Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/11

This page is for open CFD discussions started in November 2022.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2022/11.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2022-11.
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:Tea houses by country

it's best to use one phrase. since

both the uk and us cats are "tea houses"
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/teahouse
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/teahouse
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teahouse

i suggest renaming all cats to "teahouses in x". agree? RZuo (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: Wait, you state above that the term for both is "tea houses" (this matches the predominant naming as well), but yet suggest renaming to "teahouses" (no space). Is this your intent, or would "tea houses in X" be the right name format? Josh (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that the names of all subcategories of Category:Tea houses by country will be "Tea houses in X". See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Tea houses, were one of the conclusions was that Category:Tea rooms would have a redirect to Category:Tea houses. Though I suggested then not to change them, I now think they should. JopkeB (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/teahouse

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/teahouse

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teahouse RZuo (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo, Joshbaumgartner, and JopkeB: Rename all the subcats to "Tea houses in [country]" per the universality principle of COM:CAT. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

teahouse is better. RZuo (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose @RZuo, the parent topic category is Category:Tea houses, so using a different spelling for Category:Tea houses by country would violate the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo I second Josh. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with renaming all the subcats to "Tea houses in [country]" (with a space between "Tea" and "houses"). But first the Cat-a-lot problem should be solved. JopkeB (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Rename all the subcats to "Tea houses in [country]" (with a space between "Tea" and "houses") if they have another name now, per the universality principle of COM:CAT.
@RZuo, Joshbaumgartner, and Sbb1413: Do you agree or can you live with this proposal? --JopkeB (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no. RoyZuo (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what now: Do you have a better proposal that the rest of us can agree with? JopkeB (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miscellaneous templates

→same with subcategory: Category:Miscellaneous subtemplates!

Quite funny such an idea, like my boxes at home:) but for categorisation on Commons the term "miscellaneous" is not very usefull. That's why I propose to delete it and move the content to parent category Category:Commons templates. W like wiki ^{good to know} 20:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may fall under w:WP:OCMISC though Commons sometimes has different rules than Wikipedia and this is for pages outside the mainspace anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think applies to Commons but the logic there is similar to the logic here when it comes to miscellaneous/other categorization. We should avoid such categories as they are a hurdle to finding information. They may seem a convenient way to 'clean up' a parent category, but in reality, things should only be sorted into meaningful sub-categories. If there are so many contents that they are cluttering the parent, then we should come up with meaningful categories to sort them into, not just dump them in junk drawer. Josh (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing, or everything, can be miscellaneous. RZuo (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landschaftsschutzgebiet Neckartal zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen (Landkreis Tübingen)

