Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/05
Duplicate of Category:Geosites GoEThe (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @GoEThe: Which is better, and why? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill, not sure. Geosites was created first, if that is a criteria on Commons. Also, not sure if there is a requirement that category names are in the plural form (so it should be Geological sites). GoEThe (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, plural is necessary so it's Category:Geosites or Category:Geological sites. -- Themightyquill (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill, not sure. Geosites was created first, if that is a criteria on Commons. Also, not sure if there is a requirement that category names are in the plural form (so it should be Geological sites). GoEThe (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposed resolution: move files from Category:Geosites to Category:Geological sites and create category redirect. Any objections? Senator2029 12:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
What are "coal ships" if not "colliers"? Why have we two categories, one inside the other? In British English, "collier" is the usual term for a ship whose usual cargo is coal. "Coal ship" is not usual usage. Motacilla (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- In all English, collier is a term for coal miners and ships. It's just "coal+er". Of course the category for the ships should stay Coal ship. Category:Colliers is just a well-intentioned Britlish mistake that should be turned into a disambiguation between Category:Coal mines (="colliery"), Category:Coal miners, and Category:Coal ships.
- Category:Colliers of the United States Navy should probably also be renamed to Coal ships of the US Navy, although there it might be a formal categorization. â LlywelynII 11:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Colliers or Category:Colliers (ship) would be our way past the impasse. Having "coal ships" (yet another wiki-neologism from the native German) should go. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Not a useful categoryâ only two images that arenât single userâs porn spam Dronebogus (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleting. Si fuera tan tan necesaria algÃēn dÃa se puede abrir "Category:Transgender testicles" en el futuro. (Para que la gente se burle de Commons por estas tonterÃas...)
Why do we use a Russian propaganda term instead of the simple "Category:Soviet-German War 1941â1945" 80.137.110.21 08:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Without any rationale arguments. Just because this is initially based on the en-wiki articles structure (on state at the ~2005), and their interwiki links.
Currently, this is sub-category of the - And also linked with the Q19896779 - en:Great Patriotic War (term) - article about term only, but not a campagne.In my opinion,
- you may convert soft-redirect Category:Soviet-German War 1941â1945 into regular category (like Category:SovietâJapanese War (1945), as example). And then started moving/copiyng relevant content there (in such a way that in the original category there will be kept content related specifically to the term - campaign materials, commemorative signs, examples of printed materials and images of memorials).
- Current categorisation should be moved into Category:Soviet-German War 1941â1945.
- Category:Great Patriotic War may be moved to Category:Great Patriotic War (term) (with the kept soft-redirect)
- From categories,
- may be kept
- and added Category:Propaganda of the Soviet Union (and maybe also Category:Propaganda of Russia )
- From categories,
- you may convert soft-redirect Category:Soviet-German War 1941â1945 into regular category (like Category:SovietâJapanese War (1945), as example). And then started moving/copiyng relevant content there (in such a way that in the original category there will be kept content related specifically to the term - campaign materials, commemorative signs, examples of printed materials and images of memorials).
- JustWikiReporter (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
As reflected on the Wikidata and English Wikipedia pages, this is just the same as a pitched percussion instrument with the definition being largely made up. As such, this category needs to be deleted (I have already moved the files to Category:Pitched percussion instruments). Why? I Ask (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Before merging category, you should discuss about it. Why you want to merge the pitched percussion instrument (English Wikipedia article as of 20:09, 9 June 2020) and melodic percussion instrument (English Wikipedia article as of 13:54, 31 March 2022) in one category ? The difference of two notion had been clearly described on previous versions of each article on English Wikipedia (linked above). In my eyes, merging two categories with different definitions into one category is inconvenient for others, and it seems just your complacency. --Clusternote (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- They don't have different definitions. That's the issue. The old definition was one user's old preferred term; it's not supported by any source. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- On the HornbostelâSachs classification system for musical instruments, the homogenous sets of Idiophones (i.e. a subclass of percussion instruments) and Membranophones (i.e. drums), might can be called melodic percussion instruments, if these provide the musical scales for consisting the melodies.
