This category seems to create a confusion with Category:Writers. I would delete it if I could. If not, it must be totally transformed to include authors of all artworks. Example:Who is the author of this monument? A sculptor? Then no need for an Authors category, as Commons already has categories for Writers, Sculptors, et al. Clear enough? Does it look "there" the same way as I see it on this side of the mountains? 181.203.90.8401:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAuthors are creators of linguistic works, while Writers are creators of linguistic works through the form of the written word. Naturally, most authors are writers, but not 100%, as the creator of a poem or story who merely relays it via spoken word, for example, would be an author, but not a writer. I do not know if this is a meaningful enough distinction to warrant an extra category level, but someone clearly thought it was at some point, hence our current structure. Josh (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i suggest we make a new cat tree cat:creators for people who create all kinds of creative works. then redirect authors to it.
keep cat:writers and its subcats exclusive to people who create linguistic works.
right now Category:Composers is under writers, which obviously contradicts the definition of writer. they get categorised under that just because the english language happens to use the same verb "write" for creating texts and music. in my language cantonese for example, a composer is one who "makes up"/creates music. RZuo (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to make a clear distinction between:
writers who write works and perhaps occasionally read aloud from their own work; if there are any writers in this category, please move them to Category:Writers
other creators of linguistic works - they can stay in this category or get a subcategory of their own.
Are there any non-animal organisms that have eyes (the light-detecting organ, not other uses of the term 'eyes'), and do we have any media/categories of these? I notice that Plant eyes doesn't exist. Josh (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413, by 'delete', do you actually mean 'upmerge' to Category:Eyes? Simply deleting this level outright would seem to break the hierarchy, but upmerging would be fine as far as I can see. We should be clear that Category:Eyes is for organs which process light information, as opposed to potato eyes which are organic, but not for 'seeing', or they eyes of needles or storms which are not organic. I've come across pictures here of clouds that look like a pair of eyes and other similar things, but I think they are fair to be here as they essentially are alluding to the organic variety. Josh (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Human eyes are animal eyes. I don't know why rights are categorized the way they are, but that seems irrelevant to the question of eyes. Josh (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner It is biologically true that all humans are animals, but for legal, practical, and religious reasons, humans and animals are treated separately, even within some biological discussions. One of the main reasons for the separation is that there are significant differences between humans and other animals. Also, the subcats of Category:Animals are mostly "Animalia sine Homo sapiens" in terms of biology. The images showing humans with other species of Animalia are categorized under Category:People with animals (not Category:People with other animals). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category scheme I'm supporting may seem human-centric and it is expected to be, because no non-human animals use Commons (so far). The only non-human users in Commons are bots. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 That would be a lot broader than this discussion. Currently people are animals on Commons (Category:People is a sub of Category:Animals), so changing that would need to be done at that level, not a deep sub-cat like this. Eyes follow that as a requirement of the Hierarchic Principle, so this has just taken this discussion off the rails. The question was if there are any eyes that are not animal eyes, and so far no one has mentioned any. Josh (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have media that actually depicts a "former location"? Or do we intend to categorize each work of art by each location it was ever displayed? This currently appears to be used as the latter, but I don't think this is a very good plan. Wikidata records the history of an artwork. Commons is a repository for media of that artwork. Josh (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. We probably have media that depicts things in a temporary location, such as art works on tour. However, this seems to be for former permanent locations. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with only one image in a category such as this. I would like to see some more information about this one, to know if the name is a proper one or just descriptive, but I don't necessarily think we need to delete the category just yet. Josh (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joshbaumgartnerunilaterally and without discussion renamed this category (which for 17 years had a clear, unambiguous meaning) to a name that not only did he make up, but now is going to be a source of constant confusion. For the record, the former name, "People in art" literally means "People depicted in art" (which is consistent with the linked Wikidata item--see Category:People in art (Q22154962)). 99% of the reading public would understand the new name, "People in the arts", to mean "people engaged in The Arts" (which is inconsistent with the linked Wikidata item). This category should be restored to its old name. DanielPenfield (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Closeup views can be of the entirety of a structure from close up. closeup detail views indicates that these are partial views focused on details of the structure. SecretName101 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category is not necessary and even irritating, I therefore propose deletion. There are no other works by Hans Kemmer than paintings, so Works by Hans Kemmer is misleading as if other or more genres are existing. As all works are paintings we do not need a special cat for paintings. Keeping all in the Hans Kemmer would be sufficient. But Works by Hans Kemmer has to be deleted as the 3 subcats are paintings as well as all files in the Hans Kemmer. So they have to be subcats of the main cat Hans Kemmer, my reverted edit. As there is no reason to take some paintings apart and the separation is misleading the furthermore incorrect named Works by Hans Kemmer should be deleted Oursana (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Gorkha' is the official spelling in India, since 1949 I believe. If I'm not mistaken, those Gurkha regiments that transferred to the Indian Army on Indian independence in 1947 (e.g. 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc.), are now officially known as regiments of the 'Gorkha Rifles'. IMHO the category 'Gorkha Rifles' should be kept as a subcategory of the Indian Army, but not as a subcategory of 'Brigade of Gurkhas', since the latter appears to be a part of the British Army. --Arjuno (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Group 1 is a poor use of Commons categorization. It means categories under this index may include no images of anyone either serving as a missionary, or within the country in question, which is rather pointless. Many of the current contents categorized this way just have a simple portrait photo of the person, with no indication this is while serving as a missionary, or taken in the listed country. We should remove these kinds of categories from this tree.
