Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for open CFD discussions started in January 2021.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/01.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2021-01.
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:People by setting by country

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Men of the United Kingdom by activity.

If we have "people in" and "people of" categories, this should be related with the former directly, and not the latter. "People eating" -for example- can be foreign tourists or even a foreign delegation. The use of "people of" should be remote; therefore all the subcats should be "people in". On the other hand (OTOH) I would prefer "activity" instead of "setting". People eating or walking are making "an activity". E4024 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Useful in the long termn. And now in Category:People by setting by country all categories are "People of COUNTRY by setting", not in. greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 14:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Památník sklářství (Kristiánov)

[edit]

změna názvu kategorie - Kistiánov č.p. 52 "Liščí bouda" 94.138.124.70 08:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Návrh není odůvodněn. V názvech kategorií obvykle nekombinujeme adresu s názvem či funkčním označením budovy: název nebo funkční označení (s případným rozlišovačem) jsou preferovány, pojmenování kategorie adresou používáme jen v případech, když budova žádné vhodné pojmenování nemá nebo by například nebylo dostatečně nadčasové, jednoznačné, obecně známé atd. Co se týče typografie, názvy obvykle nevkládáme do uvozovek, zkratky píšeme standardním způsobem (tedy buď "čp.", nebo "č. p." s mezerami za tečkami, název obce pokud možno bez překlepů. Ohledně volby vhodného názvu: zde se podle pojmenování dvou fotek vložených různými autory zdá, že oba považovali za důležité, že objekt je "muzeem", přičemž název "Liščí bouda" neuvádí ani jeden z nich. Jeden zmínil v popisu označení "Liščí chata", druhý žádné takové pojmenování vůbec nezmiňuje. Jistě by šlo o nějakém takovém pojmenování kategorie (tedy názvu "Liščí bouda" s případným rozlišovačem) uvažovat a nebylo by chybné, nicméně zatím jste mě nepřesvědčil, že by bylo nějak výrazněji vhodnější či správnější než dosavadní pojmenování té kategorie, které vycházelo z označení, které ještě do včerejška bylo uvedeno i v článku Muzeum skla a bižuterie v Jablonci nad Nisou. Změnu toho označení v článku jste ostatně žádným zdrojem nepodložil a vámi vložený text měl spíše formu neuspořádaných poznámek nežli kultivovaného označení v souvislé větě. Označení "Památník sklářství" je založeno na zápisu ve státním rejstříku památek, kde ovšem je název chaty uveden v původní podobě "Fuchsloch", která ve vztahu k příjmení "Fuchs" dává lepší smysl než přeložený český název. --ŠJů (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ŠJů: the nominated category is empty. Could we delete the empty category, and close this CFD? Estopedist1 (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Estopedist1: This category was created in 2014-02, the duplicate category in 2015-03. Since 2017-09, this category is categorized under the duplicate category. The two included images were moved in two steps, first MartinVeselka included them in a new duplicate category in 2015-03. In 2021-01-04, 94.138.124.70 created this CfD request without any proposal. Subsequently in 2021-01-21, Dirillo removed the two files from the subcategory which thus became empty without being treated by redirection.
    Theoretically, the parent category could relate to the house as such, and the subcategory to the current glass-making exhibition. However, there is no reason for such a triage yet, all photos show the whole house. The soft redirect seems to be sufficient solution for now. I also renamed the target category to the standard syntax, according to the cs:wiki article name. --ŠJů (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tells (archaeology)

[edit]

Seems to be a duplicate of Category:Tell (archeology). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merged in Category:Tell (archeology).Allforrous (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Allforrous: Shouldn't the category name be plural? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia the description is tell but the category is tells. But in Commons I don't want to invade the older category. You can also argue between “archeology” and “archaeology”. Allforrous (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a spelling difference. Category names are plural if they're meant to include more than one of something. Hence Category:Eiffel Tower is singular because there's only one, but Category:Towers is plural because there's more than one tower in the world. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Auntof6 and support "tells". E4024 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
solution 1
  1. move Category:Tell (archeology) to Category:Tells (archaeology) because (1) titles should be plural (2) Category:Archaeology.
  2. Category:Tell should be a DAB. Category:Tells redirects to this.
solution 2: move Category:Tell (archeology) to Category:Tells. delete Category:Tells (archaeology).--RZuo (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support either of those solutions and prefer the first because a little extra disambiguation can't hurt. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Estopedist1: I don't think the current situation is correct; it seems like the categories have all been consolidated to Category:Tell (archaeology), which isn't plural - the plural name should be used.
I should also note that I prefer Category:Tells (archaeology) over Category:Archaeological mounds. There's no need to shy away from the correct technical term just because a layperson might not know it offhand. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy as long as there's only one category at the end of it. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: yes, of course we should use plural "Tells (archaeology)" Estopedist1 (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment +1 for the plural form. On the whole Category:Tells (archaeology) versus Category:Archaeological mounds thing, at this point for me it's less to do with lay people not knowing what a tell is and more to do with the fact that not all tells relate to "archaeology" per say. For instance the Wikipedia article for these, en:Tell (archaeology), gives the definition of a tell as "is an artificial topographical feature, a species of mound[a] consisting of the accumulated and stratified debris of a succession of consecutive settlements at the same site." No where in that definition does it say imply that it is confined to tells that have been studied by archaeologists. Whereas, at least there is no ambiguity with a category name like Category:Archaeological mounds that we are purely talking about studied tells/mounds. There's zero reason category names have to 100% match the title of Wikipedia articles anyway. This is a good IMO where it's wrong to. In the meantime it doesn't behoove commons to put tells that have nothing to do with archaeology in a category that specifically says "archeology" in the title. I guess we could just leave out the word from the title, but that brings up other issues. Which is why I think Category:Archaeological mounds is better. There is zero ambiguity there. Plus, it works well with Category:Mounds and its sub categories. Which Category:Tell (archaeology) is already in BTW. So why not make the titles match while we have an opportunity to? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Requesting the deletion of this category that I created, as I became conscious that COM:De minimis is an objective concept based on actual laws and jurisprudence (not subjective concept based on theories), per my understanding at a discussion in User talk:P199. As Republic Act No. 8293 or the IP Code of the Philippines does not provide "incidental or accessory inclusion" or words like "if the work is not the main subject" or "if the subject is at the background" etc. (instead it mentions fair use and non profit wording a couple of times), it can be considered that the Philippines has no de minimis concept. Thus this (and three related categories) I created are baseless and lacking legality, and as creator of these four, I request the deletion of these. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 Neutral on two different grounds:
  • To keep: the United States doesn't have a hard-wired de minimis defense either; that's just courts using their discretion. Fair use, as defined in the United States, may factor into such things, though. In any case, unless I see a court ruling saying that the de minimis/"accidental inclusion" defense cannot apply in the Philippines, I cannot vote down on legal grounds.
  • To delete: unlike freedom of panorama or the threshold of originality, de minimis does not look like it is a thing that varies radically from country to country. Unless some difference can be found, I don't see the point in splitting things up like this.
-BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kahramanmaraş Citadel

