this cat is now mixing cats of chemical compounds and cats of chemical diagrams together. for example, Category:Sodium chloride NaCl is a specific compound existing in the real world. Category:Chemical formulas are manmade diagrams that represent something. now they're mixed up as "structures".
Chemical substances is the seemingly correct parent of this category. Any files showing a substance without enough granularity to reveal its chemical structure should be pushed up to that level.
Support no need for this double structure. The best would be to move the content to Category:Military of Russia and the creation of a category redirect. --Mosbatho (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait There is more to this issue that needs to be resolved. I am not against eliminating unnecessary duplication, but these are nominally two different concepts. Military of Russia is the intersectional category of Military and Russia. As such, any content of a military topic related to Russia should be categorized in this tree. Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is a specifically defined organization and while it probably encompasses the vast majority of military affairs in Russia, that is not exclusively so. For example, a ceremony which happens today in Moscow in remembrance of the Red Army during WWII should be under Military of Russia somewhere. However, it has nothing to do with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (they didn't exist for another 50 years). Josh (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Josh! Look up, Russia or the Russian Federation is not synonymous with the Soviet Union. There is already a corresponding category tree for the soviet union. Consequently, there is no use for the current category. --Mosbatho (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Good point! I agree. "Military of Russia" is too general as it squeezes two historical regimes under one roof. We should differentiate between the current "new" Russia since 1991 and Tsarist Russia until 1917. At the moment, however, we have a fuzzy category situation that is more ambiguous than unambiguous. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is ambiguous about it. Russia is the current country, Soviet Union is a former country, Russian Empire is an even more former country, we can go back further, but each has its own distinct category.
Per the Universality Principle, that means any category using "Russia" is for the current country, the "Soviet Union" is for the former country, the "Russian Empire" is for the even more former country, and so on.
Thus, this category is exclusively for contents with a relation to the current country. Nothing ambiguous about it.
I may have introduced confusion in my comment by refering to the "Red Army" (a Soviet Union thing), but I was only referring to it as being honored in current Russia, which is a topic related to the current Russia, and which belongs in this category as a result. Josh (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are military topics related to Russia which are not expressly part of Russia's official armed forces.
Rename Category:Clash of civilizations to Category:Clash of Civilizations as correct capitalization for a proper noun. However, this whole category seems suspect. The images do not appear to be taken from the book. I checked it out at OpenLibrary and it has a few maps that were maybe the inspiration for some of this content, but they are definitely not directly from the book. @LaundryPizza03: do you know anything about this? Josh (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Are you suggesting that these files are copyright infringement of a secondary source about the book, that they are unacceptable as derivative works of the maps in the book, or that there is some other problem that requires deletion? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: , no idea about any infringement, and not even saying they need to be deleted, but I do not even see what their relationship to the book is in the first place. Generally, if a map image is placed in a book category, it indicates that the map image is from the book, but these maps are clearly not from the book. Thus I do not see why they are in this category in the first place. Just trying to figure out what we are dealing with here. Josh (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: I see. So they are new maps which are based on a reading of the book in an attempt to map out concepts described in the book, if I get you correctly. At least that explains what they are doing here. And what about Maps of the Western World? Are these also based on the book? Assuming so, we should do a bit of renaming and organization so it is more clear what is going on:
This way it is clear that these maps are specific to descriptions within the book and not to be confused with the 'real world'. Josh (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hi, I only see this now. Huntington had one basic map, as far as I remember from school when this was a fresh and hip theory. His books are still copyrighted anyway, so actually none of the content here is allowed directly out of his book until 2078. Huntington popularized the whole concept of this Clash however, which led to lots of people create "modified" maps and graphics. Just see how the borders deviate. Whether or not each single map is properly grounded in the same academic foundations of Huntington, the concept of cultural faultlines on world maps is an important part of political studies. So this category is in my opinion more about a theory in flux, not merely a collection of material from the original book. It may be better to have this category to collect CoC-related graphics, and having it as "Clash of civilizations" (lower case) seems okay with me. This also means that maps defining "the Western World culture" have some merit here, too: Huntington's theory indicated that the faultline between Latin America and the rest of the West were much less prominent, meaning that most of the "maps of the Western world" are following either his narrow or his broader definitions.
Which are the "unrelated images" that you speak of? Again, this is not a category for the content of Huntington's book: His original BW map is copyrighted like all the rest of his book. If this category is about his book, we could move all images from the category to a new one like "C-o-c-related maps and diagrams" and rename this category with Capitalization to leave it empty until 2078/2079. Sure. Yet, we could also not do that. --Enyavar (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless wristwatches and similar devices now count as ‘body parts’ (and perhaps they should, given how addicted people are to their devices now), this category doesn’t belong in Close-up photographs of humans by body parts.
That’s assuming that this category is intended to depict wristwatches. It is also in People wearing wristwatches, but the name of the category itself seems meaningless.