Ein Landschaftsschutzgebet mit diesem Namen existiert nicht. Das Gebiet heißt laut Verordnung "Mittleres Neckartal" Tragopogon (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In der BfN Datenbank und dadurch auch in der EU und allen anderen internationalen Datenbanken ist das Gebiet unter dem Namen "Neckartal zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen". Hast du einen Link zu der Verordnung? --GPSLeo (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tragopogon: ich hab mich an der EU-Datenbank orientiert. Viele Grüße Z ^thomas 11:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verordnung des Landratsamtes Tübingen über das Landschaftsschutzgebiet "Mittleres Neckartal" im Landkreis Tübingen vom 15.12.1961. Im Schutzgebietssteckbrief steht der falsche Name, velinkt aber auf die richtige Verordnung. Bis Plochingen gibt es noch zig weitere LSGs entlang des Neckars, aber keines davon trägt laut Verordnung diesen Namen. --Tragopogon (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Das Gebiet muss irgendwann umbenannt worden sein, es heißt aktuell ziemlich sicher offiziell "Neckartal zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen". Ein entsprechendes Dokument zu der Umbenennung konnte ich jetzt aber auch nicht finden. GPSLeo (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wieso "ziemlich sicher"? Maßgebend ist der Name aus der Verordnung, diese wurde seit der Ausweisung 1961 nicht geändert. Der Name bei der LUBW ist ziemlich sicher falsch (aus meiner Erfahrung nichts ungewöhnliches) - zumal Tübingen und Plochingen recht weit auseinander liegen und für die Ausweisung von Landschaftsschutzgebieten die Landkreise zuständig sind. Das LSG Mittleres Neckartal wurde mit zwei Verordnungen von den Landkreisen Tübingen und Reutlingen ausgewiesen. Der Landkreis Esslingen hat keine entsprechende Verordnung - die weiteren Landschaftsschutzgebiete bis Plochingen heißen „Neckar-, Erms- und Autmuttal im Verwaltungsraum Neckartenzlingen“, „Gebiete um Nürtingen, Neckarhausen und Raidwangen“, „Gebiete bei Unterensingen und Zizishausen“, „Landschaftsbestandteile und Landschaftsteile entlang der Reichsautobahn Stuttgart München in den Landkreisen Esslingen, Nürtingen, Göppingen und Ulm“ und „Wernau (Neckar)“. Möglichweise gab es ein LSG dieses Namens aus der Nazi-Zeit, als Schutzgebiete noch vom Kultminister ausgewiesen wurden. Dieses wäre aber spätestens mit der Neu-Ausweisung 1961 aufgehoben worden. In keiner der entsprechenden Verordnungen der LSGs zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen steht aber ein entsprechender Aufhebungsvermerk.--Tragopogon (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn, wie du schreibst, die Landkreise für die Ausweisung zuständig sind müsst in den beiden Landkreisen Tübingen und Reutlingen genau der gleiche Fehler passiert sein. Daher denke ich, dass es eine Verordnung gab, die vermutlich Landesweit Namen von Schutzgebieten geändert hat, aber in der Gebietsdatenbank nicht korrekt verlink wurde. Das ganze muss in jedem Fall vor Ende 2012 passiert sein, da in der Natura 2000 Datenmeldung an die EU für 2012 der Name Neckartal zwischen Tübingen und Plochingen steht. [1] GPSLeo (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Für die Meldung wurden die Schutzgebiete aus der LUBW-Datenbank automatisiert mit den FFH-Gebieten verschnitten. Eine Verordnung, die landesweit Namen von Landschaftsschutzgebieten ändert, kann es zuständigkeitshalber eigentlich nicht geben. Insbesondere ergibt der Name keinen Sinn, da das Schutzgebiet schon vor Neckartenzlingen endet und vor Plochingen noch Städte wie Nürtingen und Wendlingen am Neckar liegen. Am besten wird sein, ich frage mal direkt beim Landratsamt nach.--Tragopogon (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Present-day Haute-Garonne in the 3rd century BC

Category:Present-day Occitanie in the 3rd century BC

These seems excessively granular. There is very little we will ever find from the 3rd century BC that is specific to this department/region. The original department was created in 1790 but if this relates to the present-day version only, it must exclude the area removed in 1808 which would be in Category:Tarn-et-Garonne in the 3rd century BC. This level of minutia gets a little ridiculous. I suggest deletion and upmerge the single image to Category:Antiquity of Haute-Garonne. I think we could also upmerge passed Category:Present-day Occitanie in the 3rd century BC (which was created in 2014) to Category:France in the 3rd century BC and/or include Category:3rd-century BC works in Occitanie. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vincent

What is this for? It seems to be a user page of some sort? mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that many (if not all) pictures here are added by automated processes as the result of "Vincent" tags on Flickr images, referring to the old British motorcycle brand. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a disambiguation category. You'd have the given name, surname, the Don McClean song, the motorcycle brand, some populated places, and probably other stuff. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toboggan slides

Is Category:Toboggan slides redundant with Category:Snow slides? If so, which is a better term? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting versus lumping? It's a time old question when creating categories.

Category:Sledding tracks has the following text, which offers some guidance on how that editor saw this situation.

 English: Constructed tracks and slides for downhill winter sledding/tobogganing. For natural slopes used for sledding/tobogganing, see Category:Sledging hills‎.

