Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03

This page is for open CFD discussions started in March 2020.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2020/03.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2020-03.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache

Summary of open discussions

Current requests

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:Russian letters by letter

Odd topic. We don't have other categories of such kind (English letters &c.), should this exist then? If yes, I suggest that it be named Category:Cyrillic letters in Russian text by letter. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Category:Letters by letter by alphabet has several such categories. English letters can be found throughout Category:Latin letters by letter. FredWalsh (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FredWalsh: Following your logic, you are supporting a merge with Category:Cyrillic letters by letter, as Russian letters can be found there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would make sense. FredWalsh (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State Normal University (Bloomington)

Delete: Unlikely name for Category:Illinois State University - only content was File:Illinois state business directory - 1860 (1860) (14763935962).jpg, which is Old Main Hall at ISU Closeapple (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Delete. Kalbbes (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a redirect be appropriate? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Kalbbes, Themightyquill, and Closeapple: although "State Normal University" seems to be older name of this school, the redirect is absent in enwiki. In addition, "State Normal University (Bloomington)" is misleading, because "category:State Normal University" is missing--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: When I nominated this, I was pretty sure that the combination of "State Normal University" without "Illinois" but with "Bloomington" (which was only a suitable approximation before 1867) wouldn't pop up again. That being said, there are things on Wikipedia that use that phrasing, though not in the context of a media file: en:Gurdon P. Randall says "The State Normal University in Bloomington, Illinois" while linking to en:Illinois State University. en:Sarah Hackett Stevenson refers to "State Normal College, in Bloomington, Illinois (now Illinois State Normal University)", which is a bit silly: Not only was it never named "State Normal College", but whoever wikilinked it certainly should have caught that it isn't "now" Illinois State Normal University. Herringshaw's National Library of American Biography (a multi-volume book, not an institution), which is stored on Cmmons, uses "the state normal university of Illinois" once and "the Illinois state normal university" once. --22:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill and Closeapple: If enwiki doesn't ever link to the category, and the category isn't really the name for anything, then it seems to me it could be deleted. What is the problem with leaving a redirect? It's true that often my "obscure" categories sometimes take years to get some files, and I do think the existence of a category promotes its use (e.g. some tiny populated place names). And I have learned that you never can tell what enwiki is going to title something. They renamed a very prominent building where I live a few months ago that plainly has its historic real name in neon in all the images. The new name is probably for some promotional reasons. Kalbbes (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Temp Stereoscopic 3D

What is the goal of this category? No explanation is given. Files here are provided with template: {{3D|embedded=yes}} Estopedist1 (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the result of some error handling code added by とある白い猫 to {{Stereoscopic 3D}}. とある白い猫, should this category exist? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mounts

Given that this category currently contains an image of a gun mount and images of mountains, I'd say it's ambiguously named. It also has no parent category aside from Category:Components which makes it pretty useless. Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

convert to dab (see w:mount) (sorry for being too lazy to find all the possible meanings and do it by myself :D).--RZuo (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mounts may refer to:

Category:Mountains
- Category:Mounts vert in heraldry

But what do we do with Category:Mounts in the Portable Antiquities Scheme? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thx a lot!! i guess Mounts in the Portable Antiquities Scheme could be put somewhere under Category:Components maybe?--RZuo (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) by county

Shouldn't the name of this category specify that the counties in question are meant to be counties of the UK? Other places have counties where photos of the Union Jack could conceivably have been taken -- that may not be likely, but it's possible. Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the UK had its own counties. You may not be aware of them if you are not British. So, this category had mainly focuses on the British counties (England and Norther Ireland has counties) in question. Just take a look at the parent categories. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am very aware that the UK has counties. Even though the parent category/ies may be for the UK, their child categories need to specify that, too. Each category name has to stand on its own. --Auntof6 (*talk) 20:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we suddenly have an influx of images of a two hundred year old foreign flag photographed in Chickasaw County, Georgia, then we can put them here. As it is, this category has one sub-category, and it's an obscure enough definition that it's unlikely to collect any more.