This category is empty. What should it contain? I don’t know what ‘with’ means. I am sure that we have plenty of images of females wearing brassieres in public, but they are not here! Brianjd (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is "in public" supposed to mean that the bras are visible? Many women wear bras in public, just without them being visible.
Some of the images added here do not show brassieres, just closely fitted dress bodices. In fact, with some of those, the person may be wearing no bra at all, visible or otherwise.
I think including sports bras is misleading -- people don't usually think of sports bras the same way they think of regular bras, and sports bras are commonly worn as outerwear.
All of the contents are actually wearing a brassieres, so "wearing" is a more specific relation than "with" (which could include women simply holding a bra or even just pictured along with one in the same image). This complies with the Modularity Principle.
"As outer wear" better exemplifies the nature of the contents, in that they are worn in such a way intended to be the outer visible layer of clothing.
There are a few contents that appear not to actually be brassieres, but instead are perhaps 'brassiere-styled' clothing of other types (such as dresses where the top looks like a bra). Josh (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "as outerwear" describes it. A woman might be appearing in underwear, fully aware that she's not wearing anything over it, but that doesn't mean the bra is outerwear. One example I can think of is someone doing cosplay of Janet from Rocky Horror, such as this image. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tobias ToMar Maier and Auntof6: Definitely good points. I don't know that 'as outer wear' is the best description, but just something better than 'in public' (someone could be wearing a bra under a shirt and be wearing that bra in public, but I don't think that meets the scope of this category). My idea was not to say 'the bra is outer wear', but merely that, as pictured, the bra is at that moment functioning as outer wear. This means it could be a normal bra one would wear under clothing, but simply does not have any clothing over it at the time, or is a bra that indended by the clothing or outfit designer to be normally the outer layer of an outfit. That said, if someone has a better phrase than 'as outer wear' to describe that condition, I am all for it. Something like 'women wearing publicly-visible brassieres'? This would encapsulate the fact that the bra is visible in the image and that it is not just in a private setting. Josh (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Tobias ToMar Maier: Do you mean to say that you would like to categorize both 'actual brassieres' and 'other 'brassiere-styled' clothing' in the same category, or am I misreading your comment? Josh (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean to say that. The general thought is to show that brassieres or breast supporting garments are not always hidden underwear. The Bavarian dirndl dress would also fit (sometimes) into this category as the the additional bra underneath is more of a modern fashion item than a necessity with the proper tight fit of the upper part. Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with including anything that isn't an actual brassiere. There are breast-supporting garments that are not brassieres. For example, some corsets support the breasts, but they are not brassieres. Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories of this category beginning "Connecticut Huskies" should begin "UConn Huskies" instead per WP:COMMONNAME. That's how they're branded and that's how they're known everywhere, including on the English Wikipedia. Denniscabrams (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. For people like Gandhi and Mandela who have been in jail, a category "X in jail" may be OK if we have documents to be included. Yann (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem is that the connotation of the word "criminal" goes way beyond the definition of "a person who has been convicted of a crime in some jurisdiction", but any other definition is going to be subjective. So we have a name here where the denotation and connotation do not match. - Jmabel ! talk20:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Gallery pages of criminals as conceived. If the contents were gallery pages specific to those images of a person relating to their criminal behavour, then maybe, but I do not know of any such gallery pages. As it is, this is set to have lots of gallery pages which contain exactly zero images of a given person engaged in crime or even being prosecuted or jailed. Josh (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the deletion, but what about the rest of Category:Criminals? The problem with "criminals" isn't isolated to gallery pages. Should Gandhi be in Category:Criminals from India? Category:Persons convicted for [...] might be acceptable, but we still have the problem with people being convicted for stigmatising crimes for political reasons. –LPfi (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a separate CFD for that. I think it's a dumb categorization generally but it may be kept with us arguing each category on a case-by-case basis. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ricky81682, let's not argue each individual category. "Criminal" can be a neutral description, though with negative connotations. I don't think those negative connotations warrant the deletion or depopulation of valid categories. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main question is whether a category about "criminals" (or the category tree, or some specific subcategory like this) is valid. For what is it used? What do people search for when looking in that category tree? I assume most people would be looking for some famous criminals, or typical mugshots or whatever, not politicians who have been sentenced for some crime. Politicians sentenced for corruption, or convicted in totally political trials, might be valid and useful subcategories of something like this, but wouldn't there be a better word than "criminal" for those cases. By choosing a word that doesn't fit appropriate content, we reduce the usability of the category. Perhaps somebody would be looking for the likes of Gandhi, but the naming of the category means they aren't looking here. –LPfi (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is true: if we think of this from a user-centric point of view, the reader who seeks out search terms like "criminal" will not be looking for Gandhi, MLK, Martha Stewart or Jesus; they're looking for Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, Adolf Hitler, et. al.