[edit]

One user has opened a Kahramanmaraş Castle cat, while another opened a Kahramanmaraş Citadel cat and added there some files that are described as "Kahramanmaraş Castle". I have no idea if in Kahramanmaraş there is both a castle and a citadel. I think people should look around before opening new cats and establish a relationship between them, at least at the level of "see also". One of them is only in Category:Kahramanmaraş, while the other was in an invented Category:Merkez that I got deleted. Can someone merge these two if that is the case? E4024 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the town of Kahramanmaras there is only one castle/citadel and all pictures are in Category:Kahramanmaraş Citadel. The only picture in Category:Kahramanmaraş Castle is not showing the castle of K. but a building - maybe a castle - in the village of Çukurhisar in the province K. Grüße --Kpisimon (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now I added Category:Citadels in Turkey to the said cat. As you say "citadel/castle", then do you mean we should merge the cats Category:Citadels in Turkey and Category:Castles in Turkey? Shall we merge all citadel and castle cats in Commons? I made questions on these and forts, fortresses etc several years ago, without reaching a clear end. So let's take this opportunity as a chance to discuss all these similar (for people like me who have no idea of architecture, civil or military) concepts and come to terms with them. Frankly I need to know, if the two are the same why do we have different cats? If these are "castles" why would we name them as "citadels" in some file descriptions, or vice-versa as is the case with some files in this cat? Shall I indicate you the files or you are already in a "citadel/castle" dilemma? --E4024 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you are preparing an answer to the above, I developed the categorization of both cats, but not only that, I also looked at the WD relation, which is quite important, and saw that the article "Kahramanmaraş Kalesi" in TR:WP is attached to the Kahramanmaraş Castle. As even I was not sure if I made that connection, I bring here the page history of the Wikidata item so as to see that I have not done that. Can someone tell me, if this relation with the Turkish WP article (and its WD item) is correct? Or was it meant to be about Kahramanmaraş Citadel? You see, when you pass hours everyday at the WMF world, you see many things and the questions arise like a tsunami... :) E4024 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To my (poor) knowledge the building in Kahramanmaras is both a citadel and a castle. AFAIK a citadel is a fortified part of the city, where (the sovereign lived and) citizens could hide in case of an attack. A castle is some kind of fortified building. I am the wrong one to ask for an exact definition of "castle", in German there are the words "Schloss" and "Burg" which are different in German but in English both mean "castle". So please ask someone whose native language is English. Greetings --Kpisimon (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So both of us are not native speakers, just like the person who opened this cat and he seems not to have time for the community. How nice... E4024 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed am a Dutchman, who used the book "Turkije. Agon cultuur reisgidsen in kleur" as a source. As Kpisimon might know, those guide books are translations of the Knaurs Kulturführer in Farbe Turkei" (Knaurs culture guides i.e. guidebooks in colour Turkey). I take the liberty of putting the Dutch in English. It says: “Houses and alleys from the middle ages surround this huge fortification. This citadel has been used and fortified all through the history of Karaman and it is in excellent condition in our days. “ In the English Wikipedia the citadel is described as “A citadel is the core fortified area of a town or city. It may be a castle, fortress, or fortified center.” (no mention is made of the ruler living there, I think they’d generally live in a palace somewhere else, and only use the casle if needed). Many Turkish (and Syrian, Jordanian an so forth) towns have a central hill with fortifications, see Aleppo, see Gaziantep. They often have been in use for thousands of years. During that period a part has been fortified further, a castle may have been built, or some other building (the Aleppo one to my surprise had a temple). In my experience these are variously named “citadel” and “castle” depending on which books you read. In the Wikipedia English article the function of a citadel in the period 400-1600 is described as follows: “At various periods, and particularly during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the citadel – having its own fortifications, independent of the city walls – was the last defence of a besieged army, often held after the town had been conquered. Locals and defending armies have often held out citadels long after the city had fallen.” In Turkey I have come across several of them, described as İç kale. There is German parallel Wiki, calling it Zitadelle. On Google Maps the Kahramanmarash one is called a castle. I have found this intermingling of the two terms often.

The problem that started this discussion in my mind has been caused mainly by a recurring problem I’ve often mentioned, that is, the mix ups that result from the naming the same of provinces, districts and towns in Turkey. As Kpsimon also found it shows a person on a tower of the Çukurhisar Kalesi, a castle in the province, but not the town of Kahramanmaraş as it is in Çukurhisar. As for not being a native speaker, that is a handicap I can never repair. But I read the NYT and WP daily, watch hours daily of programs on BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera and such, and estimate 70% of my book-reading consumption is in English. I’ve been doing that reading for 60 years by now. I almost daily check word’s etymologies and meaning, and keep being surprised how languages are connected. I also studied my own language on university for four years, my psychology books later (I switched studies) were almost all in English. So I claim my command of English is far superior to that of many native speakers, and claim I can partake in discussions on linguistic issues without being reminded I’m not a native speaker.