Group 2 is an appropriate use of Commons, but the images placed here should depict people as they are serving as missionaries in the selected country. For this we should merge the existing categories into Category:Missionaries by country of location (and same for specific religions underneath this parent index) in line with other 'by country of location' categories. Josh (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Somewhere on Commons (I forget where) I read that in this kind of cases the name of the geographic area should be in the category name, instead of the political name. Because I am not familiar with the geographical name, please make a suggestion here for the proper name. Perhaps there might already be a category for the area, please mention it here. Or this category might be renamed to a geographical name with a period in it, or with a name part like "during the ruling/governing by Russia". Please make a suggestion.
Keep Calling the area anything along the lines of "ruled by Russia" is just hyperbolic axe grinding. Category names shouldn't be used to push a political agenda. And I say that no matter which side it is. I wouldn't support changing the name to Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast that were won back by the Russian Empire or whatever either if some Russian user tried to suggest it. So this name is most neutral IMO. Although technically correct that it isn't a intentionally recognized official country, but that's besides the point. There's plenty of former and current colonies that still have categories for despite them being acknowledged or officiated in any way what-so-ever outside of the colonist states saying they claimed the territories, which I think is analogous to this. It would be stupid if we suddenly got rid of said categories just because they were never officially recognized by the United Nations or whatever the comparable organization was at the time. Sure it sucked/still sucks for the people who lived there and had their land and identities hijacked. But that's life. We aren't here to push a political agenda in either direction, and again, this is the most neutral name. At least that I can think of. Although I'll support a different one if someone proposes it. I don't think "occupied" works either for the same reason BTW since it's not technically being occupied by Russia any more then say Belarus is just because their essentially a puppet state of Russia. Or should we rename Category:Populated places in Belarus to some nonsense like Category:Populated places in the Russian puppet state of Belarus? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About de jure vs. de facto control. The so-called group Donetsk people's republic declared the entire Donetsk region of Ukraine as its territory. Therefore, everything from the Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast by name could be transferred to this category. But since Donetsk people's republic is Russian military occupation and annexation, not a state or recognized judicial unit, the category should be removed as meaningless. Or you need to rename the category to Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast occupied by Donetsk people's republic by name. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think this category (with Oblast in the name) should be kept and the other one (with Donetsk People's Republic in the name) should get a redirect. The subcategories of the Donetsk People's Republic category should be moved to the original categories. Please, let someone who knows the area give a reaction. @UA0Volodymyr: ? JopkeB (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care either way, but there's a point were trying to restore the original names to everything becomes a lost cause because the area is going to continue being "occupied by Russia" at least for the near future, if not indefinitely. Personally, I'd say it's worth restoring the original name if it looked like the area was going to re-occupied by Ukraine at some point in the near future. That looks increasingly more unlikely as time goes on though. So it seems pointless to restore the original name of the area if it's not actually going to be occupied by Ukraine at some point. Regardless, going back and forth about it every couple of months clearly isn't a good solution. Neither is changing it back to the original name if it continues to be "occupied by Russia" for the near future. So I don't see any other option here except to leave it as the Donetsk People's Republic. At least baring any actual evidence that the area is going to be reclaimed by Ukraine at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Why should it have "People's Republic" in the category name? This category is about the geographical area, not about the political name, not about of which country it is part of. Then, if the country or political situation changes, you only have to change the parent(s) and not the whole category. JopkeB (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the geographical area and the political name is one without a purpose. Otherwise I'd be interested to know where the geographical area ends and the political boundary begins or visa versa. In the meantime there's Category:Donetsk People's Republic as a top level category that this is connected to, which is in Category:States and territories established in 2014. So they can't just be separated half way down the category tree all willy-nilly as if this has nothing to do with the political territory. I can guarantee that if this discussion was started at Category:Donetsk People's Republic it would be dead on arrival though. But lets say I buy the "geographical area" argument. What would the category even be a child of? Likely it would still end up in something like Category:Territories under occupation by Russia. So what really would be gained there except for screwing with Category:Donetsk People's Republic? Or let me guess, that can be fixed by renaming the other 27 categories containing the phrase "People's Republic" to something else? We might as well just get rid of the whole thing at that point.