I would say that this category could be useful if we established objective and narrow scope and inclusion criteria for it. For example, on enwiki there is a template called {{Infobox criminal}} and naturally this is only applied to people who are criminals in the narrow definition: someone who is most notable for their crimes, had a life of crime, or this is what is chiefly documented in the sources. A person whose notability rests upon their crimes would be the perfect candidate for this gallery and applicable categories. And then we could more or less rightly exclude the folk heroes who were convicted of crimes that are only incidental to notability.
I'm not sure if we could rightly exclude high-profile, righteous political prisoners such as Nelson Mandela, or Mumia Abu-Jamal, but I think even their admirers would concede that they are, technically, criminals? Elizium23 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if some of these files are indeed "simple text logos", let’s be clear about one critical detail: These categories deal with two things each: the name of a country and a type of text — and therefore each of them must have two parent cats: One within the subcat tree under text by type and another within the subcat tree under said country. Here we’re dealing with the latter, while the mentioned proposal about "simple text logos" is about the former.
Also, please note that Category:Simple text logos is populated by the licensing template {{PD-textlogo|simple}} so it’s probably a good idea to keep it (and its subcat tree?) away from manual categorization.
These categories deal with two things each: the name of a country and a type of text I strongly disagree that the category should deal with the type of text. Putting aside the other categories involving "rendered" images for a moment, lets say I'm a random user that wants to categorize an image of the word "Albania." How exactly would I know if it is "rendered" or not and why would I even care about categorizing the image by "type of image" in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to understand you:
It seems that you are saying that you strongly disagree that a category about X of Y should have as parent cats both Category:X and Category:Y.
As for your question, a random user would categorize an image of the word "Albania" under Category:Albania, and from there it would be dissiminated (by other random users) down to the appropriate category. I’m sure we all agree about that.
You seem to be strangely hung up on the word "rendered". If it bugs you so much, then please open another CfD in Category:Rendered texts and fight your battle there.
Somewhere in this discussion it was already explained why some things belong here and other belong in its parent cat Category:Country names. Do you disagree with that, too?
Concerning the given example about Canada, some thoughts:
Category:Simple text logos of Canada, as exemplified by its current contents, is only partially related to the subject at hand: Except for its subcat Category:Canada wordmark (which is properly categorized under Category:Symbols of Canada), the rest are unrelated text samples that happen to pertain to entities headquartered in Canada, like company logos. At most, this should/could share a common (grand)parent cat with Category:Rendered name of Canada, but nothing more.
Category:Canada (text), and many of this kind of litteral categories, has the potential to become a disambiguation category, as the word "canada" has various meanings in several languages, apart from the country name.
I agree with Jmabel that there’s no better place. However, seeing how this user was unsettled by the notion of Commons conflating generic symbols of a country (things like its ccTLD, former national flags, unofficial nicknames and personifications, streets named after that country, etc etc) with its official national symbols, I propose that, for each of these country categories named Category:Symbols of Country, we create an intermediate Category:National symbols of Country to have as its parent cats both the said Category:Symbols of Country and Category:National symbols. Only officially sanctioned current national symbols of each contry would go on these new cats, leaving everything else within the current cats. -- Tuválkin✉✇23:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: I like where you are going with that, but it does not seem that merely adding 'national' to 'symbols of Country' does the trick, if the trick is to segregate official from non-official symbology. Instead, lets keep it simple and say what we mean and call it "Official symbols of Country". This is much more clearly to be only those symbols that are officially sanctioned. "National symbols of Country" just sounds like duplication, in that 'national' simply implies that they are of the country. Josh (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If all the thiamines (including xxphosphate forms) are vitamers of B1, then Marbletan is correct that there is still a mistake in categorization, but it is instead that those all need to move as subcats (and check for other overcatgorization) rather than the merger I proposed. This is not my field of speciality. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Avron: There are more than one US Army artillery regiment with a "1st Battalion", correct? Assuming so, this name is nonsense and should be deleted, not redirected to a particular 1st Battalion out of many. Josh (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are more 1st battalions like "1st battalion, 120th field artillery regiment" or "1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery Regiment", so there is no useful redirect.Avron (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the subcategories here contain existing Commons images which have been filed under which part of the fictional Backrooms universe they resemble. It's unclear whether the inclusion criteria is that the image has been reused on a fan wiki (eg. File:Caulophryne pelagica.jpg appears with CC credit at https://backrooms.fandom.com/wiki/The_Thing_on_Level_7) or if an editor just felt that the picture reminded them of a particular aspect of Backrooms lore. I don't think either of these is a useful form of categorisations for Commons, and it doesn't seem ideal that the few pieces of original Backrooms artwork here are quite hard to identify, to a user who is looking for them.
I know little about the Backrooms creepypasta lore. I was simply trying to clean up and organize the category in a manner that made it easier to navigate. --Trade (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images in these categories seem to be breaking down into
The Backrooms wiki seems pretty good about only using CC licenced images, but Commons may as well host the original and credit the original photographer, rather than saying it came from the Backrooms wiki and is CC but anonymous. (File:Artistdiesinme.jpg was the latter, and turned out to be a file Commons already had at higher resolution at File:Dora Dora 1 - Interiør på bakkenivå (2013) (10998312184).jpg.)