- On the other hand, Pitched percussion instruments are not always consisting the set of instruments that consists musical scale, merely its sound spectrum is recognized as the pitched sound. Therefore, Melodic percussion instruments is sub-class of Pitched percussion instruments. --Clusternote (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC); Updated by Clusternote (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Except, it's not really a term that's supported by any source. It's cool to come up with a system that somewhat works, but then touting it as something commonly used is something different. I still have not seen a source that clearly says melodic percussion and pitched percussion are two different concepts. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- They don't have different definitions. That's the issue. The old definition was one user's old preferred term; it's not supported by any source. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
New name Ãffis Graz (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- The new name of the company is "Dr .Richard Steiermark" â shoud I change the name of this catgeory or make a new one for the buses with the new logo? Ãffis Graz (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Category has been renamed, this discussion might be archived.--Eweht (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Jeez, this process needs to be automated a bit more. Anyway, posting this to say, no, of course Category:Statues of the benefactors shouldn't be moved to "Category:Statues of the benefactors from Random Italian Name of a Closed Hospital". Aside from being the wrong preposition and the wrong hospital and the wrong language, it's solving a problem that doesn't exist. If there aren't any other "Statues of the Benefactors" to distinguish, the page should simply stay at the correct short form of the name.
That said, it is a proper name and the English should use English capitalization (ie it should be moved to Category:Statues of the Benefactors with a redirect from the current name).-- â LlywelynII 11:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
TBH, I can't see the difference between this category and Category:Logos of anime/manga A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- There really isn't one. So the logos should be up-merged to either one. There was actually a change to Commons:Categories recently that inserted "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided." The same thing should apply to all the "associated with" categories IMO since most or all of them just duplicate pre-exiting, clearer categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
moved the single image up to Category:Stolpersteine in ZwÃļnitz, no need to have a category for a district of a municiaplity where the whole municipality just has one single object. Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I honestly don't think this category is necessary. I can't see the point why we need to have a category for derivative works from Flickr but not for other sources A1Cafel (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest closing as Kept. It's a hidden category, populated with more than 500 images. Apparently at least a few users find this of some use, and for the rest of us seems harmless. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
bad name ; Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cette catÊgorie ne contient que des photos de la cheminÊe d'une unique usine situÊe dans le quartier de Montredon. Il est souhaitable qu'elle soit renommÊe : CheminÊe rampante de Montredon. Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sans autre avis, j'annule cette proposition. Je crÊe une catÊgporie pour cette cheminÊe, et je la regroupe avec celle de l'Escalette sous le nom pluriel. Affaire rÊglÊe. Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
ä¸č¨åéĄåã¯ããĄããŽãĩã¤ããåčãĢããĻäŊãããããŽã¨æããžãããããã¯éæŽĩãŽæŖåŧåį§°ã¨ããããã¯ãã¤ããŗãį¨ãŽåŽŖäŧåį§°ãŽč˛åãåŧˇãããOpen-air outdoor stairsãããæąäēŦãŋã¯ãŧãŽéæŽĩã¨įč§ŖãããŽã¯å°éŖã§ããããį¨ŽãŽéæŽĩãŽåéĄã¨čĒ¤č§Ŗãããå¯čŊæ§ããããŽã§ã¯ãĒãã§ãããããCategory:Staircase of Tokyo Tower ãžã㯠Category:Tokyo Tower Open-air Stairsã¨æšåãããã¨ãææĄããžããįšãĢå寞ããĒããã°10æĨåžãįŽéãĢæšåãããã¨æããžãã--ããã (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Either option sounds reasonable to me. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Rename and merge to Category:Radio control transmitters. They're not specific to aircraft, it's not clear if that includes or excludes drones (drone controllers at least do tend to have some distinguishing features), and "controllers" isn't the COMMONNAME in use, they're referred to as transmitters. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Do we keep it in Category:Radio-controlled aircraft after the move? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- moved it to Category:Radio control transmitters, though without renaming (yet). Technically, modern devices also receive, like, videos, which might not be reflected in common naming though (yet). --Leo Miregalitheo (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Which should be used? Chittagong or Chattogram A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: The name has officially be changed to Chattogram, but wikipedia retains en:Chittagong for now. Whatever we decide, redirects should be kept in place. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- We should keep the old name "Chittagong", until it has to pass into common usage. Thanks. ~Moheen (keep talking) 11:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Chattogram is the official spelling. It has been 6 year that spelling has changed. Use of Chattogram has been increased enough & increasing. I will say use it. --āĻāĻĢāĻ¤āĻžāĻŦā§āĻā§āĻāĻžāĻŽāĻžāĻ¨ (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- We should keep the old name "Chittagong", until it has to pass into common usage. Thanks. ~Moheen (keep talking) 11:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Nominated for delition. This category has been replaced by Category:Archives in Tver Oblast in accordance with the unification of category names Yufereff (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 Keep and redirect to Category:Archives in Tver Oblast.  â Jeff G. ã please ping or talk to me 13:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)- @Jeff G.: We don't usually keep redirects for category names with slightly different capitalization... -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: According to Wiktionary, "oblast" is English (and other languages) and "Oblast" is German, so we should keep this cat per COM:CAT, reverse Yufereff's changes, and redirect Category:Archives in Tver Oblast per COM:CATRED. Â â Jeff G. ã please ping or talk to me 11:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: I'm not sure what you mean. The English wikipedia entry is at en:Tver Oblast. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
unique and suspicious layer. Whole category tree to be deleted with Category:No name rivers of Lithuania. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Couldn't this indeed be useful for topics without a name but definitely exist, see the "Thistle 100 metres north of Mill Lane" example at Commons talk:Category inclusion criteria#Answers though as noted for these to have their own categories there should probably be a reasonable number of images otherwise just keep in the "Objects without name" or sub set category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep â There could exist objects that haven't yet been named, or given an official designation. The category description makes clear that this category is not for unidentified objects or that do have a name but the name is missing on Commons description. Senator2029 12:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Â Keep, standard and useful categorization. Not unique, not suspicious. See also Category:Unnamed places and all its subcategories. As categorization progresses, the more it will be necessary to distinguish unidentifiable or unsorted content from identified sites that are merely not named, and at the same time as a complement to the flat categories "by name". For example, I am considering systematic use for nameless streams in Czechia up to the district level, and maybe also for some particular streams (to categorize their bridges etc., and to link them in Wikidata). For now, the biggest need and application of this categorization seems to be for places. Nameless people or organizations are out of the question, and cosmic objects always have some systematic marking. Objects that have at least some public ID codes need not to be treated as nameless.
However, the naming pattern can be unified. There exist at least three forms: "unnamed", "nameless" and "without name". "Unnamed" seems to be most used. âââ --Å Jů (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
unique, subjective (?) and suspicious. Lets just category these into the parent Category:Tributaries of the Baltic Sea? Estopedist1 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nope.
- They have unique waterbody ID, which begins of 20xxxxxx.
- All of included (now & in future) are small specific creeks, having all their basin in Lithuania.
- All of them floods into Baltic sea in teritory of Lithuania, more specifically in part between KlaipÄda and Å ventoji.
- All of them has very similar properties in geological AND biological sense (very different of those in eg. Sweden).
I don't agree with idea, that they are not enough unique. It easenes finding of them (ABC list does not). --Kusurija (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rename to "Category:Tributaries of the Baltic Sea in Lithuania". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems to be pointless category, included its subcategory (artists). Do we really need Economy of, Culture of, Transport of etc. of the Baltic region? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Stale discussion; I suggest Keep this particular category per usage. Slippery slope argument that there might be other categories we may not "really need" is irrelevant. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)