Worry about real problems, as they arise, not this pointlessness. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) by second-level administrative subdivision

I propose either renaming this category to indicate that it's meant to be for the United Kingdom, or deleting it. I propose that second option because I don't know how many second-level administrative country subdivision categories we would ever have here, so we may not need this at all. Auntof6 (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This category is meant for the UK. As such, keep this category every country had it's own second-level administrative country subdivisions and they had their own. In this case, the counties of the U.K. are the second-level. We may need it as they are very important as these categories are useful to determine the location on where the national flag was flown (e.g. the Union Jack was flown in London, a English county). Otherwise, just ask someone who is a British. The UK has three second-level administrative country subdivisions (counties for England and Northern Ireland, council areas for Scotland and principal areas for Wales). SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is meant for the UK, then the name needs to specify that. Each category name has to stand on its own. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) in the United Kingdom" to avoid confusion. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't help this category name. When people assign categories, they don't always see the parent categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating that this category's name is confusing for people outside of the UK? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that this category's name doesn't indicate its scope. It's not a question of where any given user is from. Every category's name needs to fully indicate its scope so that people don't have to look at the parent categories to understand that scope. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) by second-level administrative subdivision (United Kingdom) or Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) by UK second-level administrative subdivision then, would these be more appropriate names? GFJ (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) in the United Kingdom by second-level administrative subdivision. A little wordy, but clearer and doesn't use an abbreviation (which I think we avoid in category names).
Also, if everyone would stop renaming the category until the discussion ends, that would be good. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't match the category tree at all. I'd prefer to see it deleted, and the subcategories renamed Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) in Scotland by council area (a subcategory of Category:Categories of Scotland by council area) and Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) in England by county (a subcategory of Category:Categories of England by county). - Themightyquill (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:STL files by subject

in general, we don't tolerate topical categorization by file type. Maybe this category and subcategories should be merged to category:3D? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a lot of (I agree, pointless) categorization by media type. There are many categories for "New York", "Photographs of New York" and "Black and white photographs of New York" etc. Those are pointless because Commons' basic role is to store photographs and other imagery, and most of that is photographs just as the default.

These are different. I would support categorization for STL because that's 3D representations and models, in order that such models can be reproduced or printed. That's fundamentally different, for both the technology and the intended use. I'm not too keen on "STL" as a distinguishing aspect because that's just one file format (one day there might be others), but it's the best scope definition I can think of offhand. "3D" is too vague: these aren't just 3D models, they're 3D models with some aspects in place to support their physical rendering (as STL does). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this category serves a purpose, especially since this is the only 3D filetype supported by Commons, but also because of the 3D printing considerations. On another note, I have added this category to the '3D' category for the same reason cited before: lots of STL files were lying around in there, and people understandably go to that category to look for 3D models, not only images of 3D models.edit: parent was already there. Changing its sorting for visibility. I'm currently already cleaning up the STLs that were in 3D instead of this one. Please let me know if there's any issue with this category change I've made. YuriNikolai (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that most categories that have '3D' in their name are for 2D captures of one angle of 3D objects (mostly ones we don't have in the repository). That nomenclature should probably get worked out but in the meantime that's another argument for keeping 'STL'. Arlo James Barnes 19:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like Category:3D models. The RedBurn (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest replacing "STL" by "3D model format". Support of additional 3D model formats is planned, like glTF for example.

The RedBurn (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone may argue that there are 3D model formats (like glTF) and CAD formats (like STL). The RedBurn (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. Currently, STL files are the only 3D model files that are supported. The 3D models cat is filled (or cluttered in some people's views) with images while the STL files cat only has actual 3D models and is therefore much more useful to find any 3D models. An alternative would be to move each and every image in the 3D models cat into a subcat about images (linked via see alsos at the relevant places). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visual arts by genre

Category:Vikidia picture use

What is Vikidia and why do we care? There is no reason for us to care which images a consumer site uses from those here, and no reason to try tracking that. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons any category is alowed. The category declares the picture in use by the Vikidia project. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 17:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it should be hidden. I've added {{Hiddencat}} accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Category:Commons as a media source, which is the main category for tracking media use. It would be helpful if you added links to where the files are used, otherwise, it's a bit of a hassle to verify whether the category is still valid. --rimshot^talk 23:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Per parent category (Category:Commons as a media source), the nominated category name would be eg Category:Files reused by Vikidia. But as User talk:Rimshot says we have no idea where exactly any files were used. Any file in this category should have a specific URL for Vikidia, or solved via an appropriate Vikidia-template--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Husky

This category contains images of different huskies, so, shouldn't the category name be plural - as with almost all other categories? Geo Swan (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else in Category:Dog breeds by name is singular too, so it's not just this category. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

procedural

Oppose per user:Themightyquill--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was opposing, exactly, just pointing out the other dog breeds would also need changing. In general Geo Swan is right, of course, we do use plural category names almost all the time. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boundary walls