I don't think we should be categorising either of these as "a picture of the Backrooms, specifically Level 3 of the Backrooms" just because someone (a Commons user or a Backrooms wiki user) saw it and thought that. There are a few original drawings and renders of the Backrooms, which can be in the main Category:The Backrooms and the "entities" subfolders, but I think that's all that should be here. Belbury (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The categories seem to force certain interpretations of the Backrooms canon onto preexisting media and thus should be removed from the Backrooms categories.
Support, the Backrooms levels categories seem to contain images that are vaguely similar to the creepypasta locations, but are not actually meant to represent them. For example, Category:Electrical Station is full of images of actual real-world electrical stations. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yodin: my guess is that, if there is a Wikidata link, subcategorization could be taken into consideration, that is, if there are different images. Lotje (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yodin: , since the original title was Stumme Liebe that would imo be the most logical category with different subcategories per language. Would make it musch easier I guess for readers not familiar with the English language. Thank you for your thoughts. Lotje (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! The category naming policy says:
Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version).
So I would be ok with renaming these categories to their original German titles (the stories are most frequently discussed in academic sources which use the original German titles, rather than English translations). I would also like to rename Category:Musaeus Volksmaehrchen der Deutschen to Category:Volksmährchen der Deutschen.
That's an amazing edition! 😁 And yep, I know what you mean (interestingly one of Naubert's stories in Neue Volksmaehrchen der Deutschen was an addition to Musäus' "Legenden von Rübezahl": "Erdmann und Marie, ein Nachtrag zu den Legenden vom Rübezahl"). ‑‑YodinT20:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for pinging me. I didn't realize Stumme Liebe may more often (?) be translated as The Spectre-Barber. Wouldn't prefer the categories in German, though. German Wikipedia has articles about each fairy tale, which include pictures and link Commons. Grimms' Fairy Tales - Categories are all in English, too. Stoll (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stoll: Unlike the Grimms' tales, most of these stories are very rarely discussed in English, and when they are (normally by academics), they tend to use the original German titles. For example, with Stumme Liebe, JSTOR has only 3 search results for "Spectre Barber", and 27 results for "Stumme Liebe". When I started the English Wikipedia article, I chose the title "The Spectre-Barber" mostly on the basis of how this story was referred to in the 19th century press, which I now regret (I've been thinking of proposing to move it). Another example, Richilde, the English Wikipedia article was given the German spelling (Richilde) rather than following the English translations (Richilda), in line with how it's commonly referred to these days. One story (Liebestreue) has never even been translated into English, and the literal translation given in English Wikipedia was just a gloss to explain the meaning of the German title (in fact, that's what all the translations at wikipedia:en:Volksmärchen der Deutschen are; they don't represent how these stories are referred to in the English speaking world). I understand wanting to make the category names consistent here on Commons, but many fairy stories (especially literary fairy stories like these) are given in their original languages, such as at Category:Literary fairy tales, and Category:German fairy tales. ‑‑YodinT13:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category needs to be moved to "Army–Navy Game" and its subcategories need to be moved to "YYYY Army–Navy Game." I'm also requesting that someone else make the move because I still really haven't learned how to move categories correctly on the Commons. Denniscabrams (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Denniscabrams: Not a problem on the move. If there are no objections after a bit, it will be in the backlog for editors such as myself to process. Feel free to ping me or another CfD participant to request closure if you need it done sooner. Josh (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Secretlondon: If Kagyu Samyé Ling is renamed to Kagyu Samye Ling (that would take its own CfD at that level), then all children (including this one) would follow suit and drop the diacritic. Until then, this category must be spelled as its parent in accordance with the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Secretlondon: Certainly. I see you've posted that now, and it shouldn't take long to conclude. Obviously, if we drop the diacritic from the parent category, the subs will follow suit. Josh (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primates is not only the plural of primate but also the name of the order, so it can be a valid title similar to cat:Groups of Canidae. i have no idea which is preferred by commons users involved in biology/zoology. RoyZuo (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the subcategories in this category named "North Carolina State Wolfpack [sport]" should be moved to "NC State Wolfpack [sport]." Their sports teams are universally known as NC State and not North Carolina State. See their Wikipedia article for example. I would cite to WP:COMMONNAME if this were on Wikipedia but I don't know what the equivalent policy is on the Commons. Denniscabrams (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to HMS_Swallow_(1745), "The first Swallow of the Merlin class was wrecked in the Bahamas in December 1744, and another ship of the class was given the same name to replace her."
All of the images in this category are clearly of the 2nd ship, launched on 1745-12-14, except for two drawings, that apply to all the vessels in this class.
Unnecessary and out of scope category. Also, appart from GabrielDorneles' categories, at least I have not seen any other similar category that classifies the people depicted in erotic art by their occupation or social status.