I was preparing a lengthy answer to these questions (as I think there is a lot of disagreement about the issue) when I read that E4024 wrote “Note that I do not generally "read" your lengthy talk, but just take a "mental pic" of it and respond to the essence I guess.” That is not very inspiring. I thought that inviting people to a discussion implied a willingness to at least read their arguments, rather than take a mental pic. Then I read your complaint “I made questions on these and forts, fortresses etc several years ago, without reaching a clear end.” I intended to do a thorough research on that issue, as I’m pretty annoyed myself about the mixing up of what to me seem to be separate but sometimes overlapping categories. I was a little surprised to come across the alias Kpsimon, as at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kpisimon#Assos_Castle I have discussed the issue of a “Burg” or “castle” or “kale”. Regarding his “in German there are the words "Schloss" and "Burg" which are different in German but in English both mean "castle" my ten cents: in Dutch a “burcht” (Burg) is always defensive, and we use the word for defended towns also (leading to names like Middelburg), a “slot”(Schloss) can be defensive, but will more often be used for a estate for a ruler or even for a rich person, the German Schloss Neuschwanstein is a good example of just a folly, it looks like a castle (from a fairy-tale), but has no defensive purpose. And to prove Kpsimon right: the English Wikipedia has it as “Neuschwanstein Castle”. I’m still researching. My gut feeling (compare your “mental pic” is as follows: 1 a castle is a rather compact building, which would often house local rulers and their servants, and might be extended through having more but less defensible walls, so in times of crisis neighbouring people could get shelter. I think the Mamure Kalesi is a fine example, though unfortunately much of the İç kale and hisar is devastated. 2 a fortress is a defensive work that may house many people, but its primary function is to occupy a spot that has high value in stopping approaching armies. The fortresses at Erzurum are a good example. 3. A fort is a smaller version, will often look like a castle but without much housing facilities, rather to keep a road or gully defended and be a watch-post. 4. Citadel is the most problematic one. I think the “Burg” concept comes closest: a pretty large area, walled, with maybe as an extra an extra-defensible part, the citadel proper. But I often come across mentions of the whole area as a citadel. An hour’s worth of searching several Wikipedia’s, using Google translate to help the people who do not know those languages enough (I claim to know enough of them to spot wrong translations) so far gave me this the following. In the mean time I think it would be a grave error to conflate all citadel and castle cats in Commons! From some Wikipedia’s: Castle (nl. Kasteel and Burcht, de. Burg) “Scholars debate the scope of the word castle, but usually consider it to be the private fortified residence of a lord or noble. This is distinct from a palace, which is not fortified; from a fortress, which was not always a residence for royalty or nobility; and from a fortified settlement, which was a public defence – though there are many similarities among these types of construction. Usage of the term has varied over time and has been applied to structures as diverse as hill forts and country houses.” „Als Burg wird ein in sich geschlossener, bewohnbarer Wehrbau bezeichnet, epochenübergreifend auch eine frühgeschichtliche oder antike Befestigungsanlage, im engeren Sinn ein mittelalterlicher Wohn- und Wehrbau. (Google: A castle is a self-contained, habitable defense structure, across epochs also a prehistoric or ancient fortification, in the narrower sense a medieval residential and defense structure.)” Keep (nl. Donjon, de. Donjon, tr. Hisar) “Scholars have debated the scope of the word keep, but usually consider it to refer to large towers in castles that were fortified residences, used as a refuge of last resort should the rest of the castle fall to an adversary.” „Der Donjon bildet entweder als Hauptturm den Kern der Burg oder tritt als besonders starker Mauerturm auf. (Google: The donjon either forms the core of the castle as the main tower or appears as a particularly strong wall tower.)” “Hisarın sur yüksekliği diğer tahkimata göre daha yüksektir. İç kale ile birlikte son sığınak konumundadır. (Google: The wall height of the fortress is higher than the other fortifications. It is the last shelter with the inner castle.)” Citadel (nl. And en. Citadel, ) “A citadel is the core fortified area of a town or city. It may be a castle, fortress, or fortified center.” But Italian: “Una cittadella è una fortezza atta a proteggere una città, talvolta con un castello nel mezzo. (Google: A citadel is a fortress designed to protect a city, sometimes with a castle in the middle.) It may come as a surprise that : Le cittadelle sono spesso impiegate per proteggere una guarnigione o i governanti, dagli abitanti della città che nominalmente dovrebbe difendere. Erano progettate per assicurarsi la lealtà della città che difendevano. “ (Google: Citadels are often used to protect a garrison or rulers from the inhabitants of the city they are supposed to defend. They were designed to ensure the loyalty of the city they defended.) Fortification (en. , nl. Fortificatie en nl. Vesting, de. Befestigung, tr. Kale) « A fortification is a military construction or building designed for the defense of territories in warfare, and is also used to establish rule in a region during peacetime. The term is derived from Latin fortis ("strong") and facere ("to make").” „Im militärischen Bereich bezeichnet man sie auch als Fortifikation oder Wehranlage. (Google: In the military field they are referred to as fortification or defense system.)” “Kale, kermen veya hisar, düşmanın gelişinin beklendiği yollar üzerine, stratejik öneme sahip olan şehirlere, geçit ve dar boğazlara savunma amaçlı olarak inşa edilen askerî yapı. Kalelerin yapımında kullanılan malzemeler coğrafi şartlara göre değişebilirdi. “(Google: The castle, kermen or fortress is a military structure built for defense purposes on the roads where the enemy is expected to arrive, in strategically important cities, passages and bottlenecks. The materials used in the construction of the castles could vary according to geographical conditions.) “Kale sözcüğünün kapsamı farklı şekillerde belirlenebilmektedir. Günümüzde müstahkem pek çok yapıya kale denilmektedir.[3][4] İngilizce'deki castle sözcüğü genellikle bir lordun ikamet ettiği tahkim edilmiş mesken olarak ifade edilir.[5] TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi'nin hisar tanımı buna benzemektedir, "...bir mesken olması düşünülerek tahkim edilmiş tek bir kitle halindeki yapı..." ve aynı kaynak hisar sözcüğünün Fransa'da ilk önce müstahkem bir yapı olarak daha sonraysa şatafatlı köşkleri ifade etmek için kullanılan[6] şato kelimesinin karşılığı olduğunu ifade etmektedir. Yine aynı kaynağa göre Rumeli Hisarı ve Anadolu Hisarı gibi pek çok yapı buna uygunsuz şekilde adlandırılmıştır.[7] Kermen ise Tatarca kirmen sözcüğünden gelmektedir ve Rusça'daki kremlin sözcüğünün kökenini oluşturmaktadır.[8] Palanka ve kale sözcükleri tahkim edilmiş şehirlerin bütününü kapsayacak şekilde de kullanılmıştır.[9] Yer adı bilimi olarak incelendiğindeyse hisar sözcüğünün Türkiye'nin batısındaki yer adlarında, kale sözcüğünün Türkiye'nin doğusundaki yer adlarında, kermen sözcüğünün ise Kırım coğrafyasındaki yer adlarında yaygın olduğu görülmektedir. “ (Google: The scope of the word castle can be determined in different ways. Today, many fortified buildings are called castles. [3] [4] The word castle in English is often expressed as the fortified dwelling of a lord. [5] TDV Islamic Encyclopedia's definition of fortress is similar to this, "... a building in the form of a single mass that was fortified as a dwelling ..." [6] used to express that it is the equivalent of the word castle. Again, according to the same source, many buildings such as Rumeli Hisarı and Anadolu Hisarı were named inappropriately. [7] Kermen comes from the Tatar word kirmen and forms the origin of the Russian word kremlin. [8] The words palanka and castle are also used to cover the whole of the fortified cities. [9] And when scientists studied as the name of the place of Turkey in the west of the fortress word place names, place names in their strongholds in the east of Turkey word, the word seems to be common in kermen of place names in Crimea region.)

