here, but he misinterprets them. --ŠJů (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:ŠJů. I reverted your change to Template:Diagrams. The template was agreed to here. Do not change it without further discussion here, and agreement here where discussion has been ongoing. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: Reverted back. Your wording contains obvious untruths and mistakes, in addition disrupts the long-term consensus and the existing category structure and ignores arguments from this discussion, which is not closed yet. --ŠJů (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your unagreed-to changes again. Please stop your edit war.
Here is the current wording of the template before your edit war:
Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Maps, and basic statistical tables, charts, and graphs, are not diagrams. They should be moved to subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Charts, Statistics, etc..
--Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus on your reduction of the term "Diagram" was achieved here, this discussion was not properly closed yet. My version of the template describes the longstanding current consensus, based on the meaning which is consensually described in Diagram article in the last 12 years, and the whole categorization structure of Commons is based on it. Not only the definitions on Wikipedia, but also many of the external sources you provide describe the term "diagram" more broadly than you promote it. A asked admins to take action against your headstrong disruption of the project. A link to the corresponding Wikipedia article is sufficient to define the term "diagram". If any additional explanation is needed, one that will prevent your mistaken opinion.--ŠJů (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people (including 2 admins) agreed here about Template:Diagrams. Closure about the Category:Diagrams by subject is separate from the template agreement. You initiated this edit war. The template has been around since August 2020. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Themightyquill, an admin who agrees with this template, and who initiated this category discussion, no longer wants to "merge Category:Diagrams by subject with Category:Information graphics by subject." That was his initial proposal (see the original proposal at the top). Instead he prefers this template. As I said this template agreement is a separate agreement. So no one remains who wants the initial category proposal passed. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not relevant in the substantive discussion who has the function of administrator or other technical function, but who can objectively respond to arguments and correctly interpret the sources. For example, a discussant who accuses me of inventing a concept that has existed consensualy and independently of me for 12 years on Wikipedia and the Commons, should be disqualified from the discussion and his demands should not be taken into account at all. The fact that there is a general meaning of the word "diagram", which includes not only exploded views but also quantitative diagrams, is obvious and proven, also by many of your sources. If we are solving a problem, then it is a question of how to satisfy people who do not know this general meaning and are not willing to take it into account. However, if such people ignore the discussion and only disrupt the categorization system, then they should be directed. --ŠJů (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see previous discussion. And for those who are interested see:
Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Edit war about Diagrams template
--Timeshifter (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also:

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This issue also exists in the Category:Our World in Data subcats; you can read the brief discussion here. They currently use the word "diagrams"; alternatives would be infographics, information graphics, data graphics, diagrams, data visualizations, statistical graphics or just [OWID] graphics. Some further input would be good.
I went here: Diagram#Gallery of diagram types which also includes statistical maps and charts. Information graphics would make the cat name even longer. All the files fit the definition "a symbolic representation of information using visualization techniques". Choropleth map is in the cat "Statistical charts and diagrams".
Infographic usually aren't referring to charts or choropleth maps but usually vertical files with text and illustrative images. They're also "intended to present information quickly and clearly" and this isn't really the case for the files there, they're just meant to visualize/communicate the data, not explain things using a few graphics. In DE-WP, :de:Informationsgrafik has cat:Diagrams. Lots of diagram cats contain statistical charts and maps. Please do a web search for infographics and you'll see what I mean, those aren't charts and statistical maps. I just don't think Infographic is the word actually widely used or understood throughout society for these kinds of images. They're usually explanatory texts with lots of illustrative graphics, it's not really the right term also because it's too broad and includes nonstatistical things just like diagrams.
If you favor any of those terms for these or all relevant cat names, please explain why.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prototyperspective. This is an old discussion. A later discussion is at:
Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams
There you will find a native German speaker who says that the German definitions are not the English definitions. Please respond there, and not here. Can we move your post there? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ultraviolet light

[edit]

This category is both a child and a parent of Category:Black light. Which should be the parent, or are they the same thing? Auntof6 (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black light should be redirected to Category:Black lights - they are the common name for a lamp or light fixture that gives off ultraviolet light. Everything else should be under ultraviolet light. As to the relationship between the two, I'm not sure. Is UV light something that comes from black lights, or are blacklights something that produces UV light? =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, we could have Category:Ultraviolet lights for all lamps or light fixtures that give off ultraviolet light, and redirect Category:Black light to Category:Ultraviolet light and Category:Black lights to Category:Ultraviolet lights. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main category path is Category:Light => Category:Lighting (intentional use of light) => Category:Lighting devices, so perhaps Category:Ultraviolet light => Category:Ultraviolet lighting or Category:Ultraviolet lighting devices would work best? There is probably not a need for both 'lighting' and 'lighting devices' given the quantity of media in the ultraviolet tree. Josh (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki en:blacklight definition is "A blacklight, also referred to as a UV-A light, Wood's lamp, or ultraviolet light, is a lamp that emits long-wave (UV-A) ultraviolet light and very little visible light". Hence, per enwiki seems to be that same--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cattle hooves and feet, Category:Horse hooves and feet, Category:Sheep hooves and feet

[edit]
All the bones which are colored - not grey - belong to the foot in this picture.
hock