Keep The difference is that Soldiers in porn was an empty category. This one has a number of images which on the surface appear to match the name of the category. I do think there is a case to be made for media that illustrates how a given occupation is depicted in a given art form, which this category appears to do, so I see no reason not to keep. Josh (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar situation like with Category:Military in Erotic Art. It's possible that this is also an out of scope category, since I haven't seen any other similar category that classifies the subjects represented in erotic art depending on the deity, the mythological or heroic character that they symbolize. 83.61.231.2119:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from that talk page:
As I can understand, now the company is called Leonardo, as reported in the official site [:https://www.leonardo.com www.leonardo.com]. In english wikipedia is en:Leonardo S.p.A., in all the other wikis usually just Leonardo, but not everywhere, Leonardo-Finmeccanica it's the old name. Nowhere it's Leonardo Company. What is better to do? @Scip.: @Wieralee: . If I have to ask somewhere else or to do something else, I'll try to do it, but I think that it's better to stop to move these categories so often. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
provide not me, but Commons, with official sources that prove the "Leonardo Company" is the official and complete name and show - again not me, but commons - that the site, the logo and so on with denomination "Leonardo" are wrong. Thank you for cooperation. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the name Leonardo is wrong, but that Leonardo Company is more correct, and I have already explained the reasons above. MAxSper5 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You moved all the categories just fixed in last days. And now you ask to delete Category:Leonardo (company), and probably also this page will be deleted. The motivation you provided for me are not enough and I think that "Leonardo Company", as now, it's not a real name of this company. I will not edit more (so if you want to save this talkpage, please remove this edit [1]], I'll wait more opinions. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrKeefeJohn: please try to get an admin involved, who will clean up the mess this guy is creating here and in other categorys too. This user MAxSper5 talks absolut nonsense. Should be banned. Scip. (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(end talk page quote)
Keep Category:Leonardo (company) as "Leonardo" is the name of the company and how it styles itself in English. We do not typically need to append the 'S.p.A.' onto companies unless they are quite commonly styled that way by the company and it would be unusual to see the company name without it. As for "Company" being part of the name, that seems completely wrong. Indeed, occasionally there are written uses that append 'company' in English, as they might for any company 'the Ford company', 'the Mitsubishi company', etc. but this is not really part of the name. As for it being used on some social media platforms, of course 'Leonardo' is a generic enough name that they probably couldn't get it as their user name on all platforms, so appended something, but in each case where they can style their name as they intend it, it is just "Leonardo". Thus keep it as it is. Josh (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Categories in the first table have been moved as proposed. Thank you everybody for participating in discussion. --トトト (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have also informed the creators of the following categories about this discussion. If there are no clear objections, I would like to rename these categories as well after 2 weeks. Please wait a little more before closing this discussion. --トトト (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also felt uncomfortable with the English expressions used in the names of those categories, but I followed those precedents and created categories using similar expressions. Therefore, I agree with this proposal that you submitted this time. 円周率３パーセント (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
note: both Village Pump and WP:Auto have been solicited for comment on this discussion
Recently, the following bad category names were brought forward for discussion, but the original poster (Davey2010) withdrew their proposal and closed the discussion before a solution could be hammered out.
Regardless, the problem remains, in that "Peugeot Expert I" (and the others listed below) isn't a real name used for the automobile in question. I support the following renames:
This is by no means an exhaustive list! I have found several others in recent browsing that are equally poorly named and desperate for a rename.
Currently, there is no standard for naming automotive model year ranges ('generations'), and the following were some of the formats I was able to quickly spot throughout automobiles:
Category:Fuso Canter (5th generation) (numeric generation) -- a variation on the one above but using number vs word form, seemingly a little less common
Category:Citroën Jumper (1994–2006) (year range) -- this is actually the main model of the Peugeot Expert above (note each manufacturer may have a different range of years)
Category:Ford Econoline (1961) (release year) -- a variation on the above with only the release year listed, matching one of the last changes made to the Automobiles WP, right before both the project and its only regular contributor went inactive in 2016.
Category:Mazda MX-5 (ND) (body code) -- adding official body code in parenthesis--this is what Autos WP was recommending for those cases where such codes are known and meaningful.
Category:Ford Mustang V (pseudo-suffix) -- adding a pseudo-suffix to the end of the model for each generation. This is the worst in my opinion.
Category:1974 Ford Mustang (model year) -- this is the traditional common way to refer to a specific model year as opposed to a 'generation', and appears to be in normal use like this so I wouldn't change anything at the model year level.
Having found that in practice, automotive categories are all over the map on which format is used, I believe if we are going to make any meaningful fixes, it should probably serve as a standard going forward. Not that all of these categories need to be changed overnight, but we should select a preferred format and let that percolate through the topic guiding new category creation and future renames as they make sense without needing a new discussion for every brand or model. I propose that the Category:Citroën Jumper (1994–2006) format (model name with production span in parenthesis) is the most optimal balance in light of categorization principles and the topic in question, for several reasons:
Made-up names posing as real proper names (such as Vauxhall Vivaro Mk 3) are an outright falsehood and should be eliminated.