Is Category:Boundary walls not redundant with Category:Separation barriers? Themightyquill (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the only difference is that the latter includes fences and other non-wall barriers, could we harmonize the names to either Category:Boundary barriers or Category:Separation walls? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boundary walls is wikilinked to en:Category:Border barriers for international borders. Maybe we could rename it accordingly and make is a subcategory of Category:Boundary barriers? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models of buildings by country

Just to clarify, is this for models in country x, or buildings in country x in model form? e.g. Does a model of the Eiffel Tower in a New York museum go in Category:Models of buildings in France or Category:Models of buildings in the United States? I think this should be made clearer, either by header templates or by renaming the categories somehow. Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Maybe move to Category:Models of buildings by country of location ... like Category:Paintings by country of location ;-) ... to make it clearer. Greets Triplec85 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasive birds

The question is not about Category:Invasive birds per se, but about its numerous subcategories with (feral) suffix and the invasive labels. Cf. English wikipedia: 'A feral animal ... one that lives in the wild but is descended from domesticated specimens.' Is it fair to call feral a species that has never been domesticated? They just live around humans. Or, better, the humans settled in birds' natural habitats - this doesn't make the birds feral or invasive. Certainly, some are invasive and some are feral indeed, but others are ... well... just local birds (Category:Tadorna ferruginea (feral)). Retired electrician (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume these are for birds that escaped from zoos etc? One category disambiguates with "(non-native)‎" which is maybe more accurate? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a wider sense, yes, escaped from zoos, flew away from cages, falcons flew from the falconers etc. (domesticated farm birds are irrelevant here because they won't survive in the wild). Not the accidental travelers that strayed off course. Not the deliberately introduced populations that thrive in the wild (like the common starling in North America: officially labelled invasive, but not really feral). Retired electrician (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no need for change. Yes, these categories are for birds introduced (deliberately, or accidentally through escapes from captivity) by humans into places where they do not occur naturally. Any sort of human interference like this is a degree of domestication, so yes, they are feral, even if the domestication has been minimal in effect (thus including the Common Starlings in North America, etc.). - MPF (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. This topic is also discussed widely in enwiki, see en:Category:Invasive bird species and its hatnote. If we keep the category in question, we probably should add the clarifying hatnote--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rail vehicles of Renfe

Renfe or RENFE? Renfe is an invention. :en:WP is using RENFE. There is currently a large rename in progress from RENFE to Renfe, with no evident discussion or agreement first. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A1AA1A: RENFE Class 340 et al.

Also, why is "Class" capitalised? If we move any to anywhere, it should be to RENFE class 340 Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renfe is the graphy used, at least in Spanish and French, following writing conventions applicable to acronyms. I agree that Class should not be capitalized (if you confirm it's conform with English conventions). --A1AA1A (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would want to stick to the company's self writing on their vehicles, then it would be "renfe", Before it was "RENFE". On their homepage renfe.com they constantly use "Renfe".-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki is under en:Renfe. Subcategories with "Class" should probably be "class", because seems to be not a proper name--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Imre Makovecz observation tower

Incorrectly named. The Hungarian name is preferred. The correct name is Category:Hárshegyi Makovecz-kilátó. Based official information board Globetrotter19 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Globetrotter19: in Commons, we translate object names to English (eg observation towers, bridges), unless it is not en:proper noun--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ReEstopedist1. Based Category:Observation_towers_in_Upper_Franconia and Category:Observation_towers_in_Baden-Württemberg "we translate object names" is not true, there is the German is preferred or not? Anyway my main problem the name changing and misleading! Imre Makovecz was an architect, so he planned other observation tower see Category:Szent László observation tower.‎ The Category:Hárshegy Makovecz observation tower or at least Category:Makovecz Imre observation tower (Hárshegy) can be acceptable even if the Category:Hárshegyi Makovecz-kilátó name is the official and that is what fits best (in my opinion) - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The name is in keeping with naming policy. I would suggest a redirect from the orginal name. Evrik (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic works about mathematics

In mathematics, almost all work is done on paper; for this, we already have Category:Books about mathematics and Category:Mathematical journals. For art works related to mathematics, Category:Mathematics in art can be used. Please stop creating phantasy categories for every possible combination of nouns! Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily relevant, but I'm wondering if Category:Mathematics in art might become Category:Mathematics in art works as a result of this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems redundant to Category:Works about mathematics. Disagree about the arts category because that seems a viable category. FredWalsh (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Neutral. Enwiki has en:Category:Academic works about mathematics--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parón

Proposed change of category from "Parón" to "Laguna Parón":

Proposal: to rename from "Parón" to be "Laguna Parón".