Kersti Nebelsiek suggests a move to Category:Cattle hooves and pasterns on the grounds that "a hoof is not a foot, it is the part of the toe, which carries the toenail. It is anatomically wrong to call it a foot." Themightyquill (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Category:Mammal feet. Category:Hooves‎ is a sub-category of Category:Animal feet. I think common name might be more important than anatomical accuracy in this case. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. First "mammal feet" is exactly the problem. I never would have startet a category "mammal feet" as it has two completely different meanings. One is how we would understand it in everyday communication - the foot is the part which touches the ground. In the horse this is only the tip of the toe. The other is the anatomical meaning: "In the horse the foot is the part from the hooves up to the hock", which is almost the complete leg! Kersti (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Mammal feet is problematic, then surely so is Category:Animal feet. I've tagged both, since we would need to change them if your view is accepted. If you have suggestions on how to rename them, it would help further the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copying here what I wrote in Horse hooves and feet's discussion: --Pitke (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Foot" is a thoroughly established Term of Art for the entire distal end of a horse's leg. The hoof is just one component of the equine foot. Consider that parts of the hoof and its surrounding tissues are called things such as "toe", "heel", and "sole", and have no other widespread, colloquial names. Further consider that parties like AAEP and UMN Ext. make frequent use of the term. --Pitke (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To quote today's en.wp article on Foot: The foot (plural feet) is an anatomical structure found in many vertebrates. It is the terminal portion of a limb which bears weight and allows locomotion. In many animals with feet, the foot is a separate organ at the terminal part of the leg made up of one or more segments or bones, generally including claws or nails. I cannot believe the culmination of my incessant questioning as a toddler ("but what *is* a foot?") has become so relevant after all these years. To get some sort of closure on this, I suggest we continue using 'foot' as the generic anatomical term for animal foot-parts. We ought not define wider anatomical concepts according to how it happens to occur in a single species of upright apes. The other option would mean using special terms for various feet and sort out the correct term for the foot of every type of animal. Do rabbits have paws or feet? How about bears? Squirrels? Stem primates? Using "foot/feet" as default is simple, technically correct, and requires no knowledge of special jargon of our international and non-animal-oriented editors. --Pitke (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ducado de Medina Sidonia

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Dukedoms.

now empty category and a duplicate of Category:Dukes of Medina Sidonia Robby (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. It seems that keep. But I guess there are some problems with respective Wikidata item(s). It seems that "ducado" means dukedom or duchy?, but I am not sure. Parent category is Category:Dukedoms of Spain--Estopedist1 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Small intestine

[edit]

should cat names of organs be plural? same problem:

  1. Category:Brain
  2. Category:Heart (organ)
  3. Category:Pancreas

currently some cats and some subcats are plural, e.g. Category:Animal hearts Category:Human fetal hearts, while their parents or subs are not. :/ Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be plural (COM:CAT). Josh (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started doing this but I started running into some less clear-cut cases. These are mostly exemplified by categories like Category:Histology of large intestine ("the microscopic study of the large intestine"). I thought it more natural to move to Category:Histology of the large intestine (we aren't studying particular large intestines, but the general ideal of large intestines), but I'd like thoughts on that. This pattern is pretty prevalent. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:Penis vs Category:Vaginas... :/ --Roy17 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dukedoms

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Ducado de Medina Sidonia.

Is Category:Dukedoms redundant with Category:Duchies ? Themightyquill (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Dukedoms is referring to the office/title/estate of Duke/Duchess while Duchies is referring to administrative-territorial entities that are called a Duchy. Not sure if they can really be merged. Josh (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sub-categories of Category:Duchies that don't have "Duchy" in their name. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Category:Duchies and Category:Dukedoms should probably not be merged. Duchy is the earlier and broader term referring to the territory controlled by a duke or duchess (see, e.g., Cambridge English Dictionary: Duchy - the area of land owned or ruled by a duke or duchess). These duchies generally owed some form of fealty to a sovereign (King or Emperor) - but generally controlled their territories, and sometimes had their own vassal territories, such as counties.
As the monarchies became stronger, these traditional duchies were often either absorbed territorially (as in France, Germany and Italy) - or effectively reduced to titles and estates (as in England and Wales), where they became referred to as Dukedoms. The only exceptions in Britain that are still Duchies (Lancaster and Cornwall) are generally consistent in that the Duchy of Lancaster is the estate of the King, and the Duchy of Cornwall is the estate of the Prince of Wales.
So the current categories of Duchies and Dukedoms seem largely consistent with the history and usage: Duchies being appropriate for most of the traditional territories in Europe (as well as Lancaster and Cornwall in England) - and Dukedoms for most of the other estates in England. Wikipedia is also consistent - for the traditional duchies, entering "Dukedom of Normandy" redirects to the Duchy of Normandy - whereas for the English estates, entering "Duchy of Norfolk" redirects to the Dukedom of Norfolk.
The two Wikimedia categories in which there does seem to be substantial overlap are for the UK: 1) Category:Dukedoms (almost all UK) and 2) Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Should these potentially be merged? Ty's Commons (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with Canon EOS REBEL T3

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM.

Allo002 thought it was a good idea to create a bunch of redirects of categoried like Category:Taken with Canon EOS REBEL T3... He or she would redirect them to similar categories when he was sure the two different models of camera were identical. I explained multiple problems with this. First, cameras that might look identical could nevertheless contain different firmware - making them distinct cameras, with distinct features; second, classifying the images by the name embedded in the exif data is foolproof. Classifying them by a notion of which cameras are "identical" is not.

IMO the redirect Allo002 left in this category, and every other similar category, should be removed. Geo Swan (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If two cameras appear identical, one can add a {{See also}} note with explaination to help link between the two without inadvertently conflating the categories of two cameras that may indeed be unique. There is no need for a bunch of redirects or merging based on a notion of what appears identical. Josh (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipalities in the United States

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Municipalities in Vermont.