- It also adds the question of regarding #Category:Toboggan slides #Category:Snow slides #Category:Sledding tracks #Category:Sledging hills‎. I'd say that Sledging hills is the overall category. Then sub-categories of Sledding tracks, Snow slides and Toboggan slides. It would appear that Sledding tracks and Toboggan slides may be the same, i.e., developed tracks. Toboggan slides in the U.S. are chutes built to fix the width of a toboggan. A Sledding track, assuming it's a constructed track (see above), could be a cleared hill (often in designed sledding areas) or it could be more specific in that it's contoured to create chutes or it's actually framed by wood or masonry to create chutes. I don't know the attempt, but would think that it may be layered, 1) Sledding hills with 2a) Sledding tracks and 2b) Snow slides. Then placing 3) Toboggan slides under Sledding tracks. Too layered, I'd just have three sub-categories. Chris Light (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not eliminate Toboggan slides in favor of the more generic sledding tracks. Mostly because in my 40+ years of sledding, I went to sledding hills or toboggan runs (slides). Snow slides and Sledding tracks were no terms used in the numerous communities in the US where I've lived. I'll accept that they are terms used in other parts of the US or the world. Therefore: I would suggest either redirects to which ever terms are generally preferred or just using all references in some form of linkage. The splitting may be redundant, but this is not an area of academic study to have fixed definitions. How are the users going to search? We can (I won't) check Wikipedia to see what articles are titled for this topic. Chris Light (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flickr images by location and subcategories

Redundant and incorrect category tree that mixes source and subject. Not in line with out best practices and Commons:Categories. --Multichill (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created the above two categories Rievaulx Terrace, images from Flickr, and Images of Armley House from Flickr. I am happy for them to be re-categorised as Rievaulx Terrace and Armley House. Is there any objection if I just do that, and remove them from this listing? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Storye book: Ok, thanks for your prompt reply. I moved the files and deleted the two categories. Multichill (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem? Why are these categories redundant? What is exactly incorrect in this category tree? Why should sources and subjects not be mixed? Why may images of for instance Germany not also be categorized by source? JopkeB (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:

KeepI agree with JopkeB, I cannot see a problem with Category:Flickr images of Norfolk, England. There has been for some time a category Category:Geograph images in Norfolk which is another popular source for this subject which has never been disputed, and is part of large category tree concerning Geograph images Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland. Kolforn (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that source and topic categories are intersected. Source categories should be flat and not split out. These categories are hidden making it harder for images to find.

This is basic established practice here on Commons to not split source categories out. Didn't you notice that we have millions of Flickr images, but only a handful are in these incorrect categories? As for Geograph, that categories experiment is up for deletion next. Multichill (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realise that as a result of deleting categories which have been functioning for years, by replacing those disliked categories with a higher-tier category, you are now filling those higher-tier category pages with hundreds of random images so that it is hard to find what you are looking for, among the mass of them. How exactly is that improving Wikipedia? I like to separate out Geograph imaages from the rest, because most of them are small-size pictures, making them less useful than most of the WP-editor contributions and the Flickr pictures, which are mostly a great deal larger, better quality, and more detailed. In general, I only use Geograph pictures as a last resort, and when there are a lot of them it really helps to categorise them away from the other, better pictures. Storye book (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of your explanation, I still don't understand the reason why this is an incorrect category tree. There are many other hidden categories that have subcategories by country, subject and/or date. See for instance Category:Images from Anefo, which is a source and hidden category, and then one of its subcategories, for instance Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll and its many sub-subcategories by location, subject and/or date; this category Images from Anefo also has a flat list, so files are categorized in the main category as well as in a subcategory. Would this be a solution for the problem: to categorize files in the source category Category:Flickr as well as in one of its subcategories? --JopkeB (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's correct. A photographer category is about who made it, not what the source was for providing the files. A photographer might have worked for other agencies beside Anefo. Moved them to Category:Photographs by Anefo photographer. Multichill (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: Now that the delete Geograph images by place categories has taken place, in my opion it has left us with a completely useless category of Geograph Britain and Ireland which now has a massive 4,128,666 images in it. This is making it completely unworkable to find images for a particular location in the UK. I think we have made a big mistake by deleting place categories.Kolforn (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you felt the need to also leave this message on my talk page. You really don't get it. Don't mix the source and the topic. Source categories are flat and in the case quite huge to just indicate where an image came from. For what's in it we have the regular category tree. By creating these intersection categories you're just hiding the images in a hidden category outside the main category reducing the chance of any user ever finding it. Multichill (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: The problem with that is that an awful lot of Geograph images have been transferred by a bot, which lazily loads the images without a more specific category, thus making impossible to use a regular category tree to make a refined search for any location you are looking for. By narrowing it down to a county or city had made searches a little easy, but not now as they are in the huge category of Geograph Britain and Ireland. Kolforn (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill, Kolforn, Storye book, and JopkeB:

Keep but remove from the TOPIC category tree. The problem is not the categories themselves. There is no issue with having source categories subcategorized by topic in and of itself. That said, there is a big issue when files are removed from true topical categories and moved into a source category just because the source category is broken down by topic. For example, Category:Flickr images of Germany is fine, but there are images under it that appear nowhere in the topical Category:Germany category tree (except by the flawed inclusion of Category:Flickr images of Germany there. This means that someone looking for images of Germany will never find these images unless they narrow down by source, which most users do not care about. This is why, per COM:CAT, TOPIC and SOURCE category trees are two different things. They should remain separate, and images should be separately categorized and sorted in each tree independently. Instead of nesting TOPIC and SOURCE categories into eachother, {{Cat see also}} can provide a handy quick navigation without encouraging a break of the system. I know we have gotten very lazy about this but mixing the core trees is a significant problem for usability. Josh (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That just encourages bad behavior. If it would just be a redundant category next to the normal one I really wouldn't care. The problem is that users keep mixing it with the main category tree and moving images outside of the main category tree. Multichill (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Multichill

OK got your message, Not a big fan of these Geograph bots, especially the main uploader one as it dumps many images in the wrong place. For example Category:Norwich. Here the bot has placed images from villages and places from all over Norfolk and has just made a huge amount of work moving them to correct category’s, I have been working on just this category for weeks. As for adding the Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland, I have been doing this so as to add |Norfolk to the end of it to try to place all the Geograph images of Norfolk in one group together within the category which now has over 4,304,655 images in it, making it usless if you wanted to find images specific to Norfolk. There was a category tree within that was county specific but these have all been deleted now by a Dutch editor who decided that this was in his words just encourages bad behavior what ever that meant! Kolforn (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If these are kept then Category:Flickr images of East Riding of Yorkshire should be renamed Category:Flickr images of the East Riding of Yorkshire in line with other East Riding of Yorkshire categories. Keith D (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with DJI FC1102 in Portugal

are these cats that intersect "taken with xx equipment" and other topics, like location or date, useful?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&ns14=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%22Taken+with%22+intitle%3A%2F+in+%2F roughly 100 cats exist. examples:

i think these are, sorry to say, categorisation freak. "taken with xx" and topical cats should not intersect. they are hard to manage and they also needlessly separate files of the same topic into subcats just because the equipment used is different.

my suggestion is to move all these files back to the respective "taken with xx" and "photographs/aerial photographs/... of xx" and delete these cats.--RZuo (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove from TOPIC tree. @RZuo: These are 'Media type' categories under the split listed in COM:CAT, as opposed to normal 'Topics' categories. There is nothing inherently wrong with subcategorizing them by topic (including location) if it makes sense and is useful to those using these categories. The problem is when they get sewn into the 'Topics' category tree by adding them to topical categories (e.g. Category:Taken with Ricoh THETA in Hong Kong placed somewhere under Category:Hong Kong). When that happens it encourages people to sort out images from Category:Hong Kong (a topic category) into a media type category, making it impossible for a normal user to find the image without narrowing down to a specific 'media type', which in most cases is not a parameter most users care about--certainly not to the degree of caring which type of drone the image was taken from. Each file should be separately categorized within the topic tree and the media type tree. How far down it is sub-categorized is not an issue, so long as it isn't removed from the tree. Josh (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they are not under Category:Media types.

i fail to see why it should be allowed to create say "taken with canon 6d in chile", to diffuse files that should be in "taken with canon 6d" to various kinds of subsets of it. if this is ok, then what about "photographs of obama taken with nikon cameras"? "taken with iphone 4 in aleppo"? all these kinds of granular intersections? RZuo (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Army in Vietnam