Reason: It's a lake and it's name is "Laguna Parón". Two aspects to the proposed name:

a) add "Laguna" (or "Lake") as it's a lake as that is how it's referred to e.g. wikipedia:Lake Parón.

b) for it to use "Laguna" or "Lake". I'd argue for "Laguna" as that is it's name - we don't use "Good Aires" instead of "Buenos Aires", Buenos Aires is the name as is Laguna Parón hence proposing Laguna (even though Google translate will sometimes launch into translating names as well as non-name text).

Looking for consensus before presumably using {{move cat|Old name|New name|3=Explanation|user=Your username}}.PsamatheM (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP has the mountain at "Parón" and indeed the lake at "Lake Parón" so the lake should indeed be moved, we could re create Category:Parón with the mountain or have a container category for both there and have the mountain at Category:Parón (mountain). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pastoruri

Proposed change of category from "Pastoruri" to "Glacier Pastoruri":

Propose: existing category name: "Pastoruri" be changed to the more accurate, more descriptive category name "Glacier Pastoruri".

Reason: It's a glacier and glacier is very significant and most places refer to it as Glacier Pastoruri (or Pastoruri Glacier) - I'd accept either Glacier Pastoruri (IMO batter) or Pastoruri Glacier. Looking for consensus prior to change. If accepted I assume it would be implemented by {{move cat|Old name|New name|3=Explanation|user=Your username}} PsamatheM (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Category:Pastoruri Glacier per WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkey Creek

from talk page:

The Wikidata information shown here is incorrect, as this category is for images from Turkey Creek in the Chiricahua Mountains (of Coronado National Forest), Cochise County, southeast Arizona. Unfortunately I do not know how to change the Wikidata information. –StellarD (talk) - 18 March 2020

@StellarD: removed Wikidata entries.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should do DAB, like in enwiki en:Turkey Creek? Estopedist1 (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably, although any Wikipedia article will likely be a stub. ––StellarD (talk)

Support a DAB per WP since the threshold is higher here for PTs. Category:Turkey Creek (Chiricahua Mountains) or Category:Turkey Creek (Arizona)? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Necropolises in Sweden

Rename to Grave fields in Sweden (and all subsequent py county/province/etc)? It seems it was named "Necropolises" to accommodate both grave fields and cairns, however now cairns (röse) and flat cairns (stensättning) usually have their own categories. Grave fields (gravfält) is a vast type of monuments (fornlämning) in Sweden by RAÄ categorisation and they bloat Archaeological monuments as it is not obviouse that they belong to "Necropolises". Macuser (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Farming in Australia

The content of this category should be moved to Category:Agriculture in Australia, please. NearEMPTiness (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged Category:Farming in Argentina, Category:Farming in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Category:Farming in Kenya, Category:Farming in North Korea, and Category:Farming in Pakistan, since any decision would logically apply to those categories as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i support moving/redirecting all farming in XX to agriculture in XX.--RZuo (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2021, we have these categories:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Margaret Island

Incorrect name. First names of geographical names are not translated. And there are other Margaret Island so the correct category should be Category:Margit-sziget (Budapest) Globetrotter19 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps does use "Margit-sziget" but ENWP and the map on the Wikidata Infobox use "Margaret Island". Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally opposed to translating names, but this one is tough. Unlike street names in Budapest, Margit-sziget and Margaret Island are both commonly used in English. Margit Island, while a reasonable compromise, is much much less common and wouldn't be appropriate. Whichever way we choose, we should have a redirect from the other. Additionaly, yes, there are other Margaret Islands (which would justify the (Budapest)), but are there other Margit-szigets? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Themightyquill. Yes there is,-at least one,-other Margit-sziget, see Category:Margaret Island (Jászberény). - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki uses en:Margaret Island, so definitely we should follow enwiki. But I am not very sure that we should do disambiguation page--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alleys in Steyr

merge with category:Streets in Steyr: What is the discriminating difference between an alley and a street? The name, the width, the? On a simple abstracting level, alley is just a street. Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On category:Streets in Steyr we have not only stuff named "*straße", but also a "*markt" and a "*promenade". --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm ... Der Unterschied zwischen Straßen und Gassen ist tatsächlich sehr unklar und bezieht sich vermutlich auf die Breite oder auf irgendwelche historischen Gegebenheiten. So gesehen, könnte man tatsächlich einen Großteil der Gassen nach Street umkategorisieren. Aber eine Auflösung von Alleys in Steyr zugunsten von Steets in Steyr würde bedeuten, dass z. B. zwischen der Bahnhofstraße und der Unteren Kaigasse kein Unterschied mehr gemacht würde.