Is this a useful/accurate redirect? According to en:Category:Municipalities in the United States, many municipalities are towns, etc., not cities. Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it should probably be a disambiguation. --MB-one (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is a state where "municipality" is a specific legally-defined entity (such as town, village, city, etc. are). If there is, we should keep this category but limit it to those actually legally defined as "municipalities". Cities, towns, villages, etc. should be under their own tree. {{Cat see also}} should be used to remind users of the different types of municipal governments that can be found across the states. However, if no state uses the term "municipality", it should be a dab pointing to the other names used in the states. Josh (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont, anyway. I don't know if there are others. See en:Vermont municipality - Themightyquill (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eliseus

[edit]

Lesgles has suggested moving this category to Category:Elisha on the grounds that "Elisha is the usual name in English; compare the other categories about biblical prophets." See also Category talk:Eliseus Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it as it is, more neautral, Latin-based spell. --Sailko (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And why should a Jewish prophet have a Latin-based spelling? Elisha, besides being English, is also a decent Latin-character approximation of the Hebrew name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Policlinics

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Medical buildings.

Wikidata links this with en:Outpatient clinic (hospital department), an article which makes no mention of the word "policlinic" at all. I note, however, that "policlinic" seems to be used in nearly every other language (except French). Do we leave it where it is, or try to move it to English? At very least, a category description would be a good idea. Themightyquill (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Once there is a conflict, it will be possible to open an interwiki-conflict discussion on Wikidata and split the item if needed. However, English language knows the term wikt:policlinic, even though it uses it just for the European type of clinic. Btw., typical policlinics are not hospital departments but separate outpatient clinics (health centres), but some policlinics can be also hospitals. --ŠJů (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: Can you then clarify the difference between Category:Policlinics and en:Clinics? It seems to me it's just a non-english way of saying "health clinic" or "outpatient" clinic. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: There is a general problem that such terminology is regionally-specific. Even the word "clinic" is used very differently in various countries. If "policlinic" is not a specific type of clinic, it would not have a specific name. E.g. in my country, the pure word "klinika" (= clinic) is used specifically for university- or research-hospitals or hospital departments. In other countries, it is a synonyme of (inpatient) hospitals generally. Even though US and UK can understand "clinic" as "outpatient clinic", this conception is locally-specific and can be confusing in worldwide view. As i can see, also interwikis of en:Clinic are mostly problematic or incorrect. E.g. ru:Амбулатория is about health centres smaller then policlinics, hr:Klinika is about most specialized inpatient hospitals etc. While the word "clinic" has locally many various and different meanings, the word "policlinic" is specific and relatively unambiguous, even though not worldwide. It is similar e.g. to en:Gymnasium (school) as classical Central-European phenomenon. Maybe, "policlinics" can be a subcategory of "outpatient clinics". However, the typology is always locally-specific. --ŠJů (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a duplicate of Category:Policlinics, which is better populated, so I have moved the contents to that category. Spelling varies by language. I dont mind which spelling is used, but there should clearly only be one category. The articles are not about outpatient clinics. These clinics are generally supposed to be intermediate between hospitals and clinics - neither of which have agreed definitions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours

[edit]

Ecummenic moved this category from Category:Marie Jeanne of Savoy to Category:Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours saying "correct name" but an anonymous IP has angrily suggested a move back saying "Absolutely noooooooooo need for the addition of Nemours. That was her father's dukedom and nothing at all to do with her name." The English wikipedia article is at en:Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours and Spanish, Italian and Dutch articles are similarly named. German, French, Portuguese and Russian omit the "Nemours". -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Currently we follow enwiki, and hence seems to be OK--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is Category:Diseases and related health problems redundant with Category:Diseases and disorders ? Themightyquill (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!. No, this categories are not two expressions that mean the same thing. For example, a bone fracture is a health problem but it is not a disease (is an accident). This differentiation is already done by the en:International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. --Jmarchn (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It sems to me that a bone fracture isn't in any way related to disease. But if Category:Diseases and related health problems means all health problems, Category:Diseases and disorders should be a subcategory. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. The nominated category is a subcategory of Category:Diseases and related health problems. Enwiki doesn't have "Category:Diseases and related health problems", but it seems to be OK, because the latter category is a part of the classification, as already said by User:Jmarchn--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hungarian minority in Slovakia

[edit]

Is Category:Hungarian minority in Slovakia redundant with Category:Hungarians in Slovakia? Note that we have a third category, Category:Hungarian people from Slovakia for individual people. Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical buildings

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Policlinics.

Would it make sense to rename Category:Medical buildings to Category:Medical facilities? I imagine much of the contents... doctors offices, various clinics, morgues, are not independent buildings. Themightyquill (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill, Jmabel, and Morgan Riley: Sorry, but I hadn't gotten into the discussion before and I had already changed the name.
I propose: Health care centers. It opens up the restrictive and hierarchical concept of medical ("belonging to doctors") to the broader concept of health care (belonging to all health care professionals). I also prefer the term center to building, but for me it’s not that relevant.
[I clearly differentiate "Health care centers" from "Health centers", which could include health-promoting centers (e.g. gyms), a denomination that would not be never valid for the content of the "Medical buildings" category.]
I consider necessary and relevant to change the name of the category.
Jmarchn (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jmarchn: Morgues are certainly not health care centers. Arguably, medical schools are not health care centers. I haven't thought it through any further than that, but I think that was a wrong change. Not everything medical is "health care". - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am in agreement Jmabel's reasoning. "Medical" != "healthcare". Likewise, I am not sure what is wrong with categories being restrictive (if it even is); that is the whole point of categories: to narrow down material into smaller well-defined chunks. Second, a "center" != "building" != "facility". A building is a tangible architectural object; a facility is a tangible object that may either be a building or a non-building structure; a center is an abstract institution or organization (which may be housed in a building or not). Healthcare centers may or may not be housed in a medical building (often, they are found in mixed-use office buildings). Further, because "center" is not a subcategory of building, that current parent category is no longer applicable, and because "building" is one of the major categories of the Commons, it would necessitate a new category to be nested as a subcategory of "buildings by function"... which means creating the category again from scratch all over again. I'm not sure why we need to rename the existing well-defined category to create new problems, rather than just create one or more new categories to capture the nuances apparent here. I do not oppose the existence of the category "health care facilities" (again, "center" is an ill-defined word), but it is not equivalent to "medical buildings". Morgan Riley (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel and Morgan Riley: I agree with many of the things you say, for obvious. Any denomination we determine will have disadvantages and advantages.