But again, I doubt this conversation would go anywhere if it was taking place at Category:Donetsk People's Republic. Plus there's still the Wikidata entry and Wikipedia articles that use "People's Republic." What's the solution there? Just disconnect them all from Commons or change them somehow to align with the new naming scheme? That would obviously be ridiculous. Especially if we are just doing it because the Donetsk People's Republic isn't intentionally recognized. That's not a legitimate reason to re-jigger a whole scheme on multiple projects. Especially when they are so interconnected and reliant on each other. Otherwise on Category:Donetsk People's Republic or better yet the village pump and see where it goes. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: The category with "Oblast" (means ~ "region") in the name should be kept, of couse. But there should not be a redirect to it from the other one (with Donetsk People's Republic in the name). Becouse the part of the Donetsk Oblast (on the English it is more correct to say "Donetsk region"), wich was occupied during 2014-2022 by the so-called "Donetsk People's Republic", is only about 30 % of the whole Donetsk Oblast while in 2014 criminal group "Donetsk People's Republic" (controlled from Russia) announced the entire Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine as its territory. But they could not occupy the entire territory during 2014-2022, but only those 30%. So, territory of Donetsk Oblast is not equal to the territory of "Donetsk People's Republic" in fact and therefor Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast by name is not equel to the Category:Populated places in Donetsk People's Republic by name. So, there should not be a redirect suggested by you.
I am not agree that "that name for the category is clearly a non-starter". But I am sorry, I don't have time right now. I need to go to the bakery for bread while there are no Russian bombings. Later, when I return, I will present my arguments. In the meantime, could you please state what exactly you meant. One or two links to the text of the rules. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast occupied by Donetsk people's republic by name is a non-starter would be pretty clear if you read through the policy that I've linked to, Commons:Categories. Although I'm more then willing to cite a couple of things from it to further my point, but I ask that you leave the hyperbole about the war and any vitral or insults towards Russia out of it if you choose to respond. Otherwise I don't think the discussion will be very productive. More to the point, Commons:Categories#Principles says "not to combine too many different criteria" into the name of a category. In this case the name combines two different criteria, both the Donetsk Oblast and the area within it the Donetsk people's republic, which at least the people on your side say are different. So they shouldn't be into a single category. Something like Category:Populated places in the Donetsk Oblast as a parent along with Category:Populated places in Donetsk People's Republic by name would probably be fine, but then that would essentially be what we are already doing. So I doubt you'd go for that.
Regardless though, "the Donetsk Oblast" and "the Donetsk People's Republic" are two different subjects so they shouldn't be combined into a single category. Doing so also goes against selectivity principle, mainly "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." I'd also argue that Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast occupied by Donetsk people's republic by name is pretty ambiguous on top of being a multi-subject category. I'm sure there's more issues with it, but I think those are more then enough to conclude it's not a workable category name. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Blast furnace chip worker for your explanation: the geographical area is larger than the occupied part. I now understand why there should not be a redirect.
User:Adamant1, I think "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category..." is about adjacent subjects, multi-subject categories, like Areas and landscapes, while both are categories themself, that should not be done. But this is not about broadening a category, but about specifying, giving a very specific category name, and that is allowed, that is what we do when we make subcategories. As I now see it, there are at least two parts in the (former?) Donetsk Oblast:
The area that is occupied and called Donetsk people's republic since 2014.
The area that is still under the authority of Ukraine (can I say it this way?).
And then there is the combined Oblast as it was before 2014.
So at least the first one should have a seperate category that reflects the current situation (and might change).
Two different criteria are not "too many different criteria". However, in our case this is not important because there is only 1 criterion in our case and this criterion is "Populated places in Donetsk Oblast". All of those Populated places are Populated places in Donetsk Oblast but some of them are occupied by Russia (under the guise of the DPR) and some of them are free from its aggression. So, Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast occupied by Donetsk people's republic by name is a good name for the category. And it must be subcategory of the Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast. If anyone wants to know which populated place in the Donetsk Oblast was occupied by the DPR (in fact by Russia) one will find the answer in this category.
I will try not to enter into any more discussions. I will only give my results and arguments once again for the one who will make the decision. Donetsk Oblast is a one of 24 regions of Ukraine. In 2014, Russian secret serviceis and army began the occupation of Ukraine. The plans were huge, but during 2014-2022 they were able to capture only Crimea and 30% of the Donetsk region and 30% of the Lugansk region. According to the plan of the Russian secret services, in 2014 the entire Donetsk region was declared the Donetsk People's Republic, but during 2014-2022, Russia under the guise of the DPR was able to occupy only 30% of the territory of the Donetsk region. With the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian War (2022), a little more territory was conquered by Russia or DPR and in total for 2014 - 2023 - about 50% of the Donetsk region.
1. Donetsk People's Republic is Russian military occupation and annexation, not a state or recognized subdivision unit.
2. The so-called group Donetsk people's republic declared the entire Donetsk region of Ukraine as its territory. Therefore, everything from the Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast by name could be transferred to this category. But it is impossible, since the DPR (actually Russia) today has been able to occupy only up to 50% of the territory of the Donetsk region. Therefore, a category under this name does not reflect the the state of affairs. The category should be removed as meaningless.