"Generation" is not a universal term. While generally understood in the car community, it is only sometimes even acknowledged by the manufacturers and seems an exonym at best. Additionally, being a generic word requiring translation to read in other languages, it gets a negative from the i18n perspective. Numeric representation is perhaps a hair better than spelled out in this regard, but still, I do think avoiding 'generation' in the title (unless it really is in the official name) is best. Better than a truly fake name, but only a bit so.
Listing only the release year for a category that represents a range of years is problematic at best. It misleads users as to the contents of the category, for example, a 1965 Econoline would belong in Ford Econoline (1961). Additionally, for cases where there are categories for individual model years, we need to be able to differentiate between a category for a range of years and a category for a specific year.
Listing range instead of a single year seems to solve all of the previous issue without creating any problem, so is a much more comprehensive solution.
As for those using recognized body codes, I think it is okay to allow these to remain as they are, presuming that the body code is verifiably accurate and the model in question routinely is referred to in common usage by this code. The Mazda MX-5 (ND) is a good example of this as "ND" is routinely peppered into trade articles, online commentary and references, and even the company's own official literature. That said, if folks think this exception is a problem, I would be fine with eliminating it and simply applying the (year range)
Simply renaming a category tree without thoroughly re-sorting the content (hundreds of regional subcategories and thousands of objects) into two parallel categorization trees would only cause confusion.
Even if we divide these objects into two category trees, "antenna towers" and "antenna masts", it would still be appropriate to leave them a common category at each level ("antenna towers and masts"). So for each country, for each region, instead of one category, we would have three different categories. It would be necessary to create subcategories, not to rename existing categories.
If it was once decided that "antenna towers" and "antenna masts" were merged to one category tree (or created as one category tree), it probably had some rational, factual and practical reasons, and seems fully consensual and convenient in the last 10 years.
en:wiki also covers both with common articles and categories, e.g. en:Radio masts and towers and en:Category:Radio masts and towers, consensually since 2005. Unnecessary renaming of Commons category tree would damage the consistency of inter-project links. As the article says, "the terms "mast" and "tower" are often used interchangeably". Although there is some difference between the two concepts, it is not sharp and unambiguous enough to allow to clearly divide all objects between them, and there is a large overlap between them. The current titles and categorization reflects this fact in the most appropriate way possible.
For now, "Antenna towers and masts" are categorized under both, "towers" as well as "masts", which means that they can be found easily in the category tree regardless of whether we interpret or call a particular object more like a tower or more like a mast. If there was a simple renaming, these objects could disappear from the category "towers", although many of them are understood as towers or/and are so called.
The current categorization fully meets Hierarchic principle (All categories should be contained in at least one other category, there should be no cycles). The fact that any category falls under several superordinate topics paralelly does not contradict this principle. In addition, merging very close and intertwining concepts into one common category tree meets the Universality principle.
If there is no real need and demand to split the tree into "Antenna masts" and "Antenna towers", such a forced self-serving division would be a violation of Simplicity Principle, which would cause massive unnecessary duplication of categorization, and a subsequent mess. So far, there is no demand, no need and no tendency to separate the antenna towers from the antenna masts to such subcategories "by type", at Commons as well at Wikipedia. The proposer's reasons are purely formalistic, not practical or factual. --ŠJů (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you are right that the current category is not violating the Hierarchic Principle, that was my mistake in the OP. It is violating the Universality Principle, which my proposal would correct. Josh (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are talking about a split, which is irrelevant to my original proposal. I will address those relevant to my new proposal below. Josh (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further investigation reveals a greater issue here, so I have struck the original, simple proposed rename in favor of the following:
Masts are a type of Towers, thus the construct "towers and masts" is inappropriate, just like "buildings and houses" or "airplanes and biplanes" or such.
Addressing points brought up earlier that are possibly relevant to this revised proposal:
Would re-naming require re-sorting? No. Currently, these contents are all antenna towers and presumably live together okay now, so this can continue under the correct name Antenna towers. Those that can be further refined as antenna masts can be sorted as users see fit, but they cause no issue where they are.
Were antenna masts and towers merged for a good reason in the past? Possibly. Renaming Antenna towers and masts to simply Antenna towers would not change this. It is normal to further diffuse main categories into subs so creating Antenna masts in the future to further this would not violate that.
Doesn't enwiki combines these topics? Sure. Again, the rename of the parent category would not automatically decouple masts and towers, so it would be consistent with enwiki for what its worth. We routinely diffuse categories to a greater level than enwiki, so this point seems moot however.