I don't like the term "Medical" assigned to "Medical buildings" for the reasons I've expressed and remember: The buildings where health care is provided contain many other staff in addition to physicians. Hierarchical and ancestral greatness is given to doctors, preeminence that I think should be broken. Culturally this preeminence is still maintained (and not just in written or spoken form). But we are responsible (from our grain of sand) to change concepts and denominations.

And I say the above being myself a physician. And in my country (Catalonia) we are not talking about "medical centers (or buildings)" but about "Centres (o edificis) sanitaris" which in English translation is health [care] centers (or buildings). As we all know, each word has a different semantic field, logically (and as you already knew) building does not have the same meaning as center.

I find it more appropriate for the content to be adjusted to the center term, but I understand that this is too important a change. For the above I reformulate my proposal to Health care buildings or Healthcare buildings. I have verified that this denomination is used (for example: [2]).

Jmarchn (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jmarchn: I wouldn't begin to venture into connotations in Catalan (a language I barely read, let alone speak or write, but in English "medical" has no particular connotation of relating to physicians. Nurses, EMTs, med techs, etc. are certainly considered "medical" personnel in the English-speaking world. So I think you are trying to solve a connotative problem that does not exist in English, when choosing an English word. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: OK. Jmarchn (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to my original proposal - I should think that Category:Medical rail cars wouldn't be a bad fit under Category:Medical facilities. But if there's a desire to keep Category:Medical buildings as a sub-category for actual buildings that might make sense. In the end, I'm not sure what to do with a medical part of an otherwise non-medical building, like a dentist's office in a large interior shopping mall. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the main subcategories of Health care centers are Medical buildings. Wouldnt that be a better main category? Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently moved without any apparent consensus to Category:Health care centers. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So lets move it back to Medical buildings? Rathfelder (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will do so. There was clearly no consensus to move this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to make a clearer distinction between medical buildings and other buildings for healthcare? For example: Category:Nursing homes has Category:Medical buildings as a parent, but Category:Nursing has Category:Health sciences as a parent, and nothing like "medical". The same may apply to Geriatrics facilities‎, Health centres‎, Hospices‎ and perhaps more wich are primary health care facilities. JopkeB (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Health care" is (a little) broader than medical; facilities is a little broader than buildings but has the problem that it could also mean a particular room, ward, etc. within something that is clearly a single medical building. I don't see a single universally clean hierarchy here, especially not one that will be easy for end-users to navigate (which is, after all, the point). If someone can propose a good form for the hierarchy (not just the one category), I'd welcome that. - Jmabel ! talk 11:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Jmabel, Morgan Riley, Prototyperspective, Jmarchn, Rathfelder, and JopkeB: (hope most of them are still active) I have looked into some online dictionaries for definitions of "medical" and "healthcare". Here's what I found:
  • Dictionary.com
    • medical (adjective):
      1. of or relating to the science or practice of medicine:
      2. curative; medicinal; therapeutic:
      3. pertaining to or requiring treatment by other than surgical means.
      4. pertaining to or giving evidence of the state of one's health:
    • healthcare (noun):
      1. the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind.
      2. any of the procedures or methods employed in this field.
  • Merriam-Webster
    • medical (adjective):
      1. of, relating to, or concerned with physicians or the practice of medicine
      2. requiring or devoted to medical treatment
    • health care (noun):
      1. efforts made to maintain, restore, or promote someone's physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially when performed by trained and licensed professionals
      2. the people and organizations that provide health care
It seems like the term "medical" is restricted to medicines and non-surgical treatments, while "healthcare" is a fairly broad term related to human health and not just medicines and non-surgical treatments. So these categories should use "healthcare" instead of "medical" to avoid confusions like this. For the "dentist's office in a large interior shopping mall", I suggest creating categories like Category:Healthcare chambers or similar. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Healthcare is wider in scope, but less commonly used. Rathfelder (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that "medical" is more common than "healthcare", but as defined in dictionaries, the term "medical" is typically restricted to medicines and non-surgical treatments. So I prefer "healthcare" instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what the intended scope of the category is. I thought it was about medical buildings in specific where healthcare buildings would be a parent category on it. The issue is that in many of those buildings also lots of nonmedical things are being done so merging may be better than having both cats. However, I think one could also simply leave it as is since the current subcategories all fit into it...the only difference as far as I can see would be that instead of having Healthcare->Medicine->Category:Medical facilities it would be Healthcare->Healthcare facilities. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3 ft 6 in gauge trams

[edit]

15/17 subcats are related to Japan, where people don't use feet and inches. It was moved from Category:1067 mm track gauge trams by User:Andy Dingley without any discussion or consensus. Move it back. Roy17 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back years Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:Track gauge by size
More recently roy17 has just taken to trolling me for the lulz Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/09#Category:3_ft_6_in_gauge_trams / Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_79#Disruptive_edits_by_Andy_Dingley Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Comments about your personal issues with another user are not constructive to the CfD process, so please refrain from cluttering relevant discussion with them. Josh (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and Andy Dingley: Any significant or contentious change made to a category while it is under discussion should be reverted until the closure of the discussion. Josh (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Two-country international borders (flat list)