There is only 1 criterion in our case and this criterion is "Populated places in Donetsk Oblast". Yet everyone here has repeatedly framed this as having to do with the occupied and unoccupied territories, which have different geographical boundaries. Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like 2 criterion to me. Regardless, it seems like your confusing there being a category for something with it being indorsed by Commons. They aren't mutually exclusive. Just because there's a category for images of bigfoot doesn't mean Commons is taking an official position on it's existence. The category is just there to help us better organize images related to the subject. The same goes for this category. The Donetsk People's Republic clearly exists as a subject. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it to begin with. So this category helps us organize media related to it. Otherwise you'd have to argue that it doesn't exist in the first place, which you clearly can't do since even you agree that the "Donetsk People's Republic" is an area that was occupied and annexed by the Russian military. And there's no reason we wouldn't have a category for that occupied area regardless of it being internationally recoginzed or not. Again, us having a category for something has nothing to do with its indorsement by anyone. It simply aids us in categorizing, and people finding images, related to the subject. That's it and we all agree the Donetsk People's Republic is a different subject and geographical area then the Donetsk Oblast. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I'd say any categories named "X place under control of the Y government" is a nonstarter. Otherwise we'd have to regularly recategorize things every time there's a minor war or border excursion, which both wouldn't be practical or doable. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally innecessary. Category:Media without a source is more than enough. Look at a subcategory like "Files with broken link"! Files are not limited to images. Delete the category. 191.126.166.10012:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner I don't disagree with @Jarekt either, it makes sense to keep these separate. Maybe we can find a more suitable name for this category, though, as it currently is confusing:
It's not actually limited to images, as {{Information}} is used for all kinds of media files including text PDFs, videos, audio.
An empty source parameter does not necessarily mean that no source was given - it could be hidden in the description or a misplaced source template
I am infoboxes ok with more descriptive name. Category:Images without source was OK in 2007 before we supported other file types and had other ways to track problems. The category is used by all main infoboxes mentioned in Commons:Infobox templates, it is hardwired in many lua based templates, like {{Information}}, {{Artwork}}, etc. and provided through {{Source missing}} in template based infoboxes. We could try:
Thanks for your input! We seem to generally prefer media over files for these things, with Category:Media missing information being the root, so let's go for that. Structure-wise, I think I like the last one best because it puts the problem first and it fits the general pattern. As for which preposition to use, we currently have in Category:Media missing information:
They named "Media needing categories ..." before and were renamed to "File..." the same days by Josh. In Category:Commons file maintenance also many subpages were renamed from media to file. Was there another discussion which came to this result? The list you stated above @ El Grafo is quite conclusive, so "media" seems ok and widely spreaded. But the namespace is called "files", not "media". I dont't know, who started with "media"? And another thing to mention:
In the category namespace behind every category is stated e.g.
I always prefered "files" over "media". "Files" don't have other meanings and you know what to expect. "Media" in my mind is less precise, and the word have many other confusing meanings. But I also do not like category names changing back and forth. --Jarekt (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W like wiki All is well, thank you, but I am still neck-deep in doing a cross-country move, so only really doing a brief check-in right now. As to the question of another discussion having taken place, there was indeed (more than 1 if I am not mistaken) and hopefully at least one has been linked in the talk pages of the files needing categories tree. Some discussion didn't reach an overall agreement on restructuring (or I would argue simply structuring) the maintenance categories, but there were some take-aways and one was general preference for "File" over "Media" for a few reasons, not least of which is that "Media" is readily confused for a topic while "File" seems more intuitively a Commons item. I certainly agree with Jarekt that back and forth is not a good thing, but based on the pretty broad consensus that "file" was the better option, when I put work into expanding that section of maintenance categories, I decided to use "files" rather than expanding the use of "media" which was clearly not preferred. Note also that there is a whole conversation around Category:Media in which the question of whether media is a topic clearly was causing confusion and problematic cross-efforts.
As for what to do, I think migrating to "files" across the maintenance category space would be best. I only really worked on the area I was adding content to (I specifically didn't want to add "media" in names that would just have to be renamed again), so didn't try and implement across the board, but that is probably the thing to do. Josh (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of "media" & "files" we have obviously 2 words for the same thing, at least on commons. Here with "pages" it is the opposite. One time it is used in the meaning of the trio being everything or every namespace beside of files and categories; on the other side in the maintenance sense "pages" are really everything. This makes also sense, because e.g. the information template you place on a file-page or metacat you place on a category-page. But people are not sure about the use, so instead of Category:Pages using Aircraft cat they get around the problem and call it Category:Uses of Aircraft cat. But to have a word for all namespace pages would be helpful because some templates like C are used everywhere. Any idea or opinion? Best Regards --W like wikiPlease ping me! • Postive1 • Postive223:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it helps to structure images taken in the street, for example of building monuments, and to renew images if they are more than 5 years old or have changed in a timespan --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is an opinion, not a fact. Nevertheless in my opinion this category tree is over-specific and does not improve commons, if – potentially – used on all street categories. And it makes things difficult and confusing as there is at least another category tree at Category:Klosterstraße (Hof (Saale)) with institutions and buildings by house number. In my opinion things would be less confusing if relevant images are categorized both at Category:Klosterstraße (Hof (Saale)) (or subcats with house numbers) and at the relevant year category as a subcat of Category:Hof (Saale) by year. The very specific purpose, which you described a few days ago may easily be fulfilled with petscan by those users, who truely need it. And for everybody else the street category will be fine. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photographs are already categorized in the cats that were taken by year. I don't get the point why it would be confusing. When I see the Tower Bridge for example, it also is categorized by year and does not confuse me. And if I look for a distinct building, I simple can enter the address and search --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category should be deleted there is proper category sibling. Also something is odd, those photos that show up are not in the category. They were already moved. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think this is tricky. "Flemish" may (also) refer to the period before 1830 (when Belgium was established) and to present-day Flanders. I would not merge them. JopkeB (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But in general we do not differentiate like this and if we have to express.