Empty. No subcats. Is this likely to be used again? Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:United States Army in Vietnam @Jmabel: Possibly in the future, but no reason to keep in the meantime. Josh (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

us army do have relations with vietnam in 21st century e.g. https://www.army.mil/article/48730/csa_visits_vietnam and will quite likely have more cooperation given the problems with china. RZuo (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: would this be appropriate for Vietnam War photos? - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Columns

Follow-up questions after closing Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/09/Category:Pillars in the Netherlands
(1) @Auntof6: @W like wiki: [and others!] What are columns really? In the discussion we concluded that columns are "tall upright structures that are round and made of stone ..." But here I see subcategories for columns by material, for (among others) metal and wood. And most Category:Advertising columns are not made of stone either. So: 1) Is our definition not correct OR 2) Are these subcategories not correct? JopkeB (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2) And why are Category:Gate piers named Piers and not Pillars? After all, they do not support anything, let alone a bridge or arch. --JopkeB (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:States of the United States by state name linguistic root

delete this cat tree. commons cat tree is not the right tool to document linguistics. RZuo (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In general, categorization as a tool to make claims (such as the linguistic root of a subject's name) is not a great idea, as citations cannot be cleanly provided. This is especially true when the information is not cut and dry. For example, the origins of the name "Oregon" is not clear--Spanish seems to be the most likely, but French and even Portuguese origins have been postulated and no origin has been widely accepted as reliable. Claiming it is Spanish (or French, or even all three) by putting it in a Spanish category doesn't convey that nuance. Josh (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on basis above. Josh (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a useless category structure to divide 50 major categories based on someone's linguistic hypothesis. The assignments for each state can be randomly picked apart: Pennsylvania was named after the Englishman "Penn" while "Silva" is a Latin word. Yet it is sorted only into "Old Dutch" (is "Penn" derived from Old Dutch??), not into Latin and English. New Hampshire was named after the region in England which has "Hamtun" as a Saxon/Germanic root word, English is a derived form. New Mexico certainly doesn't have a Spanish root word, but was put together from English and Nahuatl. And English is again rooted in various older languages, in the case of "New..." the root is both Germanic and Latin, rooted in Proto-Indo-European (*néwos)... Ugh.

Definitely

Delete per Josh. --Enyavar (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments in Westminster Abbey

I don't question the category itself but whether the items in this category necessitate "Westminster Abbey" disambiguation when often the only monument is at this location. If multiple monuments exist of course disambiguation is warranted. However here it's as a default and I question whether that is appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is appropriate. It is plain commonsense, and good practice, when uploading a photograph or creating a category to provide as concise and precise a description of both the subject and location as possible. Disambiguation is not the criteria. Judging by the files listed under Category: Church monuments in England by cathedral including the location in the category title would appear to be common practice. You might also want to consider looking at the category Graves in the Père-Lachaise Cemetery for a few more examples.14GTR (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iron filings

Merge Category:Iron filings and Category:Iron powder as not usefully distinct. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, keep both as there are two articles en:Iron filings and Category:Iron powder. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 23:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iron powder is not an article.

If they are so distinct, can you describe what that difference is? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikidata has two separate entries (although I disagree with the definition at d:Q132093. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata gives a description of "iron filings" as "fine iron powder". So why does this indicate that they are two different materials, to the extent that Commons needs two distinct categories for them? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reorganize categorization so Category:Iron filings is a sub of Category:Iron powder. Josh (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images with Malayalam description

Sort of the flip of Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Biology images without english description but there is no purpose in keeping track of images with a Malayalam language description. It seems entirely unnecessary to keep track of whatever languages descriptions are provided by and this categorization if done properly gets incredibly ridiculous. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If, as the talk page suggests, a goal could be to identify images with only a Malayalam language description, then the better approach is to make a suggestion for hidden categories from the description template or have bot maybe troll through various 'unidentified categories' checking for the ML template. Pinging @Sreejithk2000 and Dvellakat: and User:Vssun already knows. This seems like asking for trouble if we really expanded upon this with all languages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I believe the original intension was that this will be a tracking category for images which does not have any meaningful description/categorization. In an ideal case, this category will be empty. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cardan joints