[edit]

I created this category but I accept that the naming is awkward and possibly inaccurate and/or redundant. These categories, however, were not previously grouped together than I think that's an unfortunate ommission. If anyone has a better idea for a name, please suggest it. Themightyquill (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply international borders (flat list)?
An unrelated question on the subcats. I suppose the format should be unified? Which one to use, A-B border(s), border(s) of A-B, border(s) between A and B, or sth else? I prefer A-B border.--Roy17 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that but couldn't, for example,Category:International borders of Afghanistan reasonably in Category:International borders (flat list)? - Themightyquill (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Suggestion, would it perhaps be better to use '2' in place of 'two' as it is just naturally easier for non-English users (same logic as Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Groups by size)? Also, I would be fine with it as is with "(flat list)" or as an index, since it is by country (Category:2-country international borders by country). Josh (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got an idea. How about international borders by countries for A-B borders, and international borders by country for international borders of XX?--Roy17 (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: Thanks. That's not bad. It's certainly accurate. Though it's maybe still confusing since the difference is so small? We could also use "Binational borders" or something like that. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Joshbaumgartner: taking inspiration from Category:Bilateral relations by country, I suggest the cat tree be:
Category:International borders //we dont need to call it "Bilateral international borders" because except for rare cases of tripoints all international borders are bilateral.
Category:International borders (flat list)
all the "A-B border" subcats
Category:International borders by country‎ //similar to Bilateral relations by country
Category:International borders of Afghanistan
Category:Tripoints
Issue 2, for a standard name for "A-B border", I suggest Border between A and B, e.g. "Border between Canada and the United States". This is similar to its parent cat Category:Relations of Canada and the United States. It avoids the potential confusion about hyphen and en dash. Roy17 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both suggestions above to simplify to "International borders" and to standardize the "Border between X and Y" format (with the caveat that countries be listed alphabetically to preempt any ordering arguments). Josh (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add one point. I suggest we use the singular border for the "Border between A and B" subcats, because most borders are single continuous lines. Even for exceptions like the Canada–United States border, that article is still written using the singular form, so I suppose it's ok to use the singular form for all borders even if they might not be a single line. Roy17 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a renaming to Category:International borders (flat list) and, for individual categories, Category:Border between A and B. Another, simpler, option may be Category:Border of A and B, similar to the current Category:Relations of A and B for bilateral relations categories. Place Clichy 07:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But "(flat list)" implies all "international border" categories should be included, so A-B border categories AND "international borders of A" categories. I don't think that works. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Relations of France and Germany Category:Relations of Brazil and Japan Category:Relations of the United Kingdom and the United States all these categories involving two countries are not put under a "flat list" category, so "Category:International borders (flat list)" for all the "A-B border" subcats can also be ignored.
You can come up with whatever name you like. I'm out. Roy17 (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I'm not really convinced that a flat list category is necessary. Especially, if individual categories are renamed Border of..., they will be easier to find. If you still feel a flat list is necessary, I believe its scope will be obvious enough from the content. Another idea is to put a hat note for precision. On Wikipedia, en:Category:International borders (the flat-list category) is introduced by: Borders between two defined countries. For overview of a single country national borders see: Category:Borders by country. Flat list implies that the category is for individual borders and not a two-tier structure such as International borders by country / International borders of A. In any case, two-country or bilateral in the name of the category would be redundant and should probably be avoided. Place Clichy 11:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Historical images

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical speeches.