I have asked a Turkish certified translator I know well (highest level, translates for justice department and Tüsiad-companies when they visit) to see if she can add some thoughts. I intend to do some more research as this seems to be a recurring problem.Dosseman (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dosseman@Kpisimon: what is the situation here? Enwiki article uses the name en:Kahramanmaraş Castle Estopedist1 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care which is the name of the category, but there should only be one. And the only picture in Category:Kahramanmaraş Castle should be moved to Category:Castles in Kahramanmaraş Province. Best regards --Kpisimon (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been too busy elsewehere to go on with this issue. I did download a book about castles, and read most of it, but it did not bring me to a conclusion. I found that the Enc. Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/place/Kahramanmaras ) has on Kahramanmaraş: "A medieval citadel that towers above the city contains an archaeological museum with a collection of Hittite monuments excavated nearby. The city has several mosques (notably the 15th-century Ulu Cami), madrasahs (religious schools), and old churches." And many sources refer to a Kahramanmaraş citadel. I think a citadel covers a wider area than a castle and would be the proper term, but the categories overlap a lot in different texts. Currently I'm more concerned with pictures I took in Berlin during a September stay. The categories of the Altes Museum overflap a lot, an then there are the people who put Etruscan ware into the Greek category. And at the Altes Museum there are hundreds of such cases, not a measly handful. So I do not care much either. Though I am still annoyed at the words I quoted above, not by you: “Note that I do not generally "read" your lengthy talk, but just take a "mental pic" of it and respond to the essence I guess.” In view of the hours I spend on editing my pics and then naming them properly, I expect a text to be read, not taken a snapshot of. And I hate guesswork.
I wish you a productive and healthy 2022. Dosseman (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buds

[edit]