Doesn't current categorization already comply with Hierarchic Principle? Strictly speaking maybe, but only if all contents of Antenna towers and masts are masts, as it is currently under Masts which is under Towers. If there are contents that are antenna towers but not antenna masts, then it means we have non-masts under Masts and that would be a violation of the Hierarchic Principle.
Is there a practical or factual need to split the categories? Possibly, but renaming to Antenna towers and categorizing it correctly under Towers does not split the category at all. Diffusion of towers identified as masts in the future under Antenna masts is optional and should only be done if there is a real purpose.
Obviously each of these on their own is perfectly reasonable. However, if we combine the three, we get Russian-language books from Russia about geography. Is this reasonable? I think it might be, if the following are true:
The origin of a work, the language of a work, and the topic of a work are sufficiently interrelated to warrant recognizing the nexus of them (e.g. do we care what language a Russian book about geography is written in?)
There are multiple books on Commons that are in the Russian language, are from Russia, and are about geography (do we have content to fill such a category?)
There are several books on Commons that are in the Russian language and are from Russia, but are about different topics (is there a need to sub-categorize Russian-language books from Russia by topic?)
There are several books on Commons that are in the Russian language and are about geography, but are from different countries (is there a need to sub-categorize Russian-language books about geography by country?)
There are several books on Commons that are from Russian and about geography, but are in different languages (is there a need to sub-categorize Books from Russia about geography by language?)
If all are true, then the category makes sense. If #1 or #2 is not true, there is no need analyzing the last three, it is a moot point. If not all of the last three are true, there could still be a case made based on those that are true but it would be harder.
There is a meaningful connection between the topic of a book and what country it is from. This is subjective and so discussion can follow below.
There are multiple books on Commons that are from Russia and are about geography. This appears to be true.
There are several books on Commons that are from Russia but are about different topics. This appears to be true.
There are several books on Commons about geography but they are from different countries. This appears to be true.
So Books from Russia about geography meets all of the 'technical' criteria and it is only a question of whether it matters what country a book about geography might come from, or what topic a book from Russia might be written about.
I would argue that there is a basis for this connection being meaningful. Different countries approach a given topic from a different perspective. A basic example would be continents: different countries maintain different models for how to define the continents (I believe for example, Russia generally teaches a single Eurasia vs. distinct Europe and Asia).
Comment It seems that the en dash (–) should be used for all year ranges as opposed to a hyphen (-). If this is true, changing hyphen (-) to en dash (–) should be a simple spelling fix not requiring a CfD. Thoughts? Josh (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The categories in this meta-cat are a bit of an outlier on Commons, in using the adjectival form instead of the proper name of the country. Recommend switching to normal noun form of country Josh (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Universality Principle: Country categories use their short noun form, and so this should be used for all sub-cats. (e.g. Argentina is the name on Commons we should use in any category name referring to that country.)
Adjectival forms are not always universally agreed on or officially recognized. Both "Argentine" and "Argentinian" are used in different sources and contexts, and this is far from the only example.
In many cases, we have 'cheated' and just used the noun form (Aircraft in United States service). This I think is kind of an admission the noun form is really the better option.
Sorting is an issue, as the adjectival and noun forms do not always even end up close in the list. This might be a reason for the cheat above, but still is a problem: seeing an alphabetical list of adjectival forms, one might expect to find American aircraft under A, but instead they are under U.
Noun forms fits in naturally with the rest of Commons 'by country' categorization, while adjectival form is abnormal and does not.
I acknowledge this will take time and work to implement, but there are tools to make this simpler and easier, so that is not in my opinion a reason not to pursue the better path. Josh (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Klara Sielicka-Baryłka (WMPL): Thank you for your contributions. Normally, if you create a category and then realize it needs a different name, you can simply use {{Bad name|original category name}} on it. This will lead to it being deleted automatically without a CfD. I have no problem with this category being a Speedy delete (C2).
Of course, if the scope or purpose of this category is broader than that stated in the hat note, please comment here with details and we can refine accordingly. Thanks! Josh (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's basically no way to discern this unless the Rule 63 version is a well-known separate entity. Otherwise it's just a girl dressing as a male character and there's no way to be able to tell otherwise. At the very least, "female-to-female crossplay" is a confusing and bad name that needs to be changed. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm asking. It's a nonsense term. Female-to-male crossplay is a female person cosplaying as a male character, male-to-female crossplay is a male person cosplaying as a female character. Female-to-female crossplay would imply a female person cosplaying as a female character, which obviously is a thing that happens but that's by definition not crossplay (crossplay = crossdressing + cosplay) OmegaFallon (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Airfield or Airport? It's neither now, but should we use the first name (Airfield) or the last and longest-used name (Airport)? Or just leave it in Dutch (Vliegveld)? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Mdd: About eight years ago, I had been wondering about the same question, and wanted to make some changes. But by then I noticed in English there are three phrases: airport, airfield and airstrip; and the one tot one translating to luchthaven, vliegveld and start/landingsbaan doesn't always work. Now I reconsidered the situation and noticed:
In the Netherlands the name "Vliegveld Ypenburg" is common, and "Luchthaven Ypenburg" or "Ypenburg Luchthaven" is not, see here and here
Just before it was closed in the early 1990s Vliegveld Ypenburg was a military airfield, if I am not mistaken. It was not (or hardly) used for transport of people or goods, but Fokker used the facilities for flight maintenance. There were hardly any flights in those days.