Delete. We sort images by year and event so those looking for images within a temporal context already have a better tool than this arbitrary category. Josh (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy17 and Themightyquill: Per the historical speeches discussion, you may be interested in this one as well. Josh (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete the whole tree. Move contents to the ones without the subjective adjectives on every corresponding level. Notable subcats: Category:Historical photographs. In a way this is similar to Category:Old maps, old books, etc., but historical photos are even less useful, since the oldest photos date back to only mid 19th century, less than 200 years ago. Categorise according to the highest precision of time taken, be it date/month/year/decade/century.--Roy17 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of recategorizing these by century (or narrower) and then deleting, but I don't feel a simple deletion is the way to go. And recaegorization is an enormous task. - Themightyquill (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
that was just a suggestion for ppl who want to keep categorising files under cats like historical/old xx. if cat is deleted we'll just merge stuff with the parallel level. diffusion is not our job.
if deleting historical images, which includes not only photos but also maps charts etc., is too overwhelming, historical photos could be done away first.
if these cats are not deleted merely because no one assumes the job of recating, then they might never be deleted, because many ppl add files to cats because the cats exist. (i have an old photo, and there's a cat historical photos of xx, aha!) addition is always faster than diffusion.--Roy17 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: If you want to delete a category tree this large, I would suggest you tag a lot more than the top level category. It should probably be taken to the village pump to ensure input. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill and Roy17: It was I who nominated this category, so I will add the tag a little deeper. I realize that some form of 'historical' category for various topics will be a first go to for people to sort images of 'old stuff' that they don't know a more precise time line for, or who do not understand the 'by year/decade/century' scheme. I do agree that just deleting the categories without re-categorizing the existing contents would not be a good idea, and I also agree that re-categorization is a huge task. It is probably never complete as people will be adding new material as you go. Is there a way that we can make this category a form of maintenance category? This would be understanding that people may only know something is 'historical' or 'old' but not be able to sort it more accurately than that, but at the same time indicate that files really should be sorted by period, not just 'historical', and offer a guideline on how to do this. Josh (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea. A move from Category:Historical images to Category:Images requiring sorting by date or something like that? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: Any objections to the suggestion by Themightyquill (talk · contribs)? I think that will help avoid people thinking this is a tree to be built up, but still a place for those people know are old but are not sure themselves how exactly to sort. Josh (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's transform them into maintenance cats, but I think it might be better to be by year than by date. Images to be sorted by year? Or even more general as by time?--Roy17 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it is hard topic. I think the title like "To be categorised by year/time" is not good idea. See hints here: Category:Media needing categories. Maybe we can just use category:Images? --Estopedist1 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide, we should definitely tag many of the sub-categories for additional input before moving the whole tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, because we have categories like category:Photographs by year, category:Photographs by century, category:Photographs by decade, category:Videos by year etc, the problem is quite easily resolvable--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just go ahead sorting photos I can tell into XX by year/date straight.--Roy17 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree I cannot understand the problem. And I  Strong oppose to the proposal to delete this category. Historical images are representations of places, situations, events, people of a past time. It can be photographs, paintings, drawings, maps, etc. For these categories, categorizations by year, decade, century makes sense. I find no sense in these categorizations by date applied to images of current times or today. Mega categories with all kinds of images taken in 2019, or 2018, can you explain to me what sense they make? What are they for? --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DenghiùComm: photos of today will be photos of the past 100 years later. Every second that went by has become historical.--Roy17 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's talk about concrete things. This is philosophy! I know very well that every second that passes is already history and past. But here we have a concrete problem of categorization, because we have to distinguish the current photos from those of a historically interesting past. Recent photos that are to be considered historical are those of natural events (volcanic eruptions, floods, earthquakes, etc.), or those relating to terrorist attacks, wars, etc. That is, events that can be placed very precisely at a very precise time or date. All other recent images should not be considered historical ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is if you think this image is historical and I don't, there's no concrete criteria to differentiate and we could in theory just edit war with each other until it's solved. In contract, 1958 images is a clear structure to organize things. If you think that it's a good image of something, it doesn't matter the age but to categorize some old images which are good (historical) images is ultimately a never-ending exercise in arguing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Completely subjective and untenable category. Is a color photo from the 1980s "historical"? Some would say yes, others would say no. Category:Historical images attempts to give objective criteria (objects that no longer exist in the same form, if at all), but I don't think that's very useful. For example, if a modern building is demolished, technical compliance with that criteria would require us to recategorize all pictures of that building into "Historical photographs". I'm not sure someone who visits Category:Historical photographs of Paris intends to see a bunch of 19th-century photos next to digital photos of random demolished buildings. Categorization by century/decade/year is the way to go. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete (phase out) per King of Hearts. The approach discussed above by Estopedist1 and Themightyquill seems like a good solution. Category:Old maps is another one to think about … --El Grafo (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and phase out. I have the same issue with Category:Old maps having a very strange 1949/70 years ago criteria. It's much easier to organize things by actual dates than vague terms. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Old maps which remarked that "old" was actually more clear than "historical" ironically. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete and phase out. Material can be sorted by date, year, decade, century, whichever is most precise for the given product with the available knowledge, all of which clearly denotes its historical value better than we can with an arbitrary category tree. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Impossibly vague and subkective and will change over time. Stick to eras/centuries/dates, whatever can be reliably sourced. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete or at least deprecate and start moving away from this. An almost useless term. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Categorisation by year tends to be really unhelpful. If we look at a category like Category:Historical images of Pont Neuf, it's actually quite useful to have all of the images together (ideally sorted by date depicted), so one can see how the bridge and the area around it and depictions of it have developed with time. This is very hard if the group of images get fragmented by date. However in most cases, moving the images to "X in art" may be a better way to achieve this, at least for painted and engraved images. IMO it would be worth coming up with a structure that would allow older photographs to be kept together, without fragmentation, but also segregated from current photographs. Grouping by century might achieve this. It's helpful to categorise images with a narrow subject and a broad date, in parallel with by a broad subject and a narrow date. Categories of a well-defined subject by century IMO should not be further broken down to decades or years, unless they become very big (eg over 300 images). Jheald (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jheald: It seems to me a gallery would be more effective at the purpose you discuss than, potentially, a mass of old unsorted pictures of a bridge that stop at some arbitrary date in the past. But I agree, like with everything, content should be broken up first by century and only further if there is a sufficient volume to justify it. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  deprecate its use. When there is a Wikipedia topic such as "History of Something" (usually a place) the Commons categories "History of..." do the same job here, as "generic containers of "old" images", until media (images or not) is subcategorised with concrete dates (centuries or even more precise). When not, I guess directly categorising subject media by century is the step to take. "Something in art" is indeed another alternative receptacle, but photographs should be excluded from there. Strakhov (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's getting worse. When did we start including 21st century photographs in the "historical photographs" categories? Those are called "photographs", no metaphysics needed. Take Category:Historical photographs of India, for example. What are we supposed to do with that. I think there are some bad templates somewhere? Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Useful for smaller categories where subject by date is not useful. I don't want to use .. by date for every building, that's ridiculous. --P170 (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:Historical photographs of India there is a mistake in the template that categorize photographs of the 2000s to the category "Historical photographs of India". Who is able to correct it ? DenghiùComm (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The question is... is that "really" a mistake? From the current discussion I may deduce that there is certain consensus on the fact that "historical" is a subjective term, and that there's no really a valid "point in time" (not 1950, not 2001 and not 1970) that separates historical images from non historical images. The solution is, obviously, getting rid of these categories and templates, not "fixing" them for not including images past 1999. Why 1999? Strakhov (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep in accordance with Jheald and P170. Regards, --Bohème21 (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{Vote keep}} DenghiùComm (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your repetitive comment is now struck because you already wrote it before special:diff/387453859.--Roy17 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The name "Historical images" is so ambiguous that a lot of people use it incorrectly. This usually occurs in people who did not speak or understand English. They get mad whenever I correct them and these editing disputes happen day in and day out. So what I got from this is that more people to hate me. These years I take it for granted that I very hate this category. If you guys want to keep it, please consider my situation, how will such disputes be resolved in the future?--Kai3952 (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%2F%5BHh%5Distorical+%5Ba-z%5D%2F&ns14=1
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%2F%5BHh%5Distorical+%5Ba-z%5D%2F&ns14=1
Roughly 23.9k cats exist now. Roy17 (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phase out and eventually delete: The overall consensus is that for most purposes, "historical" is not a useful means of sorting for several reasons. It is imprecise and subjective, and any precise definition (like XX years before present) will require a significant amount of maintenance. There is also consensus that these categories should not simply be deleted without a structure to ensure proper sorting. To that end, I have created Category:Images requiring sorting by time period (thanks @Themightyquill: for the suggestion) and will move all files in Category:Historical images and Category:Historical photographs plus some subcategories there.