There is a great confusion on this category between the buds which are the wintering organs and the buds which are the young flowers. As the English language is misleading with its homonym, would the expression "flower button" be appropriate? --Abalg (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest we keep 'Buds' and add subcategories for different types of bud. Editors who are uncertain of the identification can then add files to the general category. A Google search for "flower buttons" leads to clothing buttons in the shape of flowers, so adding this as a botanical category would invite miscategorisation. A Google search for "flower button botany" suggests that this is not an established botanical term. Would 'Dormant buds' and 'Sprouting buds' be better? Verbcatcher (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Verbcatcher: I'm not an English speaker, just a French naturalist, so if you say 'Flowers buttons' is not appropriate, I'm following you. But, you suggest two categories to the the wintering organs: 'Dormant buds' when wintering buds are closed and 'Sprouting bud' when wintering buds are opened, and nothing else than 'Buds' to the young flower organs. Sorry, but I disagree, it's much more complicated. Can we find two category's names to the two definitions?
Auntof6: Sorry, but what is a dab page?
Regards. ----Abalg (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abalg: It's a disambiguation page, like Category:Menus or Category:Saint John. It's a category with a name that people might reasonably use for things that have the same name or similar names but which are not the same. If anything ends up in such a category, it can be seen at Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories and taken care of. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation category is inappropriate here because these usages of 'bud' are closely related. Disambiguation categories are for unrelated uses of the same word, such as Category:Mercury. I can't find a guidance page for this in Commons, but w:en:Wikipedia:Disambiguation mandates a 'broad concept article' to discuss things that are ambiguous but are of the same general type. In the same way, Category:Buds is a 'broad concept category' for the different types of botanical buds, and also for things that relate the broad concept such as Category:Bud diagrams. Most of the files in Category:Buds could usefully be moved into subcategories. We may need new subcategories, possibly based on w:en:Bud#Types of buds or File:Plant Buds clasification.svg. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6 and Verbcatcher, thanks for answering. I'm not agree, a flower button is not a category of bud. They are really not the same things. Do you know trees? A flower button is a category of flowering. Regards. ----Abalg (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abalg: I have just come in from pruning the apple trees in my garden, so I 'know trees', but not as a naturalist or botanist. When pruning my fruit trees I try to distinguish between buds that will develop into fruit and those that will produce new branches. This is sometimes difficult, so it is not always possible to classify buds as flower buds and leaf buds. Your issue appears to be the stage of development at which a developing flower is no longer a bud, and how we should classify images that are past this stage. I don't have the expertise to answer this, but there may be a suitable category under Category:Plant morphology. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher Maybe it's my bad English... I think you don't live in the South hemisphere and your apple tree is not flowering now. So... Let's play a game. It's very very simple, you really don't need to be a naturalist : look the images in the gallery. Can you find the differences between buds of horse chestnut? Same between buds of apple tree? Same for European spruce? And, now : How can we name the different buds categories? ----Abalg (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Can we put those two different buds into two different categories? What are the name of their categories?
  • 1: In commons it's a bud of a horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum)
    1: In commons it's a bud of a horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum)
  • 2: In commons it's a bud of a horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum)
    2: In commons it's a bud of a horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum)
  • 3: In commons this is a bud of an apple tree (Malus domestica)
    3: In commons this is a bud of an apple tree (Malus domestica)
  • 4: In commons this is a bud of an apple tree (Malus domestica)
    4: In commons this is a bud of an apple tree (Malus domestica)
  • 5: In commons this is a bud of European spruce (Picea abies)
    5: In commons this is a bud of European spruce (Picea abies)
  • 6: In commons this is a bud of European spruce (Picea abies) has changed for a better image.
    6: In commons this is a bud of European spruce (Picea abies) has changed for a better image.
  • Can we put those different buds into two different categories? What are the name of their categories?
  • 7: In commons it's a bud of the Orchid Cypripedium calceolus
    7: In commons it's a bud of the Orchid Cypripedium calceolus
  • 8: In commons it's a bud of the Orchid Cypripedium calceolus
    8: In commons it's a bud of the Orchid Cypripedium calceolus
I'm not an expert, but I think that think that the 2nd and 4th pictures are juvenile flowers, these should probably not be classified as buds but in Category:Inflorescence or one of its subcats. The main subjects in the 6th picture are conifer cones, this image is not classified as buds. The 1st, 3rd and 5th appear to be buds. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher, in english (not in french), and on commons, those images are all buds and they are in the same buds category! And it's a problem to me (What you name cone is a young female inflorescence too, not a fruit.). You have begin to understand me and answer me. Thank you! So. Now, I'm thinking we can create a subcat of Category:Buds and Category:Inflorescence name Category:Bud inflorescences. Would the expression "Buds inflorescences" be appropriate to an English speaker to name images 2,4,6 and 8? Category:Juvenile inflorescences or Category:Juvenile flowers are they better? Or Category:Bud blooms or Category:Juvenile blooms? Regards. ----Abalg (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abalg: Category:Flowering buds may be suitable, it is good idiomatic English and is probably sufficiently precise for our purpose. A Google search suggests that this term is often used for cannabis, but not exclusively. 'Inflorescences' is technical language, and using it suggests a rigorous botanical classification which we may not be able to implement. I think 'juvenile' is normally used for an underdeveloped complete organism, not for a developing part of a mature organism - 'developing' would probably be better than 'juvenile'. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Verbcatcher, it's not against you, but Category:Flowering buds can't be a good solution because a flowering bud could be both. For example, the image 1 (horse chestnut) shows three buds : the two little ones are leaf-buds which will give leaves and wood and the big one is a flower-leaf-bud which will gives leaves and flowers. It's the same things in an apple tree. And for example in a almond tree, there is no flower-leaf-bud, only flower-buds and leaf-buds. And the image 2 is a flowering buds too in English of course. So flowering buds is absolutely not a solution. In my opinion, Category:Juvenile flowers is preferable because it's very simple and clear, but I'm not an English speaker. Photos 2,4,6 and 8 absolutely show underdeveloped complete organism, and it's very easy to say if it's a juvenile inflorescence or not. I don't understand why did you say that. I propose to put a text on the buds category page: be careful not to confuse with the category "Juvenile flowers". Are you ok? ----Abalg (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6 , you seems to understand me at the beginning. Can you help-me please ? ----Abalg (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested Category:Flowering buds meaning buds that are flowering, not Category:Flower buds which would be for buds that will generate flowers in the future. However, I accept that this is open to misunderstanding. My objection to 'juvenile' is that it usually applies to entire plants or animals. I would prefer Category:Immature flowers. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Category:Immature flowers is fine to me. Do you want to create the category and especially the disambiguation message? I will sort the images afterwards. ----Abalg (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have created Category:Immature flowers and added one file to it. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verbcatcher : Ok, we must rename Category:Close-up photographs of flower buds in Category:Close-up photographs of immature flowers, and change category of every files (376). Could a bot do that? ----Abalg (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Close-up photographs of flower buds should be kept and moved back to Category:Buds because it includes flower buds that have not developed including File:Duftrose 'Westerland' (18634750503).jpg (in a subcategory). Most of its contents should be moved to a new Category:Close-up photographs of Immature flowers. For moving files between categories I recommend Cat-a-lot, see Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ----Abalg (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Crouch, Swale, with all my respect, it's not a major difficulty to understand the differences between the two images above, isn't it? It's not conceptual! It's very simple! My boy has five and can choose easy! However, the categories Category:Flower buds and Category:Leaf buds are bad ideas, the first image shows a flower/leaf bud (the big one) and two leaf buds. Here is the difficulty. So, where can I put an image with a Flower buttons? And an image with a wintering bud? Regards. ----Abalg (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of people can't tell the difference unless they're plant experts or at least familiar with the plant in question. As noted the WP article deals with both so I don't see why we can't have a supercat for both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The new Category:Immature flowers is in Category:Buds yet. Isn't it enough? ----Abalg (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Azerbaijani manuscripts of Fuzuli

[edit]
Divan of Fuzuli in Azerbaijani (Museum of History of Azerbaijan)

I was going to remove (but could not, due to the RD) the word "Azerbaijani" from the title because it makes little sense for a divan written centuries before that term was coined. As long as we do not have files for "Arabic", "Persian" or any other language manuscripts of Fuzuli we have no need to disambiguate between languages. Therefore I am asking here some admin to simply move the page back to "Category:Manuscripts of Fuzuli". Having said that, the book illustrated here was also in that cat and I took it out as it was a "published" book. Are we using the term "manuscript" for published books? I mean must manuscripts only be written by hand (sic/redundant) or their copies -like this book I suppose- should also be categorized as "manuscripts"? E4024 (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My move rationale was as follows: "No need to disam. We have only one language manuscripts of Fuzuli; to me they are Turkish -or Ottoman Turkish if you like- but no reason to use a language name in the title, let alone a term coined centuries after Fuzuli." The RD rationale (of User:Abutalub) was: "Fuzuli has manuscripts written in Persian and Arabic languages". Do we have any other language manuscripts of Fuzuli in Commons? If not, we do not need a wrong name. (Indeed the name is wrong independently from that fact, but let us not begin an unnecessary Turkish-Azerbaijani War now. :) --E4024 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neighborhoods and raions in Ternopil

[edit]