Zum zweiten Punkt: Du meinst wohl „Grünmarkt“ und „Handel-Mazzetti-Promenade“? Nun, ob der Grünmarkt eine Straße oder ein Platz ist, darüber kann man diskutieren (Google Maps). Das einzige Promenadenartige an der Handel-Mazzetti-Promenade ist der Park, der an ihr liegt, ansonsten sieht es dort so aus: 1 und 2. Schöne Grüße lewenstein (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

then merge also Category:Streets in Steyr also to Category:Streets and squares in Steyr. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wieso überhaupt zusammenlegen? Es würde doch einerseits reichen, die straßenartigen Gassen nach Streets in Steyr umzukategorisieren. Dann bleibt Alleys für die Fußgängerdurchschlüpfe und die Treppen zwischen den Häusern übrig. Andererseits könnte man dem Platz am südlichen Ende des Grünmarkts eine eigene Kategorie spendieren. Das würde die Sache verdeutlichen. lewenstein (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Habe es mal nach meinen Vorstellungen umkategorisiert. lewenstein (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki: If your concern is that there is no meaningful difference between alleys and streets, why is this discussion limited to Steyr? Surely Category:Alleys would be a better category to nominate. That category has a description defining it for "narrow, pedestrian lanes found in urban areas which usually runs between or behind buildings" which might be a type of street, but certainly not synonymous. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the world is too big for me. Category:Alleys in Austria is rather sparsely populated (which means: most alley are either not categorized as such or falsely categorized in some other category-tree). When I nominated Category:Alleys in Steyr, the content was different. Currently, it only contains stairs and staired pedestrian lanes. If we stick to the top level (english!) definition, it would be ok for me (forgetting about the fact, that then we accept to take the car / our current mobility paradigm for definition of the difference between streets and alleys). The top level German definition is different: Gassen sind meist gepflasterte Wege zwischen eng beieinanderstehenden Häusern, allgemeiner auch kleinere Straßen. (first part is in sync with the english definition, while the second says: also in general smaller streets.) What I found in the German context mainly is that the qualifier *gasse is used to differentiate between streets and alleys (as it was in the Steyr case before), but a traffic way called with something ending in *gasse in most cases is a street (acc. to the top level definition of alley, it is not an alley).

it is pedestrian zone, but you can enter by car: so it is a street, not an alley
There is a confusion between the English word alley and the German word Allee (which has for sure the same etymological radix), but is categorized under Category:Avenues (which again does indicate more a broad street like the Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris in German.)
an alley in Denmark
an alley in Bagdad?
an alley in Prague, the guard stones indicating that this way was designed for traffic.
an alley in Wuppertal, Germany
an alley in Argentina

Some examples of misuse of alley above. But in general the content underneath Category:Alleys sticks to the given definition. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early Irish Monastery