Per this CfD, most categories of the form Historical images of ... and Historical photographs of ... should be depreciated. In most cases, their contents can be moved to History of ... (since the vast majority of Commons files are photographs), and subcategorized there by topic and/or time period as needed. Once the depreciated category is empty, it can be deleted or redirected. There may be a few small-scale exceptions for individual topics, but those can be discussed individually as needed. I would appreciate any assistance possible in tagging these categories as depreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi.1415926535 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Request for adjusting templates

[edit]

@Joshbaumgartner, Roy17, Themightyquill, Estopedist1, DenghiùComm, King of Hearts, Ricky81682, El Grafo, Huntster, Rodhullandemu, Jmabel, Jheald, Strakhov, Ruff tuff cream puff, P170, Bohème21, Kai3952, and Pi.1415926535: Because of the outcome of this discussion, I moved all files and subcategories of Category:Historical images of the Netherlands to proper categories, or made new ones for this purpose. This job has almost been done, except for subcategories with templates I cannot adjust (because I do not have enough knowledge about them), see Category:Historical photographs of the Netherlands (click to see the subcategories involved). For the categories starting with "Photographs by" I have asked for an adjustments on Template talk:ANEFO photographer location. For the other subcategories Template:Countryphotocentury and similar ones should be adjusted.
My question is: who can and will adjust these templates, so that they do not add parent categories with "Historical images/photographs" (anymore) if they do not exist? This request involves not only categories of the Netherlands, but all countries.
(By the way: the Netherlands is the only category branche of the former Category:Historical images I adjusted, the other ones I leave to others.) --JopkeB (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i fixed Template:Countryphotocentury and Template:Countryphotomonthyear. i leave ANEFO to others. RZuo (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also, i would suggest "Category:Historical abc of xyz" should be kept as a redirect to "Category:History of xyz" (if it exists) for locations that have large amounts of files. users might tend to keep trying to categorise files this way. redirects will send them to the better category trees. RZuo (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RZuo! It works what you did: after a hard purge these categories have been gone from Category:Historical photographs of the Netherlands. Now only Template:countryphotodecade is to be fixed. JopkeB (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last template has been changed also. Thank RZuo! Case closed. JopkeB (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vues d’intérieures du Château de Versailles-époque de Louis XIV

[edit]

Renamed to English, along with Category:Vues d’intérieures du Château de Versailles–époque de Louis XV, and Category:Vues d’intérieures du Château de Versailles–époque de Louis XVI. Themightyquill (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

formatting the proposals:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: That works for me. -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mattioli – Herbarium

[edit]

Move to Category:Herbarium by Mattioli. Similar with Category:Mattioli – Commentarii‎, Category:Matthiole - Commentaires 1572‎ and Category:Mattioli – Opera quae extant omnia. Though if there's a clear date, the "by Mattioli" could be left off, and the date (in parentheses) could be used after the title (e.g. Category:Commentaires (1572)). -- Themightyquill (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Possible suggestions per discussion:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine

[edit]