Other suggestion: Paintings from the southern Netherlands by artist? I agree: the word "Flemish" is not correct in this situation. Carolus (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the last cases not so much concerned about Flemish as such, but the cats are redundant, as all paintings of the artist are concerned.--Oursana (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categorisation tree of subcategories to this category needs to be examined. Subcategories appear to be too finely subdivided; there are many empty categories which should be deleted, and other categories with just one or two mountain passes which should probably be merged with neighboring categories. Furthermore the subcategories should be renamed; wording like "1680s mountain passes of France" suggests a decade rather than a height range. Dogfennydd (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4) the wikidata item has a reservoir-related identifier, and a openstreetmap relation reservoir-related identifier (it also has a P31 = reservoir statement) so maybe is more adequate a reservoir/embalse category than a dam-one. But apparently the Wikidata tag on Openstreetmap side was included in the dam structure, though (map in the infobox).
5) What does barrage mean in Portuguese? "Dam" or "reservoir"?
5) This reservoir is apparently located betweeen Portugal and Spain. I don't have a strong opinion on the Chanza/Chança ortography thing, if that's an issue.
Speaking of point 5, as portuguese native, in portuguese "Barragem" means dam and "Albufeira" (or "Reservatório") is the portuguese word for reservoir. And this damn\reservoir is spanish, not portuguese despite being situated in both sides of the border between Spain and Portugal and its owner is the spanish Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadiana, so its name should be the spanish Chanza and not the portuguese Chança. Tm (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the category if intended for all Mühlsteinbrüche (quarries) in Perg should be plural and english, but only if there is a chance for more than one subcategory.
Breaking down quarries by type to municipality level is much too fine grained, think of using Category:Quarries in Upper Austria instead.
Support deletion. We have Category:Millstone quarries for this particular type of quarry. We don't even have by-country categories yet, no need for a by-municipality category. If the need should arise for this type of category, the name should be English, like Millstone quarries in Perg. Category:Mühlsteinbruch Scherer is okay, because that's the name of that particular quarry. --rimshottalk10:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is this category about? What would be a good definition? What kind of subcategories and files should be in it and which not? What is the difference with Category:Human life cycle? They are not connected yet, but maybe they should be. JopkeB (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You may have missed that this category exists in 10 languages on Wikipedia. The definition is clear but may not be that clear on a quick first glance. In terms of a definition, you could add a better description than currently. The difference quite simply is that humans are only one form of life and that that this cat is not about the life cycle but time more broadly.
I did not miss the 10 Wikipedia pages, but that is not a good reason to have such a category in Commons as well. In Commons we create only categories if we need them for organizing media.
The definition is not clear, anyway not to me. It is the responsibility of the creator of a category to give that clearity, others should not have to put effort in it.
So please:
Add a good description. You are the creator, so you know best what it is about. This is not only about me, others should understand the meaning as well, at a first quick glance! And since in the EN-WP there only is a category and no page, I cannot invent such a description.
Mention in the description as well what kind of media should be here.
I'm not the creator of that cat, @Allforrous: is and at first glance I also thought the cat was inappropriate. It's not too difficult to understand the meaning and usefulness of the cat though and the description is already sufficient. It's about time in the context and from the perspective of life. Life is a natural phenomenon and so on where you can get more information at the linked Life category and time refers to things like lifespan, time-use during life, and so on. I'm not sure how the description could be made clearer / be improved but maybe Allforrous can do so. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: You are right, I am sorry, you are not the creator, my mistake.
Perhaps for you it is not difficult to understand the meaning and usefulness of this category. But I do found it difficult and I would like to have them explicitly mentioned in the description, not only for myself, but also for others. So we have now:
It's about time in the context and from the perspective of life.
Time refers to things like lifespan and time-use during life.
Even if this would be sufficient for a description, it still leaves the question open whether we need this category on Commons.
I am afraid that Allforrous will not respond. He just copies new Commons categories from EN-WP which we on Commons do not alway need, and leaves us with the problems they cause. JopkeB (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, Prototyperspective, and Allforrous: Since no one has given a good reason to keep this category on Commons in over four months, I propose to delete this category. When there is no counter reaction with a good reason on 2 April 2024, I shall implement this proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do see how saying this category exists in over 10 languages is not a good reason for keeping. The actual reason for keeping that I made was "The difference quite simply is that humans are only one form of life and that that this cat is not about the life cycle but time more broadly." It can be contrasted for example with "Time in physics" and "Time in technology" (such as AI). While not a good reason for keeping, that it exists in 10 languages on WP is a clear indication that there is something to this cat. Pinging some contributors to that category if my elaborations did not suffice. Maybe they could also add a cat description. @Fgnievinski and Dimadick: . Also Allforrous what do you think? Prototyperspective (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a non-trivial intersection of time and life, defined as the "order of the past, present, and future" and "matter with biological processes", respectively. So, "time in life" it's about the temporal dynamics of live matter. It's not restricted to "time in everyday life". For examples, please see en:Category:Time in life. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with these conclusions? Give they a correct representation of what has been discussed?