How do neighbourhoods and raions compare, and should we be combining them? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Микола Василечко and Joshbaumgartner: I've tagged the others mentioned to encourage further discussion. Note that Category:Neighborhoods and raions in Dnipro has been redirected to Category:Neighborhoods in Dnipro and Category:Raions of Dnipro has been redirected to Category:Districts of Dnipro. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are no officially approved districts in Ternopil (as, for example, in Kyiv or Dnipro), but the names of parts of the city by construction districts are recorded in official documents. Other names are old places, as well as those that are formed now. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is perhaps Areas of Ternopil is a better category name? --Sanya3 (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanya3 and Микола Василечко: I still don't understand. What's wrong with Category:Raions of Ternopil and Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanya3, Themightyquill Відповім українською, щоб не мучити ґуґль-перекладач. У Тернополі нема офіційного районування, але в офіційних документах міської влади використовують назви мікрорайонів, що склалися історично з початку 1950-их років, після так званої відбудови міста після війни. Чітких меж мікрорайонів офіційно досі не встановлено, але у владних кабінетах над цим працюють, очевидно, не дуже ефективно наразі. Водночас у Тернополі існують історичні назви місцевостей. Деякі з історичних місцевостей уживаються тільки в краєзнавчих та історичних публікаціях. але деякі (як от Березовиця, Рогатка, Оболоня, або колишні села Загребелля, Кутківці та Пронятин, інші) широко вживані і в сучасному мовному середовищі та офіційних повідомленнях. Деякі з істоичних назв місцевостей стали назвами мікрорайонів. Тому подекуди важко відділити одне від одного. Або усі в одній категорії Category:Neighborhoods and raions in Ternopil, або деякі назви будуть і в Category:Raions of Ternopil and Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil, або ж Category:Raions of Ternopil and Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil мають бути в Category:Neighborhoods and raions in Ternopil. Як місцевий краєзнавець та трохи знавець історії міста, вважаю, що ця категорія для Тернополя потрібна, бо, ще раз наголошую: деякі мікрорайони і місцевості мають однакові назви як от Березовиця, Рогатка, Оболоня, колишні села, що увійшли в межі міста - Загребелля, Кутківці та Пронятин. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Микола Василечко: Thanks for being patient and continuing to try to explain. I see that the situation is complicated. It seems to me if formal city raions are not really in place, then these are all really neighbourhoods, which like most neighbourhoods, are unofficial and often vague in their boundaries. If some neighbourhoods are/were also city raions, then Category:Raions of Ternopil could be a subcategory of Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil, no? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Raions of Ternopil can be a subcategory of Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil. And also categories Zahrebellia, Kutkivtsi and Proniatyn this is former village, they have and now clear borders, probably should be in category Historical villages in Ternopil and also could be a subcategory of Category:Neighbourhoods of Ternopil?
  • Mykulynetska Street - neighbourhood Rohatka
    Mykulynetska Street - neighbourhood Rohatka
  • Mykulynetska Street - neighbourhood Bakayikha
    Mykulynetska Street - neighbourhood Bakayikha
  • Mykulynetska Street - raions Southern Industrial Raion and Berezovytsia
    Mykulynetska Street - raions Southern Industrial Raion and Berezovytsia
  • Mykulynetska Street - raion Berezovytsia
    Mykulynetska Street - raion Berezovytsia

Category:Local Beauty pageants

[edit]

Local Beauty? I reject to comment on this. Please delete this ns ASAP. E4024 (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: I think 'Beauty' should be lower case, as the contents appear to be 'local' or regional sub-pageants of larger national pageants. Still, the term 'local' is ill-defined, and I don't see a particular need for this extra level of catting, so am fine with eliminating it. Josh (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a bit complicated. Please nominate this category for deletion in en:Category:Local Beauty pageants. If enwiki will find arguments for keeping, we can re-evaluate situation in Commons--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024, Joshbaumgartner, and Estopedist1: it's been years, and nothing has moved forward. Can we at least agree to lowercase the "B" in "beauty"? - Jmabel ! talk 07:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: CFD should be started in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Why? What say does en-wiki have over Commons category naming? - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel systematic approach. And in general we follow enwiki solutions Estopedist1 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: All things being equal, we line up with en-wiki, but this violates our rules about capitalization, unless "Local Beauty" is somehow a proper noun (I'm rather sure it isn't). And there are plenty of categories named differently on Commons and en-wiki: Category:Artists from the United States vs. en:Category:American artists, Category:Manhattan, New York City vs. en:Category:Manhattan, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 That is incorrect, we categorize according to the unique needs of a media repository, not those of an encyclopedia such as enwiki. In fact the effort to try and emulate enwiki for the purpose of emulating enwiki causes problems and frustration because Commons is not an encyclopedia, it is a media repository. Yes, as Jmabel says, if all else is equal, it is nice to line up between the two, but that is where it ends.
Using "local" to indicate geographic location is dependent on point-of-reference and therefore inherently inappropriate as a category description. We have a perfectly good and objective system for sorting by geographical location (continent/country/state/region/city/etc.)
If "local" is meant to indicate the relative size of the event, level of competition, geographic boundaries of who is eligible to compete, breadth of viewership, or something else, then a structured scheme for such categorization is needed, not a amorphous category like this. Simply assigning some arbitrary scope won't fix it. If the beauty pageant industry has some kind of widely adopted, well defined and understood, and officially published terminology (especially as a proper name) for some of these 'levels' of pageant, then we can consider adopting a scheme or category to match that, such as Category:Regional airlines or Category:Minor League Baseball. The current category however is more like Category:Small airlines or Category:Local baseball leagues. They definitely are terms one may use and understand in conversation and have some idea what they are, but they make bad category names.
 Delete and sort contents into correct objective categories. Josh (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: deletion request also done in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images by Ninara

[edit]

Redundant to Category:Files from ninara Flickr stream. Which is the preferred naming scheme? Paul_012 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both methods are used, though Category:Images by Ninara would include all images by that creator, and the other only those from that specific Flickr stream, so if for this creator that is a 1:1 relationship, I would support merging together under Category:Images by Ninara. Josh (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner@Paul 012: hidden/user categories. Let's just keep them Estopedist1 (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images with digital timestamps

[edit]

This category should be a subcategory of Category:Images with timestamp watermarks, but the four thousand images already in that category are presumably nearly all timestamped digitally. The need to distinguish non-digitally timestamped images evidently hasn't been shown, so it seems to me that this category should be deleted (and the five images in it, moved to the other one). wqnvlz (talk | contribs) 00:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So please explain that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So there are two types of images that have timestamps:
  1. Images with timestamp watermarks is the maintenance category for photographs with camera timestamps that should be removed;
  2. Images with digital timestamps is for images with timestamps that serve some purpose.
Do the images other than the two of Notre-Dame really belong in the latter, though? --wqnvlz (talk | contribs) 03:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The categorization of Images with digital timestamps under Watermarks and Dating stamps still seems strange to me, so I propose the following changes:

  1. Photos with text added seems like a better parent category for Images with digital timestamps than Watermarks.
  2. Watermarks contains two other categories that I think should be placed in a new category Digital watermarks. I suggested this at Category talk:Watermarks a few days ago, but that page does not seem to be very attentively watched.
  3. Images with digital timestamps currently looks out of place in Timestamps because the files and parent categories of Timestamps imply that that category is for physical timestamps only. This contradicts the linked Wikidata item, d:Q186885, so I propose the following changes:
    To be changed or created (Changes to) Parent categories Rationale
    new category Rubber timestamps +Rubber stamps
    +Special clocks    		 to parallel Dating stamps and Dating rubber stamps
    files currently in Timestamps -Timestamps
    +Rubber timestamps
    Timestamps -Rubber stamps
    -Special clocks    		 those two categories only applied to the files moved to Rubber timestamps
    Dating stamps -Rubber stamps ticket punches are not rubber stamps; Dating rubber stamps is already in Rubber stamps
  4. A related issue is that stamps and stamp imprints are not distinguished for timestamps and dating stamps. I propose these additional changes:
    To be changed or created Changes New parent categories, or category to move to
    Dating rubber stamp imprints create, with parents: Dating rubber stamps
    Rubber stamp imprints
    images of imprints in Dating rubber stamps move to Dating rubber stamp imprints
    Rubber timestamp imprints create, with parents: Rubber timestamps
    Dating rubber stamp imprints
    images of imprints in Rubber timestamps move to Rubber timestamp imprints
    Postmarks change parent categories: -Dating stamps
    +Dating rubber stamp imprints
    Passport stamps

There are also some related ontological problems that I would like to point out which do not seem to have easy fixes (perhaps additional CfDs are warranted):

  1. Postmarks is a subcategory of Stamps but includes images of (1) postmarks in isolation and (2) postmarks on stationery with imprinted (non-adhesive) stamps. This is caused by the fact that Commons is missing the category Indicia (d:Q352618), which would be the parent of both Stamps and Imprinted stamps.
  2. Ticket markers is a subcategory of Special clocks, but Ticket punchers, which are categorized under Ticket markers, are not clocks.
  3. Ticket markers is also overcategorized under both Timestamps and Dating stamps. The solution to this and the previous issue appears to be to remove Special clocks, Timestamps, Dating stamps from Ticket markers and apply them to its subcategories. Whether that would be worth the effort, I don't know.

--wqnvlz (talk | contribs) 03:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposed changes. YuriNikolai (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men of the United Kingdom by activity

[edit]
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:People by setting by country.

Do we really need these cats? The only subcat is called "Category:Walking men in the United Kingdom"... If we have a picture of Trump walking in London will he become part of "Men of the UK" when we add this cat to the image? E4024 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What is your proposed remedy? Return all of the categorized images to the overcrowded parent category Category:Men of the United Kingdom? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Trump looks fantasy to you, think about foreign tourist walking in London or Glasgow. We have "people in" categories (that at a beginning I had not liked at all but...) that can be a solution. --E4024 (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:People by setting by country. E4024 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so instead of whining you could have simply moved Category:Men of the United Kingdom by activity to Category:Men in the United Kingdom by activity and adjusted its categories accordingly? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand the sarcasm, but, yes, I like wining and dining. E4024 (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: Does the change to 'in' satisfy your concerns? Josh (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(...)

Josh, about your question to me: I leave it to your discretion (to decide for me). I am tired of being criticised for caring too much about everything. I repented opening this and many other CfDs. (That does not mean I will not open new ones; I wish to leave in records that when I was here I used to object wrongdoings.) Bye. --E4024 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024, DanielPenfield, and Joshbaumgartner: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Well the category has been renamed in the meantime, and it has a lot more contents, so I recommend just to keep it. Josh (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, we should close this discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hermann Paul

[edit]

duplicate of Category:Hermann Paul (philologist) Robby (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:City of Peterborough

[edit]

I think this category should be deleted and merged into Category:Peterborough. The English version is without the word city but reviewing en:Peterborough#Local_government, the city is basically the same boundaries with the historical city area (in contrast to Category:Canterbury the town versus Category:City of Canterbury). It looks like it should be a part of Northamptonshire from 1889 until 1965, under Huntingdon and Peterborough from 1965 until 1973 and within Cambridgeshire from 1974 onward. Pre-1889 should be directly within England. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actresses by ethnic group

[edit]

As arbitrary and unnecessary as Category:Actresses by ethnic or national descent. Opened by an IP. I insist in my view that we must forbid opening new cats to IPs. E4024 (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support deletion of this category, as well as other "Category:Occupation by ethnic group" categories in general. As for general policies regarding IP rights, that is way beyond CfD to discuss, so I would recommend raising that at a higher level. Josh (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC) (updated Josh (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]
 Support Wouter (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are these two users (Joshbaumgartner, Wouterhagens) supporting? The cat's existance or deletion? The wording was left ambiguous. Personally i support deleting the cat as it seems very arbitrary. YuriNikolai (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@YuriNikolai: I've updated to clarify my intent. Josh (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i think this category tree Category:People by occupation by ethnicity is legitimate. People by occupation by ethnicity -> jews by occupation -> jewish actors -> jewish actresses is a reasonable cat tree. RZuo (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There's a difference between nationality and ethnic group. "Ethnicity denotes the person's ethnic identity, on the basis of descent attributes and cultural inheritance. On the other hand, nationality is the person's membership in the nation." Also, the alternative Category:Actresses by ethnic or national descent is an apples and oranges category that would just lead to things like ethnically Armenian people with French nationalities being put in the same category as say a ethnically French person who is nationally Armenian. The sub categories really become useless at that point. From what I can tell Category:Actresses by ethnic or national descent is mainly or only about decent anyway except for one category, "American actresses by ethnic or national origin‎", which really should just be dealt with on it's own because it's completely nonsensical and the files in it relate to ethnicity anyway. In the meantime you already have things like Category:Hispanic people in the United States by occupation that the category is in. I doubt anyone out there doesn't know that Hispanic is an ethnicity. So Category:Actresses by ethnic or national descent and Category:American actresses by ethnic or national origin are both just super redundant. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024, Joshbaumgartner, Wouterhagens, YuriNikolai, Estopedist1, RZuo, and Adamant1: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I don't think it is a great idea, but if folks think it has merit and they want to put the work in to do it right, then I suppose it can be kept for now. Josh (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I have the same opinion as Josh has. Wouter (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have no problem with deleting the entire Category:People by occupation by ethnicity, but that needs an rfc for full community consensus because it involves a hugh number of established cats. RZuo (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diagrams

[edit]

Concerning Template:Diagrams. See:

Here is the version of the template before ŠJů's 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..