Due to the common name and this kind of use the phrase airfield seems more appropriate. Personally I got used to the phrase Ypenburg Aiport, and Ypenburg Airfield sounds unfamiliar, but that is my POV. Now, I don't know about the renaming of other Dutch airports/air fields, but in my personal experience we have only a few airports in the Netherlands: Schiphol, Zestienhoven en Eindhoven. Renaming the rest to airfields seems about right, but again that is my POV-- Mdd (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really clear what the purpose of this category is. I don't think the Wikidata title is a good metric for what should or shouldn't go in the category either. Since "the study of cultural variation" can mean literally anything, which I think shows in the fact that the category is being used as a dump for a bunch of random images that essentially have nothing in commons. So can someone come up with a clear definition for what should or shouldn't go in this? If not, then my suggestion is that it should be deleted and the images either be up-merged or put in a different category system altogether. It's to much of a meaningless miss-mosh as things currently are though.
As a side to that I'd also like to know how exactly this category is different from Category:Anthropology since it supposedly covers the "study of humans, human behavior, and societies. Which is the same definition as the current definition for this category. That's minor problem to the other stuff though. Although I'd still like to see it clarified in the process. Adamant1 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of Wikipedia and that specific article. Obviously just citing it doesn't answer my question though. Especially since it says exactly what the infobox does, that "it's the study of cultural variation." So to repeat my original question since you didn't actually answer it, what exactly should or shouldn't go in a category about "cultural variation", the study of it, and how exactly is this category different from Category:Anthropology, which has the exact same definition? To the "cruft stuffing", it's not a different problem if the "cruft stuffing" is a direct result of the fact that the category is ill-defined and to general. I think both are the case. Otherwise, what's your evidence that the cruft stuffing isn't being caused by the fact that "the study of cultural variation" is to ill-defined on it's own and as is to be a useful category title? Or is a link to a Wikipedia article that just repeats what I've already said all you have to contribute to the discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Serbian is one of four varieties of the pluricentric language known as Serbo-Croatian. This category already contains a couple of maps of Serbo-Croatian dialects unrelated to the Serbian standard. It could be repurposed, per SMALLCAT, to be the main category for en:Category:Dialects of Serbo-Croatian" - per original move request on 12 November 2022 by Vipz
sounds reasonable. oxford dict has the word "streetscapes", defined as "the appearance or a picture of a street or area of streets". RZuo (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at my old message I think I might have miss-copy-pasted something, because it really makes no sense. Anyways, the reason why we don't need this category is because unidentified cosplay categories for individual works are already in subcategories of medium. For example, Category:Unidentified cosplay of Pokémon is in Category:Unidentified cosplay of anime and manga. This category is empty, then, because there's no work that doesn't have a medium, of course. So it's just not needed. OmegaFallon (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support no need for this double structure. The best would be to move the content to Category:Military of Russia and the creation of a category redirect. --Mosbatho (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Wait There is more to this issue that needs to be resolved. I am not against eliminating unnecessary duplication, but these are nominally two different concepts. Military of Russia is the intersectional category of Military and Russia. As such, any content of a military topic related to Russia should be categorized in this tree. Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is a specifically defined organization and while it probably encompasses the vast majority of military affairs in Russia, that is not exclusively so. For example, a ceremony which happens today in Moscow in remembrance of the Red Army during WWII should be under Military of Russia somewhere. However, it has nothing to do with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (they didn't exist for another 50 years). Josh (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment Hi Josh! Look up, Russia or the Russian Federation is not synonymous with the Soviet Union. There is already a corresponding category tree for the soviet union. Consequently, there is no use for the current category. --Mosbatho (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep There are military topics related to Russia which are not expressly part of Russia's official armed forces.
Rename Category:Clash of civilizations to Category:Clash of Civilizations as correct capitalization for a proper noun. However, this whole category seems suspect. The images do not appear to be taken from the book. I checked it out at OpenLibrary and it has a few maps that were maybe the inspiration for some of this content, but they are definitely not directly from the book. @LaundryPizza03: do you know anything about this? Josh (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Disagree the Japanese government explain education system here. I cannot find "Junior High School". is it really common ? --eien20 (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Question @Tobias ToMar Maier: Do you mean to say that you would like to categorize both 'actual brassieres' and 'other 'brassiere-styled' clothing' in the same category, or am I misreading your comment? Josh (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Lotje (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Done MB-one (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
_(10998312184).jpg){kind=link}
_(14595513537).jpg){kind=link}
Oppose
Speedy delete (C2).