What should be added to make the category more concrete? For me it still is rather vague. I do still not see a description that would be a proper definition for a Commons category. According to EN-WP the first sentence should contain a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". I would like to have such a "first sentence" here ase well. We cannot copy it from the EN-WP because there is no definition there.
1. Agree but I found "temporal dynamics of live matter" not to be a good description and it doesn't seem like Fgnievinski put any effort into making a good case for keeping the category. I think it should be kept but it's not that important to me and I see how it can be difficult to see the value and dueness of the category at first...it's a valid useful cat but that's not easy to see.
2. For what subcategories and files should be in it just look at the subcategories and files in it (as well as the definition / prior explanations).
3. Human life cycle is not about time in everyday life or at least not only or mainly about that. Human life cycle is about or mainly about human biology such as aging and different stage of life while Time in life is broader and not only about that. Human life cycle is a subcat.
4. No cat can substitute it and it's valid and useful.
I already explained that and why this is broader than just about life cycle and broader than only about humans.
If things are still unclear a few more potentially relevant users could be pinged.
A good description is important but it's pretty self-explanatory considering the existing subcategories but I guess something longer than what is there now could be added such as "Time in the context and from the perspective of life such as lifespan, time-use during life, aging, time-management, and so on."
The short description is not good enough because I cannot deduce from it, what categories should be in and which not. It looks so broad that "everything" (or almost everything) can fit in, and then it is useless as a Commons category. The addition by Protoperspecitve "Time in the context and from the perspective of life such as lifespan, time-use during life, aging, time-management, and so on." is a start, but I still cannot understand what subjects are "and so on". The subjects mentioned are so different from each other (I do not see a common overall concept), that I am still afraid that "everything" can fit it. JopkeB (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the proper parent categories for this as a text category, but in fact I do not readily see the relevant text in any of the images in the category. I might have missed something, but if not then this category should simply be deleted. Files should be upmerged to Category:CPAC Hungary 2023 if that is appropriate and they are not yet in that category. Jmabel ! talk05:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vote keep. At CPAC Hungary - on the 4th of May, 2023, Orbán Viktor PM summarised the political standpoints of the hungarian government: No migration, no gender, no war! Elekes Andor (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even have templates for text cats longer than 6 words; I'd try fixing this but, in fact, I don't even see the relevant text in the one image that is in the category, so I think this category should simply be deleted. There is a lengthy text on the category page itself, about a poem. I suspect it belongs somewhere else, probably not on Commons. Jmabel ! talk05:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as has come up on other threads: text categories are about the text appearing in the image. Where is an image with this text? - Jmabel ! talk17:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The church exists: see the coordinates attached to the hooked Q28016596 item. Only the photo inside the category are misnamed and they seem to be related to San Martino church. ZandDev (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The category name has to be reverted, ridiculous english naming, must keep Reuss as part of the name, see language versions. Further more it has to be seriously discussed, if we really need this category for one file only. Oursana (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mhmrodrigues has moved dozens of House of Reuss categories yesterday. I agree that it is quite impractical not to have the "Reuss" part within the name of the categories anymore. A crucial point to handle the House of Reuss in an encyclopedia is the fact that their naming practices differ from other houses of European nobility. Firstly, they are just "Reuss" (or "Reuss of Something"), not "of Reuss". Secondly, their numbers are not true regnal numbers but merely an inner-familial matter, as they named every (every) male family member "Heinrich" and gave him a number from birth on, which implies that a number itself does not indicated that any given Heinrich ever ruled as a monarch. I agree that should have been discussed at a central place before changing anything,. --slg (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! @Oursana and Steffen Löwe Gera: Thank you for your opinion! I'm open to suggestions to how to distinguish ruling members from the ones who didn't, and (in my opinion) this undistinction is unpractical! It was this confusion that motivated me to rename some categories to make the difference clear. I thought (in my petty ignorance) that it was enough for a member of a family to be in the category of their family to be clear that he/she belongs to that family. I know Reuss has its own rules, and I respected their unusual numbering in the renamed categories. I tried to make some clearance of the mess that is already between skipping numbers and give, at least to the reader/researcher a distinction of the members who were rulers and the ones who were not. I know I created categories that made the division ruling/non-ruling, but I needed something more clear. Therefore (and knowing in advance your plight for the presence of the surname in the category name) I ask your permission for another suggestion: the ruling members named, for example "Heinrich (number), Prince (or Count) of Reuss-(specific place)" (real example: "Heinrich II, Lord of Gera" renames as "Heinrich II, Lord of Reuss-Gera"), and the non-ruling as "Prince Heinrich Reuss of (specific place)" (real example: "Heinrich XXXIII, Prince Reuss of Köstritz" is renamed to "Prince Heinrich XXXIII of Reuss-Köstritz" (or alternatively "of Reuss-Middle Köstritz", in reference to the line he belongs). I hope to get a feedback from you, but remember that I wrote my opinion, so don't hit me too hard, please! Thanks for reading me out! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heinrich II, Lord of Reuss-Gera >> Heinrich II Reuss-Gera Or Count of Reuss-Gera, the wp-language versions are quite homonym--Oursana (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Oursana: ! Thank you for your response! I see you prefer the solution I presented in my comment. However, before starting the change, let me say your comment confused me a bit... giving that it is known that the lords of Gera were only raised as counts in 1673, why is Heinrich II of Gera (died in 1635) treated as Count (Graf) when he is also referred by all accounts as Lord (Herr) of Gera? Also, I'll wait for this discussion to be over to start editing. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Ágios Geórgios Chostós in Lindos" ist ein für Kirchengebäude hier vollkommen unübliches Lemma. Außerdem hat sich bei zahllosen Kirchen- und Ortsnamen die Schreibweise "Agios Georgios" etabliert. Nebenbei bemerkt, ich war vor 14 Tagen selber dort in der Region, "Agios Georgios" (sic!) wird sogar auf offiziellen Ortseingangsschildern verwendet. --Chris06 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danke, dass Du so aufmerksam bist, was kann ich da jetzt machen, ich wollte eigentlich möglichst korrekt sein, worum mich die mitreisenden Antiken-Wissenschaftler von der Glyptothek auch gebeten haben, wegen mir kann die Umbenennung ruhig rückgängig gemacht werden. Viele Grüße aus München --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T08:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be term for breeding bull or stud bull in English. I'll leave it to those more familiar with cattle to decide if this should be a subcategory or just redirected to Category:Bulls. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all local newspapers and in Bonn, the area was always named "Zementfabrik". I do not understand how "Zementwerk" came into play. To my understanding "Zementwerk" is the installation/machinery which is necessary to produce the material that is needed for concrete and "Zementfabrik" is the factory/area with all buildings including administration, housing and units for workers.No merging! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barberini55 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barberini55: are you saying these are two distinct factories, or that one of these two categories should be a subcategory of the other, or that the other category is wrongly named? - Jmabel ! talk18:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: To my understanding, "Zementfabrik" is a common denominator for everything, that belongs to an industrial plant, the land on which it is erected, including administration offices, workers facilities and traffic infrastructure. "Zementwerk" on the other hand, is the production plant itself, as described in: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zement#Herstellungsprozess (this might be a hint how to handle the general problem within WIKIPEDIA). The two terms in general are of equal rank, but not so for the individual item of the Bonner "Zementfabrik", since this definition was used always officially by the city of Bonn, by federal ministries, in newspapers and in the most elaborate historical treatise of the whole townplanning of Bonn: Chapter "XVII. BEUEL- SÜD" on page 165, where only the term "Zementfabrik" was used. (In: https://www.bonn.de/medien-global/amt-61/Vom-Parlaments-zum-Regierungsviertel-2004.pdf). See also: https://www.rheinische-industriekultur.de/objekte/Bonn/zementwerk/zementfabrik.html
But surely if we are keeping both of these, then one is a subcat of the other, no? And what exactly is the distinction, so that we can provide hat text that will let people know which category to use for images in the future? And, remember, the place this started is that Category:Zementfabrik Oberkassel (Bonn) currently does not have even a single parent category. - Jmabel ! talk20:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Zementfabrik Oberkassel Bonn" is not at all a subcategory of "Zementwerk" since the WIKIPEDIA-article "Zementwerk" explains merely an abstract entitiy, that produces cement, including all details as history, machinery, chemistry, and so forth, but not the individual character of the Zementfabrik Oberkassel (Bonn). As the Wikipedia-article "Bonner Bogen" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonner_Bogen) already shows, the images are already installed there, thus beeing the "parent category" with the two subcategories: "Zementwerk Bonn" (= historic images, already existing) and "Zementfabrik Bonn (Oberkassel)". Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the complete area of the former "Zementfabrik Oberkassel (Bonn) - was renamed, to "BonnVisio" after an investor bought the plant, erected various office-buildings and finally it was again renamed to "Bonner Bogen". In today`s local newspapers always the term "Zementfabrik"(in combination with "Bonner Bogen") is used, but never "Zementwerk". So it would be adeaquate to keep the "Bogen" as "parent category" and the "Zementfabrik Oberkassel (Bonn)" as subcategory. In general I think, the confusion came up, while some users were implementing the word "Zementwerk" on the "Bogen"-article , instead of "Zementfabrik". And if you look at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zementfabrik, I guess one has to straighten out the confusion within the "Begriffserklärung" https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Begriffskl%C3%A4rung, since there are many distinct "Zementfabriken" around Europe. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel Ich denke, die Sache kann abgeschlossen werden. Aus dem Wikipedia-Artikel und den Belegen geht deutlich hervor, dass das städtische Areal, das jahrzehntlang offiziell "Zementfabrik" hieß (https://www.bonn.de/medien-global/amt-61/Vom-Parlaments-zum-Regierungsviertel-2004.pdf) mehrfach umbenannt, bzw. anders benannt wurde. Nach dem Verkauf an verschiedene Investorengruppen heißt es heute "Bonner Bogen" mit der Aufgliederung in die "Rheinwerke" und dem "Rheinpalais". Text und Bilder in der Category: Zementfabrik Oberkassel (Bonn), sind historische Belege aus der früheren Phase des Areals, aus dem in Teilen der sog. "Bonner Bogen" wurde. Die Benennung ist daher richtig. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, could we please delete these? Some time back people started creating this kind of category for every person they could find, and it gets out of hand very quickly. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title is bad, not vague. It should just be Category:Maps of oil fields. Maps of "oil reserves" should similarly be merged to it.