Perhaps needs to be split up and/or reorganized? The Deutche Marine (Bundesmarine until reunification) contains a number of ships which served prior to reunification, so it is potentially confusing because they didn't serve under the current name of the German Navy. We don't have a separate tree for the pre-unification West German Navy. Should we create a separate tree for this period? Or should we use a Commons neologism ("Navy of the Bundeswehr") to cover the entire history of the modern German Navy? I am fine with Category:Deutsche Marine and Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine for the period 1956-present works just fine, even if the navy's name was changed along the way, but open to other ideas. Josh (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deutsche Marine
Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine
 The German Navy (German: Deutsche Marine or simply German: Marine About this soundlisten (help·info)) is the navy of Germany and part of the unified Bundeswehr ("Federal Defense"), the German Armed Forces. The German Navy was originally known as the Bundesmarine ("Federal Navy") from 1956 to 1995, when Deutsche Marine ("German Navy") became the official name with respect to the 1990 incorporation of the East German Volksmarine ("People's Navy").
Category:Volksmarine
Category:Ships of the Volksmarine
 The Volksmarine (VM, German pronunciation: [ˈfɔlksmaˌʁiːne]; English: People's Navy) was the naval force of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) from 1956 to 1990. The Volksmarine was one of the service branches of the National People's Army, and primarily performed a coastal defence role along the GDR's Baltic Sea coastline and territorial waters.
Prefer correct namegiving. Even when it asks a lot of work. They all go to Category:Naval ships of Germany. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Category:Naval ships of Germany is a parent cat for ships of each of the different German navies of history (I only listed the two post-WWII services above). Josh (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this discussion. Yes Josh, this could be the beginning of a correct categorization. The Bundesmarine was the “counterpart” of the Volksmarine and after reunification the German navy is named Marine, for better international understanding Deutsche Marine. In fact, there are ships, that serves in both navies and some only in the Bundesmarine period. This is the reason, that your recats were unfortunately behaved rashly. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you are correct that Deutsche Marine is only really for international audiences, that Marine alone is the name for the branch. However, I don't think changing Deutsche Marine to Marine in our category names is a good idea. Josh (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some hangup over the idea of a ship being in this category if it didn't serve under the current name of Deutsche Marine. This is a common issue throughout Commons where we have a category that covers an entity that has changed names over time. Take Category:Saint Petersburg; many of its contents are wholly or substantially relevant to when it was called Leningrad, but they rightly belong under Saint Petersburg because it is a single entity just known by different names at different times. Having two categories just for the different names is a bad thing because most folks want images of the city regardless of what name it happened to go by at the time of the image. All sorts of organizations change names over time, and yet have contents that may only be relevant to one or another of its names regardless of which of those names is used as the category name. For current organizations, generally we use their current name for the title of their category. It does not mean that all contents are relevant to the period it has had that name for. Josh (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't have a separate tree for the pre-unification West German Navy. Should we create a separate tree for this period?" Yes, I think it would be prudent to have something like Category:West German Navy and Category:Ships of the West German Navy to go along with Imperial Navy, Kriegsmarine and Volksmarine. This should also include Category:Aviation of the West German Navy for the sake of comprehensiveness. If a ship or an aircraft model served in both entities, West German Navy and "German Navy", then it should be in both (sub)categories. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately someone really has moved categories from „ships of the "Navy of the Bundeswehr“ to „ships of the Deutsche Marine“. This is not a question of proper choice but it is just wrong and has to be corrected. „Deutsche Marine“ as a name is only in use since 1995. All ships before cannot be assigned to „Deutsche Marine“. Basically nothing changed in 1995 except this denomination. So all previously Bundesmarine ships became Deutsche Marine ships. The term „ships of the Navy of the Bundeswehr“ included both and cannot be replaced by „Deutsche Marine“ especially not for ships that were already decommissioned in 1995, e.g. Category:Köln class which is definitely miscategorised now. The same is true for many others. KuK (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“Bundesmarine” and “Deutsche Marine” are inofficial names for only one navy, the navy of the Bundeswehr. From this point of view, the former categorization was correct. The cause for misunderstanding is the fact, that we have two German articles, one for the Bundesmarine and one for the Deutsche Marine. This may be corrected in due time. I suggest, to rename the category in Category:Ships of the Marine (Bundeswehr), analogous to Category:Aircraft of the Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr) and Category:Heer equipment of Bundeswehr. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ein Dahmer: If the parent category Category:Deutsche Marine is renamed to Category:Marine (Bundeswehr), then your suggestion would be correct. Until then the current category should remain as it is. Josh (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KuK: There never was a category named Category:Ships of the navy of the Bundeswehr, so I do not know what you are talking about with that comparison. Regardless there is also no category Category:Navy of the Bundeswehr so logic dictates that Category:Ships of the navy of the Bundeswehr would thus be homeless. The previous name of this category was Category:Naval ships of the Bundeswehr, but Bundeswehr is the whole military, not the navy. You are wrong that Category:Köln class is miscategorized, as it served from 1961 to 1989 and thus is perfectly within the scope of this category. Josh (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this category you will not only find ships belonging to the Navy but also those belonging to other parts of the Bundeswehr, especially the Armaments Section. Therefore Naval ships of the Bundeswehr is as precise as a category can be. --KuK (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KuK: Excellent point. Do you have some examples of these? If there are indeed ships that are part of the Bundeswehr, then Category:Ships of the Bundeswehr would be appropriate to have, with sub-categories for components of the Bundeswehr if there are sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile. Josh (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. Schwedeneck class. They belong to the procurement agency of the Bundeswehr, not the Navy. --KuK (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. Mannheim class landing craft of the Army. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: Category:West German Navy sounds fine to create as being specific to the German Navy period prior to unification, if someone sees the need. It would be a subcategory of Category:Deutsche Marine as it constitutes a portion of that service's history. Likewise, Category:Ships of the West German Navy would go under Category:Ships of the Deutsche Marine. Josh (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I'd like to disagree. "Deutsche Marine" is just a label for the current service since the reunification. Any new categories for the previous West German navy should be put into Category:Navies of Germany and Category:Naval ships of Germany. The Imperial Germany Navy is a separate category branch just like the Volksmarine, so "Deutsche Marine" should not act as a container for something earlier in history. De728631 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, the parent category should even be Category:Naval history of Germany‎ to make it clear that this it is a historical category. On this note, I have moved all subcategories for earlier German navies into "Naval history of Germany‎", so only "Deutsche Marine" will show up on the front page of "Navies of Germany". De728631 (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: Placing categories of historical periods under Category:Naval history of Germany‎ makes perfect sense. Josh (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: As you state, 'Deutsche Marine' is just a label. The service is what is importantly at issue here, and the service represented by this category was founded in 1955 and remains extant today. The Imperial German Navy has nothing to do with it, as that was long before 1955. If you want to say that 'West German Navy' is a period of the current service's history that is fine, but to divorce it from the current service is wrong. The Kriegsmarine/Imperial German Navy/Navy of Brandenburg are not a part of the current service's history as they are all before 1955 and Volksmarine was the navy of a different country so likewise is irrelevant. Josh (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2019/09&oldid=922098737"