Multiple people (including 2 admins) agreed with the template in August 2020. User:Themightyquill, an admin who agrees with this template, and who initiated the original 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 of the category discussion). 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. The other admin is User:Royalbroil.

What this comes down to is whether the Commons is going to use English definitions of English words? Or are we going to use German and other definitions of English words.

Most editors of mainstream American, British, Canadian, or Australian publications or media sites would not allow their writers to use the word "diagram" in an article to describe a basic map, or a basic statistical table, bar chart, or graph. The editor would be considered dumb. A map is a map. A table is a table. A bar chart is a bar chart. A graph is a graph.

There are specialized illustrations that are sometimes called diagrams that may have elements of tables, charts, maps, and graphs. See:

But basic maps, tables, charts, and graphs are not called diagrams. The Commons category structure needs to honor the basic understandings of diagrams, maps, tables, charts, and graphs. So that it is easier to find stuff.

Basic graphs are also commonly called charts, too. So the word charts can cover basic statistical tables, bar charts, area charts, and graphs. Area charts are a combination of a graph and a densely packed bar chart. These are all common basic English definitions. All of the above in their basic formats would not normally be called diagrams.

This is the common understanding. For example; at the top of meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests, an old project, it says:

  • "At this stage, illustration means diagrams. Not photographs, charts, or maps."

Diagrams, in normal English parlance, has a specific meaning. And it is not "photographs, charts, or maps." --Timeshifter (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the previous discussion and side agreement at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Diagrams by subject the diagram template is modeled on Template:Propaganda that has been on many propaganda categories since 2010. It solved a lot of problems by clarifying what was allowed in propaganda categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to change as a result of this discussion, @Timeshifter: ? I agree that "diagram" would not be used in an article to describe a basic map, or a basic statistical table, bar chart, or graph.Royalbroil 13:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Royalbroil. I started this specific category discussion to make the diagram template more official. The other category discussion where this was first discussed had a different original focus. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Support the diagram template as written above. Royalbroil 14:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the template text above. The categorization "system" we have now, while longstanding, was clearly created without forethought, and as a result, it is a total mess. This seems like a reasonable proposal to fix it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coming into this debate as a native German speaker, I can confirm that in German we understand all charts to be diagrams, and call them "Diagramm" as we don't have another word for it. German "Diagramm" includes all forms of geometrical abstract depictions like pie charts, 2D/3D-graphs, population pyramids but also pyramid diagrams and organizational charts. Specific charts may be called by their type (bar charts = "Balkendiagramm", line charts = "Liniendiagramm", pie charts = "Kreis-/Torten-diagramm")...
What the OP calls diagram (I have to assume) is called "Schaubild" in German, and all charts ("Diagramme") are still a subgroup of those, with other subgroups being technical/anatomical schematics ("Schema"), biological drawings ("Illustration"), maps ("Karte")... Speaking of maps: "Charts" in German refers specifically to (musical) record charts; the related word "Karte" means maps, and a map is strictly not considered a "Diagramm".
I have no problem moving stuff into "Chart"-categories if that is the proper name in English parlance, but consulting dictionaries and the en-WP itself I have come to doubt the original statement presented here. I agree however: the proper categorization of diagrams, charts and other schematic information in Commons is really a mess currently, because there is no overarching structure that an unsuspecting editor will be guided into. Just one example, "Political organization charts" are not charts if I understand the OP correctly, but actually diagrams? --Enyavar (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enyavar. Thanks for the info. Yes, those are diagrams in Category:Political organization charts. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed to resurrect the Charts and diagrams category to resolve the issue on whether an information graphic is a chart or a diagram. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Information graphics. It is a broad category that includes much more than just charts and diagrams. It also includes maps and illustrative explanatory graphics. As Enyavar pointed out concerning the German definition of "diagramm": "a map is strictly not considered a 'Diagramm'."
The beauty of using "infographics" is that it allows all images with some abstract info in them to be put in one category. Charts, graphs, diagrams, maps, illustrative explanatory graphics, etc..
You created (on May 25, 2024) the category of Category:Statistical graphics. I support the idea of it. But I think Category:Data graphics is better. "Data graphics" is used in the real world. Do google searches of it. An example:
https://dtkaplan.github.io/Lessons-in-statistical-thinking/L02-Pointplots.html
See also: User_talk:Prototyperspective#Diagrams. It may be in the talk archive there by the time you go there. He likes "data graphics" too.
Category:Statistical graphics is a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. As "Data graphics" would be.
Data graphics, unlike "statistical graphics", can eventually be shortened to "datagraphics". The single word is not in this dictionary yet:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/datagraphic
But I think datagraphics will be eventually. Just as "infographics" has ended up in dictionaries. In the meantime we can use "data graphics". It is already happening. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sbb1413, Prototyperspective, and I have agreed, and so Category:Statistical graphics now redirects to Category:Data graphics. It is a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

[edit]

Just like other posts filled by humans, it should be in "plural". I brought this here so that if there is any other correction to be made, it can be discussed before the move. E4024 (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The same applies to Category:Commissioner, Category:Commissioner of Yukon, and Category:Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:240 film

[edit]

IS Category:240 film redundant with Category:APS ? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell it depends on if Category:Film formats favors the width of the films or their product names for the category. If it's the former, then Category:APS is redundant. Otherwise, Category:240 film is. I can't really tell which is correct though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images for transfer

[edit]

I can't quite figure out what this category is for. It's only parent category is Category:Russian Wikivoyage and it has no category description. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is for collecting images to be transferred to the projects by bot. Certainly should not be deleted, even if it is sometimes empty.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: To any other projects? Then it shouldn't be in Category:Russian Wikivoyage, right? And it should be connected to the category tree in some better way. Or if it's for transferring image to Russian Wikivoyage, it should be renamed accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are almost exclusively for transfer to the Russian Wikivoyage. No, it should not be renamed, but if the majority insists we can make it hidden.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least one is from English Wikipedia, thus should probably be transferred back there. "Almost" is almost irrelevant for categories. If there may be other content a {{Cat see also}} is better. The category should probably be hidden, but there should probably be a visible template large enough that deleting admins cannot miss it. –LPfi (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/01&oldid=817747186"