Rename as "Cardan shafts". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Why? It appears both names are in use. Josh (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose keep as Cardan joints. Same oppinion as Josh. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 23:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Norfolk, England photographed in September 1986

This seems one level excessively specific. We don't keep track of churches photographed by month and year elsewhere so it would be excessive to have churches photographed in September 1986 in the UK/England category as parents. It seems fine to move the single image up to Category:Churches in Norfolk, England photographed in 1986 (although I question whether that county-level is needed) and keep in Category:September 1986 in Norfolk, England. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relations of Iceland and Finland

Previously declined speedy twice, so nominating for fuller discussion. Per User:Place Clichy, this is a "Bad name (alphabetical order): this category breaks templates used for the automatic population of categories". Perhaps fixing the templates would be a better solution? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: Let me explain. The template in question is {{Aircraft of in category}}. It is used to automatically set the content of categories such as Category:Aircraft of Iceland in Finland (code: {{Aircraft of in category|Iceland|Finland}}). This template will automatically look if Category:Relations of Iceland and Finland exists (pay attention to the order), and only if it doesn't exist it will look for the correct Category:Relations of Finland and Iceland. A category redirect is unfortunately understood as an extant category and breaks the pattern. I asked at mediawikiwiki:Help talk:Extension:ParserFunctions and the answer was that there is no way in wikimedia code to test the alphabetical order of two text strings so "fixing" the template is not an option.

I guess the reason why the speedy was declined twice is that the contributors that looked into it had the wrong impression that the category was not empty, as the automatically-populated category appears present. This has lead to unfortunate attempts to solve the problem, such as inverting the order of the countries, which of course does not work as the category then ends up as Aircraft of Finland in Iceland instead of the opposite. However, this will automatically fix itself once only the correct target category exists. To make this more obvious, I temporarily disabled the automatic template (this can be reverted afterwards).

That's why I propose that the best solution is to delete the useless empty category redirect.

TLDR: It is useful to put content in bilateral relations categories using a template to have consistent content on hundreds of similar categories. It may also be useful, but a bit less, to have category redirects from B to A to A to B. Unfortunately, wikimedia code does not allow both at the same time. The reasonable choice here is to correctly populate the categories and let go of the little-use redirect. Place Clichy 09:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the fix should be to the template, not removing this redirect. What is needed is either 1) to build in a sorting of parameters 1 and 2 alphabetically or 2) add a function to the template to test if a category is a redirect and if so to treat it as if it does not exist. Unfortunately both of these are beyond my experience to implement, so perhaps the redirect deletion is more expedient, but I hope that someone can implement one of the 2 template fixes above at some point. Josh (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does this somehow already work with Category:Aircraft of Germany in France and Category:Aircraft of France in Germany, then? Has the template already been fixed? Do we need an (empty) Category:Aircraft of Finland in Iceland for both of them to have the correct "Relations-of-countries" parent? --Enyavar (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar: sorry for the late reply. It works in your example because Category:Relations of Germany and France does not exist - notice the wrong word order. The problem here is that Category:Relations of Iceland and Finland exists although it is useless, because Category:Relations of Finland and Iceland is sufficient. The aim of this discussion is to delete the useless redirect at Category:Relations of Iceland and Finland, which will allow the template to work. Place Clichy 14:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the template most likely could be fixed by writing a Lua module, but actually doing so is beyond my abilities. In the meantime, the category redirect is functionally useless and is messing up correct categorization of the Aircraft category, so it should be deleted. --R'n'B (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Don Quijote, (1894?)

This category should be deleted. It was created for images uploaded in 2016 but based on newfound info, the publication year is 1905, not 1894. See discussion on Wikisource: [2] The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim that this are the same version when you have a publication date of 1900 as said by the Spanish National Library with both volumes having a red cover and another version in Centro de Estudios Cervantinos is stated to be from 1905 with both volumes having a green cover (and this two versions do not have the same number of pages in the first volume) and the version of this category has a version of "Don Quijote" in Fondo Antiguo de la Biblioteca de la Universidad de Sevilla, possibly published in 1894, as stated in the flickr album of this images scanned by the Biblioteca de la Universidad de Sevilla? Tm (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two links here are authorities on the matter and state 1905 for the images we are discussing:

#1 https://bvpb.mcu.es/cervantes/es/consulta/registro.do?id=463832

#2 https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/portales/quijote_banco_imagenes_qbi/imagenes/?edicion=78

The 1894 version has different image(s) as seen here:

Since you removed the images from the 1905 category, which they are clearly in that version, I'll have to duplicate / reupload the images for the 1905 category. No problem. Have a nice day. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be closed as no consensus due to their being many versions of these books. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian flags by country

IMO this category tree is redundant and should be renamed/redirected to Category:Photographs of flags of Ukraine by country — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All required categories for a move were already in place; and the target category tree was more detailed and fitting our usual conventions much better. So, this was a fully redundant category tree, probably created when someone couldn't find the correct one (and it is more complicated). Per the proposal, I just moved the photos now and redirected all categories to the ones in Category:Photographs of flags of Ukraine by country. I think this CfD may be closed. --Enyavar (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outdated maps

I was thinking about creating a "Category:Static maps" for maps which portray a certain state of affairs in the past (a historical situation, if you will) and thus should not be updated to reflect new information per Commons:Overwriting existing files "Changes that reflect different data (e.g. updating a map), where the file has not been marked as updateable". Then I ran into this existing Category:Outdated maps. This category may have a legitimate historic purpose if it has a properly defined scope. At the moment it does not have any sort of description, and I'm not sure if this is the best title for this category and its subcategories either. 'Outdated' may imply that the file should be updated and thus placed in the 'Category:Files that need updating', but 'outdated' could also simply mean 'no longer current' without any sort of call to action to update it. Perhaps 'static maps' is a better title? This name says more clearly the maps should stay as they are and not be updated. Perhaps more explicitly would be 'Non-updateable maps'? This would closely follow the COM:OVERWRITE guideline. Curious to hear what others think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Incidentally, shouldn't we also have a 'Category:Files that do not need updating' (or simply Category:Non-updateable files)? It follows logically from the rule that certain files are not updateable per the COM:OVERWRITE guideline. That's not to say corrections to them can't be made (e.g. typos), just that the time of the state of affairs it displays must be kept the same. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, never saw this one before. My first problem was to tell the difference to "Category:Superseded maps", as none of the two categories is properly defined. But I infer from usage that these two cats are different: "Outdated" are (probably??) those that are simply not up to date with current knowledge of a subject. "Superseded" are those that have definitely been replaced with better material, but are kept around for documentation.

(now about the proposal by Leeuw: Anything that is not an animated map, is a static map, nevermind how up-to-date it is. We'd need a different name if we went that way.)

My counter-proposal: Generally all maps on commons should fall into one of the following four: "Current map" (as the standard which is implied for all maps unless stated otherwise), "Old map" (by definition outdated, but that's made obvious from the publication date), "History map" (modern map displaying a historical situation but still "current" to our knowledge and understanding of history) and finally the comparatively rare "Old history map" (about a historical situation, but using outdated knowledge).

The only problem with the above arises when a "current" map is no longer up to date because reality changes. As I understand it, our desired flowchart is then to recategorize them: "Current" (i.e. no special category) --> "Outdated" (but not replaced) --> "Superseded" (i.e. has a replacement now). If an "outdated" map gets overwritten, the "outdated" category needs to be removed, because the new file is "current" again. If the "outdated" map gets "superseded" by a new upload, the two files need to link to each other and "outdated" has to be replaced with "superseded". Afterwards, the "superseded" maps may be treated in different ways. If they had always been wrong in the first place, they can just be deleted. It happens. Other "superseded" maps just result from a change of .png to .svg format, then the superseded file can be kept around n that category for documentation purposes. Or there is a sub-category that holds historical maps (like Category:Maps of the history of the European Union), where the "previously current" files can be moved into. Or in some cases, all you need to do is some renaming and changing map description, adding the "until 2019" or "as of 2012". Then when it is clear that the map describes a historical situation now, it is again a "current map of history", and no longer a "superseded current map".

Soooo...

Support just for changing the descriptions, if we can all agree on that. I fear that most maps will completely eschew the "ideal" updating/superseding workflow I described above, but wouldn't it be nice to have a defined process. --Enyavar (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]