I'm not sure what ths refers to. Should it be at Category:Early Irish monasteries or something similar? Themightyquill (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created back in 2005 before there was consensus that categories like this one should be in plural form. Hence, I agree that it should be renamed to Category:Early Irish monasteries which is an established term in the relevant literature. I've added a description to the category to define more precisely what is to be covered by this category. Please note that this category covers the entire island of Ireland including its associated islands like Inishmurray. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be helpful to have a definition of "early" in the name. For example, "Pre-diocesan" or "Pre-Reformation" or "to the 12th century". Otherwise who's to say what is "early"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a commonly used and well-established term in scholarly literature. There is no necessity to integrate the definition into the term itself. It should be sufficient to add an explanation to the description of the category. I've already done this (see above) with references to scholarly literature about this topic. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AFBorchert: Thanks for your patience on this. Given that the category covers "all monastic foundations in Ireland between the 5th century and the church reform in the 12th", would it be reasonable to put Category:Monasteries established in Ireland in the 5th century - Category:Monasteries established in Ireland in the 11th century in the category, as well as any monasteries from the 11th century prior to the synod of Ráth Breasail in 1111? All but 10 of the current 50 subcategories are already (but separately) categorized by century. I note that "Monasteries in Ireland by century of establishment" categories don't yet exist for the 10th and 11th centuries. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Indeed, these subcategories for the 5th up to the 11th century can safely be put into the category for early Irish monasteries. There are a few late monasteries among the early foundations. One example is Cashel which was granted to the religious in 1101 at a synod in Cashel. This is seen by Gwynn and Hadcock as the foundation date of an early Irish monastery at that site. Cashel wasn't a bishop's seat at that time, this changed 10 years later. Among the earliest foundations that do not belong into this category are the monasteries of the Augustinian Canons in Bangor (refounded by St. Malachy in 1124 but already destroyed in 1127), Armagh (adapting the Arrosian rule in 1132), Cistercian monasteries in Dublin (1139, initially associated with the Benedictine reform congregation of Savigny which later merged to the Cistercians) and Mellifont (1142). Care is to be taken because a significant number of foundations at that time reused existing sites or existing communities were reformed and accepted the new rules. Not all converted, some early monasteries continued until the 16th century. Ardpatrick, for example, had still records about monastic lands in 1590 and 1597 with members of the Langanes family acting as coarbs. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does Category:Celtic monasteries established in the 6th century serve? Should it not be merged into Category:Monasteries established in Ireland in the 6th century ? ANy Scottish or Welsh should be diffused to their respective countries. There was never really a "Celtic Church" - this is a later fiction. 13:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I would recommend to delete the entire category tree about “Celtic monasteries”. Recommended scholarly literature: Hughes, Kathleen (1981). "The Celtic Church: Is this a Valid Concept?". Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 1: 1–20. But this discussion does not belong here. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have to regard the scientific discussion, how similar or different early Christianty in Ireland was in relation to the Continental Roman church. But we woun't and shan't find a definitive solution.

Nevertheless, there are residuals of early monasteries in Ireland. An exact dating of the foundation is not always possible. Such a ruin has to be categorized among .--Ulamm (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brent Reservoir

My mistake, I missed that there's already a category for this lake under its alternative name of Welsh Harp. Category emptied out. Blythwood (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect to Category:Welsh Harp or move that here, OS seems to show that (at least part of the reservoir) is called this while "Welsh Harp" is the name of some sort of settlement (or other place) to the west. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki article is under category:Brent Reservoir. Enwiki says: "The Brent Reservoir (popularly called the Welsh Harp) is a reservoir in North West London". We should follow enwiki. Besides, enwiki en:Welsh Harp is a DAB. We probably should follow again--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queen Maria, Queen Mother of Yugoslavia

@Tm: Hi is there an issue here?. Rereader1996 (talk) 00:57, 01 April 2020 (UTC) Rereader1996 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said in your talkpage, dont make controversial moves. And if you already dont know, please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_13#Tm, as you seem to have the same pattern and interests of edits. Tm (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rereader1996, just read again your talkpage and see why this moves are against consensus. Tm (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should have a category name that clearly distinguishes this person from her mother, who was also known as Marie of Romania. However, I also think such category moves should be discussed first and acted upon later. Abzeronow (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stale discussion. Enwiki article is under en:Maria of Yugoslavia (Commons equivalent Category:Maria of Yugoslavia). Why not to follow enwiki?--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03

Contents

Category:Russian letters by letter

Category:State Normal University (Bloomington)

Category:Temp Stereoscopic 3D

Category:Mounts

Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) by county

Category:Photographs of the Union Jack (1606-1801) by second-level administrative subdivision

Category:STL files by subject

Category:Visual arts by genre

Category:Vikidia picture use

Category:Husky

Category:Boundary walls

Category:Models of buildings by country

Category:Invasive birds

Category:Rail vehicles of Renfe

Category:Imre Makovecz observation tower

Category:Academic works about mathematics

Category:Parón

Category:Pastoruri

Category:Turkey Creek

Category:Necropolises in Sweden

Category:Farming in Australia

Category:Margaret Island

Category:Alleys in Steyr

Category:Early Irish Monastery

Category:Brent Reservoir

Category:Queen Maria, Queen Mother of Yugoslavia

Navigation menu

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03

Navigation menu

Search