"Maps of petroleum production" actually is vague and should be split into whatever it's trying to talk about: oil refineries, oil fields, active oil wells, etc. — LlywelynII06:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category has no parent categories. Category name appears to be in Uzbek (though it could be some other Turkic language) and according to Google Translate means "representatives of literature". I don't know quite what that might mean, so I can't add parent cats myself. Is that a title given by some government or organization? Does this just mean authors from some particular country or in some particular language? In short, what does this category represent? Jmabel ! talk22:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the same. But the "surface of land" referred to is different from Al Haouz Province. Haouz also comprises parts in Béni Mellal Province, I think. The most used expression in "Haouz plain" (fr. plaine du Haouz). So the Oukaimeden (a mointain) is better ranged in El Haouz Province.
Can you describe which commons intern issue you where trying to fix? Afaik there is just one valid "Rees" on Commons, all the others are named differently. Don't forget that cat Rees with all of its subcats was functioning well untill you made a dp of it, which 'broke' all navigation templates for the town.
The problems I see: The other 2 Rees geolocations are obviously unneeded because of minor relevance. The people have names with at least 2 words. So whats the problem? Does Commons structure have to follow english wp? Does it's navigation have to be 'broken' to fix things on english wp? People start to put things in cat 'Rees, am Rhein', and people would start to believe and publicly quote the name of the town as "Rees, am Rhein" if maincat plus all subcats are named like that. But it is not the official name. Neither is Rees (am Rhein), Rees (Niederrhein) or Rees (Düsseldorf). "Rees (Niederrhein)" would be seen currently as the best and favorite alternative runner up imho. But to me there is not a problem with the DAB (what's a DAB??) only that the template says it can search for pages with "Rees disamb.. etc.", which to me is a small cosmetic error compared to broken navigation templates within subcats of Rees. Best regards. Peli (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both given examples have more instances of same name, town Rees has not. So imo there is no need to create the impression that there is a whole list of other relevant instances of a city called "Rees" by renaming main and all subcats of this town. I feel commons does not have the authority to 'rebrand' towns. Tbh. I can not oversee all implications the changes would or do have for navigating people, especially not when coming in from 100's of other wikis. Some checking and fixing of incoming links to the dab may still be needed. Help wanted. Overall just a strong preference here to follow this example [2] and the naming situation on German wiki in the first place. The action of change seemed needed because a nav template did not work properly yet. I think by number of incoming links, subcats and files, this dynamic cat outweighs by far any of the other Rees (person) cats. I could live with next level down from Rees (all) to Rees (Germany) or Rees, Germany. This bilangual name makes it more obvious that it is just a cat name, and not a town name. Peli (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question "What or where is the issue with current situation?" has not been answered with any prove by giving an url and linkname to go see and experience the problem and to prove that there is actually any issue that can't be solved in other ways. I Keep favoring the current "Rome construction" in this special case. A solution is sought whereby only one cat would have to be renamed, not an unlimited number of subcats. Peli (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What abaut surnames like Emmerich, Elten, Kleve, Kranenburg and Goch, would their similar town cats also have to be completely renamed and reworked? (btw. 'Emmerich' is free for a DAB, whats a DAB, and whats's a PTM?). Best regards. Peli (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parco della Villa Reale (Monza) or Monza Park - I propose to rename the Parco della Villa Reale (Monza) page on Wikipedia Commons to Monza Park, so that any Wikipedia user can recognize it and understand the name, also due to the fact that many similar pages (Royal Park of the Palace of Caserta or Park of Versailles) are titled in English. Fefecece (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Authors are creators of linguistic works, while Writers are creators of linguistic works through the form of the written word. Naturally, most authors are writers, but not 100%, as the creator of a poem or story who merely relays it via spoken word, for example, would be an author, but not a writer. I do not know if this is a meaningful enough distinction to warrant an extra category level, but someone clearly thought it was at some point, hence our current structure. Josh (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep use see also in Category:Authors and Category:Writers, with category-descriptions (to see the difference) and keep at it is. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 08:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete i agree that logs of locations should be recorded in wikidata instead of commons. RZuo (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Question @Jmabel, Prototyperspective, and Fgnievinski:
Support merging. The plant was shut down in 1987, today the area is called 'Zementfabrik' although in former times officially called 'Zementwerk'. See also de:Datei:Bonner Portland-Zementwerk AG 1944.jpg and File:Planungsstudie Zementfabrik 1994.1.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Antoine.01
overleg(Antoine) 22:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
